8 ms·

It is insane that the rule of law can be so easily circumvented by something as simple as an EULA and that law makers are totally ambivalent about essentially l

It is insane that the rule of law can be so easily circumvented by something as simple as an EULA and that law makers are totally ambivalent about essentially losing their power.

Lionsion 8y ago
> and that law makers are totally ambivalent about essentially losing their power. That "loss of power" may be welcomed by many lawmakers, many of whom are ideologically committed to "starving the [state]." [1] The current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had a hand in designing and implementing this arbitration strategy, before he was appointed to the court. Afterwards he supported it in his opinions. [2] The current head of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau is actively trying to undermine its mission [3], and wants to shift its focus away from consumer protection to "business costs." [4] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitra... [3] http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-mulvaney-killing-the-cfpb-20180417-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-mulvan... [4] https://www.wsj.com/articles/mulvaney-to-prioritize-business-costs-in-cfpb-reorganization-1525972114 https://www.wsj.com/articles/mulvaney-to-prioritize-business...
- Domenic_S 8y ago
  I’m out.
  - blindwatchmaker 8y ago
    I found your explanation a lot more weird and a lot less simpler than the parent.
    - philwelch 8y ago
      One of the things that makes conspiracy theories so appealing is their simplicity.
      - Lionsion 8y ago
        > One of the things that makes conspiracy theories so appealing is their simplicity. What exactly is the conspiracy theory here?
        philwelch 8y ago
        "Legalizing forced arbitration is a right-wing conspiracy to reduce the scale of government".
        Lionsion 8y ago
        > "Legalizing forced arbitration is a right-wing conspiracy to reduce the scale of government". I figured that's what you'd say. I think you misunderstand the meaning and connotations of the term "conspiracy theory." It doesn't mean, literally, "a theory that a group is conspiring." A true conspiracy theory, at its core, is an outrageous and unbelievable idea that gets elaborated on to an unreasonable degree. Think UFO coverups and black helicopters of the New World Order. It's not outragious and unreasonable to think "the right wing" is acting together to "reduce the scale of government" or support "business friendly" polices like binding arbitration at the expense of consumers. They literally campaign, in public, on those and similar ideas.
        philwelch 8y ago
        There’s a spectrum of conspiracy theories, and not all of them are as absurd as the ones that literally involve UFO’s and the like. Yes, there is an ideological element to this, but there’s also a very pedestrian element of an overworked court and legal system that is more than willing to accept compromises that reduce its already-crushing workload, and dismissing that element because it’s “simpler” to just blame Republicans is the same kind of oversimplification that makes outright conspiracy theories appeal to people. It’s a lot easier to point to a group of people and say “they did this!” than to actually grasp all the complications of how complex real-world systems function and malfunction.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - throwawayjava 8y ago
    > What a weird take this is. There's no need to look for monsters under the bed. The much simpler explanation is that arbitration interests are aligned between the State and businesses -- lower caseload for an already overworked court system, and lower costs for business. Since those are the groups with power in the situation, it is only logical that they would choose arbitration. These two explanations aren't even contradictory unless the state is motivated by profit, which it clearly isn't, so your comment seems like a bit of a red herring. Your comment makes an implicit assumption that the goal of the state ought to be maximizing its revenue to expenses ratio. Some (e.g., the writers of the US constitution and the bill of rights) believe the state's interests ought to be aligned with those of the underlying population. When the goal of the state flips from "profit" to "maximize general welfare", it's no longer obvious that "decreasing court expenses" at the expense of "eroding consumer protections" is necessarily in the state's best interest.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      The goal of the state doesn't have to be the profit of the state itself. It could be that those in charge of the government would have as their aim the profits of private companies, in which case lowering taxes on those companies would fall in line with that aim.
CobrastanJorji 8y ago
The counterargument is that you are welcome not to do business with companies that require you to accept such a condition, just as you are welcome not to accept a job with such a condition. Unemployment rates are about as low as they ever get right now; work somewhere else. Freedom means that you can voluntarily enter into arrangements that others think are a bad idea. Is it worth a little extra pay to accept that condition? A lot of extra pay? The market will figure it out. Banning the practice, on the other hand, removes a bit of freedom. Of course, that argument is largely baloney, but it's not straight up insane.
- fwdpropaganda 8y ago
  > The counterargument is that you are welcome not to do business with companies (...) Of course, that argument is largely baloney, but it's not straight up insane. This is the idea of "freedom" that the right wing loves pushing, that all things that matter can be discussed as one-to-one interactions. The argument is baloney because if all companies do it you don't really have a choice. You won't see this fact if you always think in terms of one-to-one interactions. "Freedom" as one-to-one interactions is structurally favorable to large corporations.
  - Domenic_S 8y ago
    I’m out.
    - Lionsion 8y ago
      > I’m out. So do you admit you're wrong to the degree you think your comments shouldn't be seen? Or can you just not stand the downvotes? I think withdrawing and mass deleting half of a conversation is kinda bad form.
      - fwdpropaganda 8y ago
        Yes, he admits. Go through his comment history and it's nothing but unsubstantive and/or snarky remarks. I wish there was a way to detect these people at a glance so that I'd have saved myself the time. Maybe a metric like karma per year? Very gameable, but maybe better than nothing? This guy's account is 7 years old and has 3k karma. Or maybe karma per comment.
smallbigfish 8y ago
Is this an US thing? I always assumed that no contract can be "above" the law. In fact I just checked the Constitution in my country and it specifically says that no other law can cancel the fact anyone can address justice.
- jkaplowitz 8y ago
  Many countries allow binding pre-dispute arbitration agreements if two businesses negotiate a contract with each other and agree to that. Countries get more skeptical when it's in standard seemingly non-negotiable language from one of the businesses. Most countries get very skeptical and often ban pre-dispute binding arbitration when one party is an employee or a consumer, especially if the other party drafted the language. In the last few decades, the US has become the exception to that. All countries I'm aware of (probably not including your country) will allow consumers and businesses to agree to arbitrate a dispute that has already arisen, with binding effect.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  >> I always assumed that no contract can be "above" the law. Law and justice are different things. This is about lawsuits, demanding money as compensation for wrongs. Lawsuits are about settlements and confidential agreements negotiated between parties. Justice is a matter for criminal courts. Justice is about the government punishing people who break laws. That cannot be usurped by contract. Uber employees who break the law are still prosecuted regardless of eulas.
  - gowld 8y ago
    I don't think your explanation properly explains torts. "Criminal" laws cover violations against the State (crimes). Civil laws are violations against individuals (torts). Torts are absolutely part of the Justice system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort
    - sandworm101 8y ago
      We can debate minutia of legal doctrine forever. Torts don't require civil laws, only civil wrongs. Whether or not they are part of the "justice system" is also different than the concept of "justice".
dragonwriter 8y ago
The rule of law isn't circumvented by EULAs; if the law prohibited the terms, they would be invalid. The rule of law supports the EULAs. Now, you may think that the law is bad, but that's different from this being a failure of the rule of law; it's success in the rule of (bad) law.
segmondy 8y ago
We should add something to an EULA that says something to the effect that if someone is a Police officer they can never arrest the creator or community of a software or if they are a lawyer/judge they can never judge. It do be interesting to see how the govt reacts to that.
- gowld 8y ago
  As an example, we've had cases where judges/clerks refuse to do their jobs (certify marriages) based on their personal choices. The institution provides a substitute, possibly terminating the employment of the individual who chooses to not do their job to minimum required standards.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

It is insane that the rule of law can be so easily circumvented by something as simple as an EULA and that law makers are totally ambivalent about essentially losing their power.

Lionsion 8y ago

> and that law makers are totally ambivalent about essentially losing their power. That "loss of power" may be welcomed by many lawmakers, many of whom are ideologically committed to "starving the [state]." [1] The current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had a hand in designing and implementing this arbitration strategy, before he was appointed to the court. Afterwards he supported it in his opinions. [2] The current head of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau is actively trying to undermine its mission [3], and wants to shift its focus away from consumer protection to "business costs." [4] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitra... [3] http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-mulvaney-killing-the-cfpb-20180417-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/lazarus/la-fi-lazarus-mulvan... [4] https://www.wsj.com/articles/mulvaney-to-prioritize-business-costs-in-cfpb-reorganization-1525972114 https://www.wsj.com/articles/mulvaney-to-prioritize-business...

Domenic_S 8y ago
I’m out.
- blindwatchmaker 8y ago
  I found your explanation a lot more weird and a lot less simpler than the parent.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    One of the things that makes conspiracy theories so appealing is their simplicity.
    - Lionsion 8y ago
      > One of the things that makes conspiracy theories so appealing is their simplicity. What exactly is the conspiracy theory here?
      - philwelch 8y ago
        "Legalizing forced arbitration is a right-wing conspiracy to reduce the scale of government".
        Lionsion 8y ago
        > "Legalizing forced arbitration is a right-wing conspiracy to reduce the scale of government". I figured that's what you'd say. I think you misunderstand the meaning and connotations of the term "conspiracy theory." It doesn't mean, literally, "a theory that a group is conspiring." A true conspiracy theory, at its core, is an outrageous and unbelievable idea that gets elaborated on to an unreasonable degree. Think UFO coverups and black helicopters of the New World Order. It's not outragious and unreasonable to think "the right wing" is acting together to "reduce the scale of government" or support "business friendly" polices like binding arbitration at the expense of consumers. They literally campaign, in public, on those and similar ideas.
        philwelch 8y ago
        There’s a spectrum of conspiracy theories, and not all of them are as absurd as the ones that literally involve UFO’s and the like. Yes, there is an ideological element to this, but there’s also a very pedestrian element of an overworked court and legal system that is more than willing to accept compromises that reduce its already-crushing workload, and dismissing that element because it’s “simpler” to just blame Republicans is the same kind of oversimplification that makes outright conspiracy theories appeal to people. It’s a lot easier to point to a group of people and say “they did this!” than to actually grasp all the complications of how complex real-world systems function and malfunction.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- throwawayjava 8y ago
  > What a weird take this is. There's no need to look for monsters under the bed. The much simpler explanation is that arbitration interests are aligned between the State and businesses -- lower caseload for an already overworked court system, and lower costs for business. Since those are the groups with power in the situation, it is only logical that they would choose arbitration. These two explanations aren't even contradictory unless the state is motivated by profit, which it clearly isn't, so your comment seems like a bit of a red herring. Your comment makes an implicit assumption that the goal of the state ought to be maximizing its revenue to expenses ratio. Some (e.g., the writers of the US constitution and the bill of rights) believe the state's interests ought to be aligned with those of the underlying population. When the goal of the state flips from "profit" to "maximize general welfare", it's no longer obvious that "decreasing court expenses" at the expense of "eroding consumer protections" is necessarily in the state's best interest.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    The goal of the state doesn't have to be the profit of the state itself. It could be that those in charge of the government would have as their aim the profits of private companies, in which case lowering taxes on those companies would fall in line with that aim.

CobrastanJorji 8y ago

The counterargument is that you are welcome not to do business with companies that require you to accept such a condition, just as you are welcome not to accept a job with such a condition. Unemployment rates are about as low as they ever get right now; work somewhere else. Freedom means that you can voluntarily enter into arrangements that others think are a bad idea. Is it worth a little extra pay to accept that condition? A lot of extra pay? The market will figure it out. Banning the practice, on the other hand, removes a bit of freedom. Of course, that argument is largely baloney, but it's not straight up insane.

fwdpropaganda 8y ago
> The counterargument is that you are welcome not to do business with companies (...) Of course, that argument is largely baloney, but it's not straight up insane. This is the idea of "freedom" that the right wing loves pushing, that all things that matter can be discussed as one-to-one interactions. The argument is baloney because if all companies do it you don't really have a choice. You won't see this fact if you always think in terms of one-to-one interactions. "Freedom" as one-to-one interactions is structurally favorable to large corporations.
- Domenic_S 8y ago
  I’m out.
  - Lionsion 8y ago
    > I’m out. So do you admit you're wrong to the degree you think your comments shouldn't be seen? Or can you just not stand the downvotes? I think withdrawing and mass deleting half of a conversation is kinda bad form.
    - fwdpropaganda 8y ago
      Yes, he admits. Go through his comment history and it's nothing but unsubstantive and/or snarky remarks. I wish there was a way to detect these people at a glance so that I'd have saved myself the time. Maybe a metric like karma per year? Very gameable, but maybe better than nothing? This guy's account is 7 years old and has 3k karma. Or maybe karma per comment.

smallbigfish 8y ago

Is this an US thing? I always assumed that no contract can be "above" the law. In fact I just checked the Constitution in my country and it specifically says that no other law can cancel the fact anyone can address justice.

jkaplowitz 8y ago
Many countries allow binding pre-dispute arbitration agreements if two businesses negotiate a contract with each other and agree to that. Countries get more skeptical when it's in standard seemingly non-negotiable language from one of the businesses. Most countries get very skeptical and often ban pre-dispute binding arbitration when one party is an employee or a consumer, especially if the other party drafted the language. In the last few decades, the US has become the exception to that. All countries I'm aware of (probably not including your country) will allow consumers and businesses to agree to arbitrate a dispute that has already arisen, with binding effect.
sandworm101 8y ago
>> I always assumed that no contract can be "above" the law. Law and justice are different things. This is about lawsuits, demanding money as compensation for wrongs. Lawsuits are about settlements and confidential agreements negotiated between parties. Justice is a matter for criminal courts. Justice is about the government punishing people who break laws. That cannot be usurped by contract. Uber employees who break the law are still prosecuted regardless of eulas.
- gowld 8y ago
  I don't think your explanation properly explains torts. "Criminal" laws cover violations against the State (crimes). Civil laws are violations against individuals (torts). Torts are absolutely part of the Justice system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    We can debate minutia of legal doctrine forever. Torts don't require civil laws, only civil wrongs. Whether or not they are part of the "justice system" is also different than the concept of "justice".

dragonwriter 8y ago

The rule of law isn't circumvented by EULAs; if the law prohibited the terms, they would be invalid. The rule of law supports the EULAs. Now, you may think that the law is bad, but that's different from this being a failure of the rule of law; it's success in the rule of (bad) law.

segmondy 8y ago

We should add something to an EULA that says something to the effect that if someone is a Police officer they can never arrest the creator or community of a software or if they are a lawyer/judge they can never judge. It do be interesting to see how the govt reacts to that.

gowld 8y ago
As an example, we've had cases where judges/clerks refuse to do their jobs (certify marriages) based on their personal choices. The institution provides a substitute, possibly terminating the employment of the individual who chooses to not do their job to minimum required standards.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]