> Not having access to something does not grant you rights to it.

The California law I referenced grants me rights to the pay range information.

> You probably know a lot of things I don't, and some things that I can never know. That does not allow me to compel you to tell them to me.

Which is why people in society get together and implement rules to make the game work better for everyone. For example, real estate prices information is public data in almost all US jurisdictions.

> If it's good for everyone there's no need to use the force of law.

That's one of the most remarkably stupid things I've ever read on here.

This was a really remarkable way to undermine your argument. It's possible to make a strong philosophical argument that government regulation of salary transparency is unnecessary or harmful. This is not that.

The fact that there exist some types of private information for which we recognize a right to maintain privacy does not at all imply it is morally wrong for the government to recognize a public right for some other type of information (salary ranges). In the US there exist both the Freedom of Information Act and the Fourth Amendment guarding against warrantless search. It's obviously clear that the government recognizes the right to demand public transparency for some types of information and the right to protect privacy for other information. You've made no attempt whatsoever to explain why this type of information should fall in one category or the other, just gestured to the existence of one of the categories and implied that this proves that the information in question belongs there.

I did not make any claim for or against transparency, but did say that OPs claim for transparency is weak.

Lack of knowledge does not imply you can coerce transparency.

Not sure how your reply related to it.

> I did not make any claim for or against transparency, but did say that OPs claim for transparency is weak.

Yeah. And you were wrong.

> Not having access to something does not grant you rights to it.

> You probably know a lot of things I don't, and some things that I can never know. That does not allow me to compel you to tell them to me.

This is such a obtuse way to frame the comment you were responding to. It's obvious they were just talking about the right to know about labor demand price ranges. Do you really think they were advocating for the right to know everything about everything?

There was no justification for that so-called right other than lack of knowledge

Edit: this is reiterated by OP in a sibling comment, guess I framed it correctly?

We must have a different understanding of the English language. OP's sibling comment clarifies your original misunderstanding by saying

> The California law I referenced grants me rights to the pay range information.

You read that and somehow thought, _for the second time_, "I get it. OP wants to know everything about everything." Do you see the disconnect? OP is specifically talking about pay range information. You're just making up an obviously outrageous point that no one is advocating for and arguing against that made-up thing.