As always, the first question to ask is, what are you using the distinction <i>for</i>? Only then can you start making progress in the debate over the issue; otherwise, you&#x27;re just committing the &quot;Noncentral Fallacy&quot;[1] of forcing something to be <i>completely</i> in one category (or the other) and attaching all of its usual implications, regardless of how special the case is.<p>For example, instead of asking &quot;is alcoholism <i>really</i> a disease?&quot;, you should be asking &quot;Will it accomplish anything if I rebuke an alcoholic for drinking?&quot; or &quot;Are there medicines that will result in someone not drinking so much, with tolerable side effects?&quot;<p>So what is labor law trying to accomplish with the contractor&#x2F;employee distinction? I don&#x27;t have a good answer. As best I can tell, it&#x27;s trying to meet two criteria:<p>A) Ensure that legit independent businesses can exist and not be shut down for failing to pay themselves enough; and<p>B) Ensure that, if you make someone economically dependent on you, you cancel out that dependence (sick pay, unemployment, worker&#x27;s comp), just like we do for parental obligations, child support, alimony, and torts.<p>Sadly, it turns out, the law commits the Noncentral Fallacy by acting as if everyone fully in one category or the other, so your &quot;balance of factors&quot; puts you squarely on one side or the other. A better way would be to require <i>more</i> &quot;cancel dependence&quot;-type benefits as someone becomes <i>increasingly</i> &quot;employee-like&quot; in the sense of becoming dependent.<p>But I&#x27;m open for other explanations of the law.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;lesswrong.com&#x2F;lw&#x2F;e95&#x2F;the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;lesswrong.com&#x2F;lw&#x2F;e95&#x2F;the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst...</a>