4 ms·

>>I think this sounds good in theory and is very shaky in practice. If it were shaky, a court of law somewhere would find a comparable employment arrangement f

>>I think this sounds good in theory and is very shaky in practice. If it were shaky, a court of law somewhere would find a comparable employment arrangement fraudulent and ultimately non-voluntary. Social activists appealing to the court of public opinion, where under-informed people can be swayed with appeals to emotion, to change how interactions are governed, instead of a court of law, where a jury of one's peers have the opportunity to deliberate on the evidence presented, reveals them as disingenuous.

wpietri 8y ago
You seem to be confusing the moral discussion we were having with some sort of legal question. Legality sometimes correlates with morality, but often diverges. As an example, slavery was legal.
- CryptoPunk 8y ago
  I'm questioning the truth of your statement. A court of law is a highly effective tool for ascertaining the truth of an argument, and the laws as set up will invalidate a contract that finds truthful the argument that it is non-voluntary. Yet no such working arrangements have been nullified on the basis that a court found them non-voluntary. If a position has never been corroborated by court rulings, despite incentives existing to argue that position, then it's almost certainly not factually sound.
  - wpietri 8y ago
    This is true only if the law interpreted by the court has a definition of "voluntary" that is 100% congruent with what other people mean. Given that even today people mean different things by that, your point makes no sense. And as I said, it's manifestly untrue that historical laws forbid contracts that match any modern definition of voluntary.
    - CryptoPunk 8y ago
      The law interpreted by the court that governs contracts is common law, which is society's best approximation of the truth as it relates to justice, that has been arrived at through deliberations by trained legal experts and juries over hundreds of years. If you're going to make outrageous claims of the courts using an alternate definition of "voluntary", that is inconsistent with the correct or generally accepted definition, you need to provide evidence of that, and no, your own sweeping generalizations about a vast array of complex interactions is not evidence of anything except your own opinion.
      - wpietri 8y ago
        Given that you are a frequent and tendentious commenter on my posts here, I do not in fact need to provide that. If you need that for your own purposes, you can ask nicely. But I am comfortable with the fact that you will not like whatever I have to say, and that there's no point in explaining more than one or two replies' worth.

wpietri 8y ago

You seem to be confusing the moral discussion we were having with some sort of legal question. Legality sometimes correlates with morality, but often diverges. As an example, slavery was legal.

CryptoPunk 8y ago
I'm questioning the truth of your statement. A court of law is a highly effective tool for ascertaining the truth of an argument, and the laws as set up will invalidate a contract that finds truthful the argument that it is non-voluntary. Yet no such working arrangements have been nullified on the basis that a court found them non-voluntary. If a position has never been corroborated by court rulings, despite incentives existing to argue that position, then it's almost certainly not factually sound.
- wpietri 8y ago
  This is true only if the law interpreted by the court has a definition of "voluntary" that is 100% congruent with what other people mean. Given that even today people mean different things by that, your point makes no sense. And as I said, it's manifestly untrue that historical laws forbid contracts that match any modern definition of voluntary.
  - CryptoPunk 8y ago
    The law interpreted by the court that governs contracts is common law, which is society's best approximation of the truth as it relates to justice, that has been arrived at through deliberations by trained legal experts and juries over hundreds of years. If you're going to make outrageous claims of the courts using an alternate definition of "voluntary", that is inconsistent with the correct or generally accepted definition, you need to provide evidence of that, and no, your own sweeping generalizations about a vast array of complex interactions is not evidence of anything except your own opinion.
    - wpietri 8y ago
      Given that you are a frequent and tendentious commenter on my posts here, I do not in fact need to provide that. If you need that for your own purposes, you can ask nicely. But I am comfortable with the fact that you will not like whatever I have to say, and that there's no point in explaining more than one or two replies' worth.