3 ms·

> A right that you cannot waive is more of an obligation, even if it's an obligation that in theory is to your own benefit. This is one of the silliest sentenc

> A right that you cannot waive is more of an obligation, even if it's an obligation that in theory is to your own benefit. This is one of the silliest sentences I've read today. An obligation is you had to do something. While a right is something you can choose to exercise or not. With the right to be silent, you never waive that right as in they can never force you not to be silent. What you do is you exercise your right to be silent or you don't. You can decide when and if you speak.

mortehu 8y ago
Using your interpretation, the inability to waive a right means nothing.
- johnnyfaehell 8y ago
  Not really. If I have a right to sue and I waive that right and I am not longer able to sue then waiving the right means a lot. Since I am not longer able to choose, I no longer have that right. Also, I am pretty sure these are definitions and not interpretations. (According to the Oxford dictionary)
philwelch 8y ago
The distinction between waiving and not-exercising a right is a bit of a gradient, though. Most contracts entail at least one party incurring future obligations. Any of these obligations, by virtue of not existing in the first place, will waive one’s pre-existing rights. There are legal limits on which contracts are enforceable by law, and perhaps mandatory arbitration should be one of them. But there is always, in principle, the ability to waive one’s rights, because there’s no other logical way to voluntarily incur future obligations.
- johnnyfaehell 8y ago
  Waiving your rights is about removing future options. Since you're agreeing not to do something. That is not an obligation and the requirement do something. Not the inability to do something. One is an action the other is inaction. If you say I agree to go to arbitration that is an obligation. If you say I will never sue and must always go to arbitration that is final. That is removing the option to sue and adding in an obligation.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    > Waiving your rights is about removing future options. Since you're agreeing not to do something. Every contract entails waiving your rights and removing future options. And tons of contracts include, as consideration, the agreement not to do something. Leases, for example. If you lease an apartment, you usually have an implied legal right to sublet; correspondingly, most landlords have a clause in the lease requiring you to waive that right, right next to the clauses requiring you not to get a pit bull or smoke cigarettes indoors or have somebody else living with you unbeknownst to the landlord. Another example is exclusivity agreements: a shopping mall might sign a contract with Panera giving that Panera an exclusive right to sell sandwiches at that mall, which means the mall is agreeing not to lease a different retail space to Subway or Quiznos. What if they lease it to Qdoba and Panera thinks a burrito is a sandwich? That was a real lawsuit, which Panera lost, not on the grounds that it's impossible to incur a negative obligation by contract, but on the grounds that a burrito is not a sandwich: https://loweringthebar.net/2006/11/judge_rules_bur.html https://loweringthebar.net/2006/11/judge_rules_bur.html There are legal rights that are protected to the extent that you cannot waive them and that any contract that entails such a waiver is an illegal and unenforceable contract. It's just that these rights tend to be explicitly stated as such in law, and the right to go to a court of law is not currently one of them. Maybe it should be, but that's a policy argument, not a fundamental argument of legal and moral principle the way you're making it out to be.
    - johnnyfaehell 8y ago
      > There are legal rights that are protected to the extent that you cannot waive them Yes. This is entirely about "legal rights". Why would you assume otherwise? And the right to go to court, the right for the law of the land to be applied, is a legal right, it may even be a human right. The US is lacking behind the world in legal and human rights, is the entire point of this thread.
      - philwelch 8y ago
        > The US is lacking behind the world in legal and human rights, is the entire point of this thread. That is a ridiculous overgeneralization.

mortehu 8y ago

Using your interpretation, the inability to waive a right means nothing.

johnnyfaehell 8y ago
Not really. If I have a right to sue and I waive that right and I am not longer able to sue then waiving the right means a lot. Since I am not longer able to choose, I no longer have that right. Also, I am pretty sure these are definitions and not interpretations. (According to the Oxford dictionary)

philwelch 8y ago

The distinction between waiving and not-exercising a right is a bit of a gradient, though. Most contracts entail at least one party incurring future obligations. Any of these obligations, by virtue of not existing in the first place, will waive one’s pre-existing rights. There are legal limits on which contracts are enforceable by law, and perhaps mandatory arbitration should be one of them. But there is always, in principle, the ability to waive one’s rights, because there’s no other logical way to voluntarily incur future obligations.

johnnyfaehell 8y ago
Waiving your rights is about removing future options. Since you're agreeing not to do something. That is not an obligation and the requirement do something. Not the inability to do something. One is an action the other is inaction. If you say I agree to go to arbitration that is an obligation. If you say I will never sue and must always go to arbitration that is final. That is removing the option to sue and adding in an obligation.
- philwelch 8y ago
  > Waiving your rights is about removing future options. Since you're agreeing not to do something. Every contract entails waiving your rights and removing future options. And tons of contracts include, as consideration, the agreement not to do something. Leases, for example. If you lease an apartment, you usually have an implied legal right to sublet; correspondingly, most landlords have a clause in the lease requiring you to waive that right, right next to the clauses requiring you not to get a pit bull or smoke cigarettes indoors or have somebody else living with you unbeknownst to the landlord. Another example is exclusivity agreements: a shopping mall might sign a contract with Panera giving that Panera an exclusive right to sell sandwiches at that mall, which means the mall is agreeing not to lease a different retail space to Subway or Quiznos. What if they lease it to Qdoba and Panera thinks a burrito is a sandwich? That was a real lawsuit, which Panera lost, not on the grounds that it's impossible to incur a negative obligation by contract, but on the grounds that a burrito is not a sandwich: https://loweringthebar.net/2006/11/judge_rules_bur.html https://loweringthebar.net/2006/11/judge_rules_bur.html There are legal rights that are protected to the extent that you cannot waive them and that any contract that entails such a waiver is an illegal and unenforceable contract. It's just that these rights tend to be explicitly stated as such in law, and the right to go to a court of law is not currently one of them. Maybe it should be, but that's a policy argument, not a fundamental argument of legal and moral principle the way you're making it out to be.
  - johnnyfaehell 8y ago
    > There are legal rights that are protected to the extent that you cannot waive them Yes. This is entirely about "legal rights". Why would you assume otherwise? And the right to go to court, the right for the law of the land to be applied, is a legal right, it may even be a human right. The US is lacking behind the world in legal and human rights, is the entire point of this thread.
    - philwelch 8y ago
      > The US is lacking behind the world in legal and human rights, is the entire point of this thread. That is a ridiculous overgeneralization.