5 ms·

Would freedom be allowing for gambling or banning gambling? I think the bigger problem is that people don't understand what they are signing. To me the real i

Would freedom be allowing for gambling or banning gambling? I think the bigger problem is that people don't understand what they are signing. To me the real issue is the lack of informed consent in these contracts, as people don't understand the consequences of an arbitration agreement. This also results in the few people who do having no market power left to enact any change.

Lionsion 8y ago
> Would freedom be allowing for gambling or banning gambling? It's not so binary. You could allow for regulated gambling that mitigates the social problems, but ban unregulated gambling. > To me the real issue is the lack of informed consent in these contracts, as people don't understand the consequences of an arbitration agreement. I agree that's part of the issue, but not the "real" issue. For example: if you desperately need a job and someone puts an all-or-nothing employment contract with an arbitration clause in front of you, you'll sign even if you fully understand that arbitration is a bad deal for you. The real issue is that these arbitration clauses can be put in a non-negotiable, all-or-nothing contract by the more powerful and savvy party to the determent of the weaker one.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  >The real issue is that these arbitration clauses can be put in a non-negotiable, all-or-nothing contract by the more powerful and savvy party to the determent of the weaker one. In this case, given the difference in power between the two entities, I think the issue is still consent not being valid. Arbitration is one bad thing to stick in, but there are many other clauses that a person would normally not agree to but who are coerced by the situation to agree to. To me the issue is still a matter of given consent when in a coercive interaction where the parties involved has significant power differences.

Lionsion 8y ago

> Would freedom be allowing for gambling or banning gambling? It's not so binary. You could allow for regulated gambling that mitigates the social problems, but ban unregulated gambling. > To me the real issue is the lack of informed consent in these contracts, as people don't understand the consequences of an arbitration agreement. I agree that's part of the issue, but not the "real" issue. For example: if you desperately need a job and someone puts an all-or-nothing employment contract with an arbitration clause in front of you, you'll sign even if you fully understand that arbitration is a bad deal for you. The real issue is that these arbitration clauses can be put in a non-negotiable, all-or-nothing contract by the more powerful and savvy party to the determent of the weaker one.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>The real issue is that these arbitration clauses can be put in a non-negotiable, all-or-nothing contract by the more powerful and savvy party to the determent of the weaker one. In this case, given the difference in power between the two entities, I think the issue is still consent not being valid. Arbitration is one bad thing to stick in, but there are many other clauses that a person would normally not agree to but who are coerced by the situation to agree to. To me the issue is still a matter of given consent when in a coercive interaction where the parties involved has significant power differences.