I acknowledge (have done so in print) the reality of economic compulsion. At the same time it makes a big difference whether the compulsion is: if you don't do this you don't get to work for us vs. If you do this we will throw you in the clink. In my published analyses I call this the distinction between coercion and compulsion. Since would-be CIA analysts usually have other real and eqyually attractive iptions not involving nondisclosure agreements, in this case the differencde matters.
--- Jerry Monaco <monacojerry at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/23/06, andie nachgeborenen
> <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> wrote:
> . In this respect it is analogous to a
> > commercial noncompetition and non disclosure
> > agreement, obviously adopted for different
> purposes,
> > in which an employee may be required, if he leaves
> his
> > job, to not work for a competitor or not share
> > information with a competitor derived during his
> > employment. Such agreements have been upheld by
> the
> > courts as long as they are of reasonable scope and
> > duration.
>
> >, it is a
> > voluntary agreement and not a unilateral
> imposition.
> >
>
> Your point about "overstating" is well taken, even
> with Doug's amendments.
>
> But your point about all of this being "voluntary"
> is interesting.
> What you mean is that as "interpreted by our legal
> institutions",
> these are "voluntary" contracts, etc, in the same
> way that all labor
> contracts are voluntary. It is one of the great
> bourgeois freedoms,
> the freedom of contract.
>
> But let me say, in a rather old-fashion Marxist way,
> that this
> "voluntariness" is one of the ideological
> mystification of the law.
> We shouldn't accept it as such. In fact it is one
> of the primary
> examples of ideology. I think I can actually get
> Doug, Miles and
> Carrol to agree with me on this, though maybe they
> will argue with me
> on the use of the word "mystification."
>
> I realize that "left-wing" lawyers are caught in a
> double role, if not
> a double bind in these matters. To clearly explain
> the law as it is,
> as Andie, thus working against a tendency toward
> institutional
> obfuscation and exclusivity, and on the other hand
> to question the
> actually ideology behind the workings of the legal
> institution and how
> they make the "particularistic" ideas of the
> capitalist system into
> "universalistic" notions of justice, freedom, and
> equality.
>
> An attempt to analyze legal institutions and their
> ideological
> mystifications is not fundamentally different from
> attempts to analyze
> educational institutions and their ideological
> mystifications, which
> is the point of my huffy and puffy ruminations.
>
> Jerry Monaco
>
>
> > So it is overstating matters to say that this is
> > chilling censorship. In this case, the ex-agents
> where
> > able to provide a bibliography and links for all
> the
> > missing information provided by others or
> themselves
> > in other contexts. I'd describe it as more of a
> > bureaucratic pain in the tuchus than censorship.
> >
> >
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com