3 ms·

Educated adults should understand: just because it's written in a contract doesn't mean it's enforceable. The viewpoint of "contracts uber alles" (which I hope

by ble 9y ago

Educated adults should understand: just because it's written in a contract doesn't mean it's enforceable. The viewpoint of "contracts uber alles" (which I hope nobody holds as anything other than a tactic to pursue their own self interest) may have cheerleaders, but is just incorrect as far as the legal system goes. On the meta-discourse level: is it appropriate to make fun of a belief that one honestly believes is Bad if I don't say that person X holds that belief and hence is bad?

rusk 9y ago
I find your opening statement quite insulting and condescending.
- ble 9y ago
  I'm sorry. My intent is not to insult, but to express a thought that only recently occurred to me: democratic societies need a basic legal "literacy" class in the education of every citizen as much as people who may need to save money for retirement or borrow for a home purchase need basic financial "literacy" classes. In my public schooling, I had two year-long classes about the structure and function of the United States government. One was in middle school and one was in high school; I was not required to take any course on the subject as part of undergrad. Neither course taught me much more about courts than that the Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal and interprets the Constitutionality of laws. Courts are complicated and laws and regulations are different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but there are some fundamental, low-level principles that apply to proceedings across most (possibly all?) courts in the US. An educated citizenry in the US would, ideally, have at least some exposure to these fundamentals; these basic principles (which would include at least a little on contracts) are too important for the vast majority of the population (i.e. almost all non-lawyers) to not understand. I told a lawyer friend about this idea and she strongly agreed. She said that her sister had taken an undergrad class which roughly fit my description-- "pre-pre-law" was how she described it. Her sister's evaluation of the course was that it's description of legal principles and their operation in courts helped explain a lot of the mechanics of how government, private institutions, and society function.
  - rusk 9y ago
    Thank you for taking the time to respond. I now understand what you meant "Educated adults should understand" - as in, the educational systems should make way for this, rather than a swipe at my education or status as an adult ... such is the Internet. I'm quite well educated in the ways of the law however, to the point that I understand how flimsy it can be in certain areas, and your central thesis is far from having closed endpoints. In any case, I apologise in kind for what may have been a bit of a hissy-fit.
mac01021 9y ago
[1] I think it's probably less than fully appropriate. Person X might hold that belief (whether or not you say they do) and, if they do, then the mockery will be hurtful. It costs you nothing to politely explain, sans ridicule, why an idea is wrong rather than taking on an unnecessary risk of hurting someone's feelings. Still, people should be less sensitive on the internet. [2] Most educated adults, including me, are not lawyers and so do not know precisely when a contract is or is not enforceable, because the legal system is complex and arcane. This is distasteful to many because anyone who takes himself as an authority on what is just/unjust/moral/immoral is naturally liable to feel they should therefore be an authority on what is legal/illegal (since legality is intended to codify justice and morality or something like that). I suspect that many contracts-uber-alles-like sentiments (some of which I have entertained myself from time to time) stem from this unconscious yearning to know a priori what is legal or enforceable. In such cases, the sentiment is not rational, nor is it a tactic for the pursuit of self interest.

by ble 9y ago

rusk 9y ago

I find your opening statement quite insulting and condescending.

ble 9y ago
I'm sorry. My intent is not to insult, but to express a thought that only recently occurred to me: democratic societies need a basic legal "literacy" class in the education of every citizen as much as people who may need to save money for retirement or borrow for a home purchase need basic financial "literacy" classes. In my public schooling, I had two year-long classes about the structure and function of the United States government. One was in middle school and one was in high school; I was not required to take any course on the subject as part of undergrad. Neither course taught me much more about courts than that the Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal and interprets the Constitutionality of laws. Courts are complicated and laws and regulations are different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but there are some fundamental, low-level principles that apply to proceedings across most (possibly all?) courts in the US. An educated citizenry in the US would, ideally, have at least some exposure to these fundamentals; these basic principles (which would include at least a little on contracts) are too important for the vast majority of the population (i.e. almost all non-lawyers) to not understand. I told a lawyer friend about this idea and she strongly agreed. She said that her sister had taken an undergrad class which roughly fit my description-- "pre-pre-law" was how she described it. Her sister's evaluation of the course was that it's description of legal principles and their operation in courts helped explain a lot of the mechanics of how government, private institutions, and society function.
- rusk 9y ago
  Thank you for taking the time to respond. I now understand what you meant "Educated adults should understand" - as in, the educational systems should make way for this, rather than a swipe at my education or status as an adult ... such is the Internet. I'm quite well educated in the ways of the law however, to the point that I understand how flimsy it can be in certain areas, and your central thesis is far from having closed endpoints. In any case, I apologise in kind for what may have been a bit of a hissy-fit.

mac01021 9y ago

[1] I think it's probably less than fully appropriate. Person X might hold that belief (whether or not you say they do) and, if they do, then the mockery will be hurtful. It costs you nothing to politely explain, sans ridicule, why an idea is wrong rather than taking on an unnecessary risk of hurting someone's feelings. Still, people should be less sensitive on the internet. [2] Most educated adults, including me, are not lawyers and so do not know precisely when a contract is or is not enforceable, because the legal system is complex and arcane. This is distasteful to many because anyone who takes himself as an authority on what is just/unjust/moral/immoral is naturally liable to feel they should therefore be an authority on what is legal/illegal (since legality is intended to codify justice and morality or something like that). I suspect that many contracts-uber-alles-like sentiments (some of which I have entertained myself from time to time) stem from this unconscious yearning to know a priori what is legal or enforceable. In such cases, the sentiment is not rational, nor is it a tactic for the pursuit of self interest.