Did you not say that a substantial number of employers owe their existence to creations of government and for this reason are bound by government obligations?
For that to be a principled argument, would it not follow that if one does not owe their existence to the government, they aren't bound by those same obligations, since the reason as present above is now missing?
If not, then you're really just saying "we're all bound by government business obligations whether you choose to benefit from government created "funnels" or not". Yes, but don't make my case for me.
> Did you not say that a substantial number of employers owe their existence to creations of government
Yes.
> and for this reason are bound by government obligations?
No, at least, not in the sense you are using "government obligations" (generally applicable labor law, etc.) I said a substantial number of entities are creations of government on the principal of granting benefits to certain individuals associated with the entities in exchange for certain obligations attached to the particular form of organization.
I did not say that those were the reason (sole or otherwise) that those organizations are bound by generally applicable law. (There is, I think, an argument that, whether or not a law should be applicable to people in general, the fact that those entities are creatures of government and not natural persons may be relevant to whether or not the law should be applicable to them. But I certainly did not argue that things like labor law were applicable to them because, and much less only because, they are creatures of government.)
I'm was not, in fact, saying anything about why people are bound by generally-applicable government business obligations. I was making an observation related only to your upthread comment on the meaning of the phrase "we let you exist" in reference to employers.
For that to be a principled argument, would it not follow that if one does not owe their existence to the government, they aren't bound by those same obligations, since the reason as present above is now missing?
If not, then you're really just saying "we're all bound by government business obligations whether you choose to benefit from government created "funnels" or not". Yes, but don't make my case for me.