Are you serious? They're not trying to save a few bucks on the support staff -- that's what students are for. They have a large number of international employees because they hire researchers, lecturers, and professors from overseas to promote the exchange of ideas across cultures. Since that is, you know, the entire point of a university.

It is you that should be investigated for criminal dipshittery.

I'm almost always in favor of more open markets over regulation and control, so, IMHO, non-competes are stupid and a restraint of fair trade. In addition, "IP theft" can be dealt with in other ways, since that's what courts are for.

I was thinking along the same lines. In this case, it seems like less regulation by government actually causes a reduction in freedom of employment. Seems a bit contradictory -- I'd like to hear someone well versed in Austrian economics to help work it out.

Firstly, I would say that the company implementing non-compete clauses would immediately have to increase salaries -- since each employee would doubtless prefer to work without, and given two equivalent positions always choose the non-competeless (competeful?) job. Secondly, in the long term a non-compete clause would create a reduction in labor available to a sector (as the employee is forced to work another area), which if it happened enough would lower the supply of labor and increase all salaries. Of course, this cost would be borne by an entire industry.

Anybody else with a libertarien/free market approach?

I would suggest that this is completely in line with free-market idealism. They found a better solution and decided to go with it. The only thing anathema to a free market is coercion (i.e., punishment). For example, if they found a better solution but were prevented by law. In that case the punishment is fines or imprisonment. And that is exactly what TWC is doing: using the government to punish the free-marketers who found a better solution.

The only thing anathema to a free market is coercion.

(repeated for emphasis)

Wow, yeah, thank you for that. Here are the thoughts that went through my head as I read the GP:

1. Hmm, interesting.
2. Wait, he's just misinformed.
3. Oh, no that's so wrong I think he's trying to be funny.
4. WTF? Or whoosh?

Anyways, you definitely made me laugh, and succinctly summed up my thoughts:

Yeah, just like how 1 is the least of ( 1, 2, 3 ) therefore it is a negative number.

I totally agree. I mean, these caps don't apply to existing customers, who Charter already agreed would get unlimited service, so what's the problem?