You argue that because the government (which you call, cutely enough, "the people") facilitates markets, it has a right to impose any regulations it wishes on participants in the markets. "Government control of the markets" is the definition of fascism. You have articulately argued that because the government giveth (which is false), therefore the government has the right to taketh away.
Employers are not free agents, able to do whatever they please in all circumstances.
...because the government owns my private property, to the extent that they can tell me how to use it. So much for freedom of association. Sieg hiel.
"You argue that because the government (which you call, cutely enough, 'the people') facilitates markets, it has a right to impose any regulations it wishes on participants in the markets. 'Government control of the markets' is the definition of fascism. You have articulately argued that because the government giveth (which is false), therefore the government has the right to taketh away.
...because the government owns my private property, to the extent that they can tell me how to use it. So much for freedom of association. Sieg hiel."
I am not arguing that the government is the people.
I am stating it. That is not just the theory of our democratic republic, it's the fact of it. Our laws across the board by-and-large reflect what the people of this country want. There are compromises, and nobody is happy with all of it, but on any given issue, issue by issue, the laws come quite close to the public opinion on the subject. This is only natural in a democracy.
Government enforcement of contracts and property rights is primordial to the very existence of capitalism. It is not a little thing, but a big thing. But capitalist economics are not our only values system. We care about other issues, moral issues, like the equality of people before the law. We don't much like oppressive behavior by people over other people either, and when we see it, we tend to react against it by enacting laws to limit it. Bosses can still tell employees what to do, but all experience has shown that they cannot be accorded the authority of lords of the manor, because there is no limit to the impositions that one with economic (or physical) power over another will make unless he is limited in some way by some greater force that keeps him in check.
We all know this. Checks and balances are built into the very fabric of our government because we all know that you simply cannot trust anybody with excessive power.
This should not be controversial, but for some reason you take great umbrage at the notion that there are rules and limits on employers.
Government regulation of markets is not fascism. It is the sensible result of applied experience in our capital system. Markets don't solve all ills, and some ills are so bad that we simply have to rectify them by law.
The government doesn't own your private property. You do.
However, you cannot use your private property in a way that abuses everyone else. If you are my neighbor and hold in fee simple, it's your property, and you should be able to do as you please, so long as you don't abuse the liberty. If "what you please" consists of putting up stink pots at the property line, or storing great mounds of offal and human feces in a fly-covered pile in your backyard, or having wild parties with 150 decibel music at 3 AM, or nude sunbathing in the middle of your front yard, or building a house without a permit or without respecting the building codes, or setting up death traps and minefields (clearly marked) on your property line - in all of those cases the law will step in and tell you no. Not because anybody thinks your property isn't yours, but because you don't have the right to press your private property rights to the point that you destroy everyone else's enjoyment of theirs.
This shouldn't be controversial, really.