3 ms·

> And that's fine too. The $12 profit is appropriate compensation for the person investing their capital into a capital starved sector of the economy. That comp

> And that's fine too. The $12 profit is appropriate compensation for the person investing their capital into a capital starved sector of the economy. That compensation is incentive for others to invest in that sector. This doesn't address the imbalance of power between the job seeker and the job provider. The job seeker is still at a disadvantage in the relationship. We're talking externalities, not the efficiency of supply and demand in a perfectly efficient market. I reject the notion that such a market exists. > Any contract formed toward that end is an act toward a commission of a violation of someone's rights, and thus appropriately prohibited. There are crimes that don't involve the violation of anyone's rights. Such contracts should still be invalid. > If the less powerful party provides genuine consent to such a provision, then it's no one else's business. They agreed to those circumstances. And are now unable to seek retribution for additional damages. You're arguing for the ability to sign legal protections away. > Blanket judgements based on crude generalization are not directly addressing the issue of less resourced parties being at a disadvantage in legal battles. Then provide a more direct solution. > The issue is the legal disadvantage that less resourced parties face, which has to be addressed by more resources going towards legal representation for less resourced parties. This is a start, but doesn't address the potential loss of livelyhood. It also doesn't address the potential for abuse at the contract negotiation process. If you're going to propose something like everyone getting free, government provided legal aid and some form of basic income, sure that might address all of my issues, but I have a feeling you wouldn't appreciate the taxes required to maintain such a system. > I think anyone who's grown up with Western ideals would consider a third party interfering with a consensual interaction between two adults to be a totalitarian imposition that infantilizes and patronizes one or both counter-parties. And yet I just gave a laundry list of counterexamples. Repeating utterly untrue statements doesn't lend them more legitimacy, it just makes you look out of touch. Which, to be clear, you are. The US is, compared to most of the western world, far more anti-union, and anti-union ideology is more pervasive here than in most western nations. The right to act without government intervention to the extent you hold it is a fringe view, and is not something that most people support. And there's good reason for that: > Just like slavery didn't violate anyone's rights 300 years? > If the less powerful party provides genuine consent to such a provision, then it's no one else's business. They agreed to those circumstances. Your proposed system would allow people to sign themselves into slavery. Stop trying to argue that slavery was some unjust evil, when you're simultaneously arguing for a system that would allow slavery. You can't have it both ways. Either slavery (or perhaps indentured servitude, since that was often consensual) didn't violate people's rights back in the day, or your proposed legal framework, which would allow people to sign themselves over as slaves, would! Which is it?

CryptoPunk 7y ago
>>The job seeker is still at a disadvantage in the relationship. They are not at a disadvantage. Whether the job seeker is dealing with a small business looking to hire someone, or a large corporation looking to hire someone, they have the same power to walk away if the job offerer doesn't offer the best terms on the market. It's as simple as that. You're getting stuck on some trope about "imbalance of power" and are not dealing with the simple reality that in a free market, the only power someone has over another is to offer them a better deal than the next best offer on the market. That is not exploitation, or abuse or anything else that we need to violate the freedom of contract for. >>There are crimes that don't involve the violation of anyone's rights. Nothing that doesn't involve the violation of anyone's rights should be a crime. >>You're arguing for the ability to sign legal protections away. Yes I'm arguing that people should be free to make their judgments on what offer to accept. We don't need to deny people the right to offer terms because we assume that others lack the judgment to decide for themselves whether those terms are in their interest. >>Then provide a more direct solution. I did: provide more resources for legal representation for less-resourced parties. >>This is a start, but doesn't address the potential loss of livelyhood. It does, because a strong enough case of contract violation will allow legal firms to pay the wronged party living costs on the expectation that the defendant will need to cover those costs at a later date. >>It also doesn't address the potential for abuse at the contract negotiation process. And your solution doesn't address the vast swathes of mutually beneficial contracts that are prohibited by your cookie-cutter restrictions. Problems should be addressed on a case-by-case basis, through court proceedings that weigh the facts of each case. Cookie cutter rules that generalize entire classes of ostensibly mutually voluntary interactions as "involuntary", based on ridiculuos equations like "unequal power leads to unfair contracts" are not justice. They are not good government. They are not reasonable laws. >> some form of basic income No thank you. No universal welfare extracted through pain of imprisonment from those producing value. >>And yet I just gave a laundry list of counterexamples. I refuted every one of your examples. >>Repeating utterly untrue statements doesn't lend them more legitimacy, it just makes you look out of touch. Which, to be clear, you are. Any reasonable person would view a third party forcibly interfering and preventing a mutually voluntary interaction between two consenting adults as patronizing, and totalitarian. That's a fact that's clear once you strip away political partisanship, appeals to legality and ideological rationalizations. You're just in denial that the ideology you bet the farm on is, like all ideologies, wrong. >>Your proposed system would allow people to sign themselves into slavery. No. No court would allow that under common law. A court would find an argument that what a person agreed to a decade earlier cannot bind the person they are in the present, because the two people are not in effect the same person, as reasonable. Like I said: arguing with libertarians and showing how naive and simplistic their assumptions are is sport for intellectual types in the US. You're a typical example of that.

CryptoPunk 7y ago

>>The job seeker is still at a disadvantage in the relationship. They are not at a disadvantage. Whether the job seeker is dealing with a small business looking to hire someone, or a large corporation looking to hire someone, they have the same power to walk away if the job offerer doesn't offer the best terms on the market. It's as simple as that. You're getting stuck on some trope about "imbalance of power" and are not dealing with the simple reality that in a free market, the only power someone has over another is to offer them a better deal than the next best offer on the market. That is not exploitation, or abuse or anything else that we need to violate the freedom of contract for. >>There are crimes that don't involve the violation of anyone's rights. Nothing that doesn't involve the violation of anyone's rights should be a crime. >>You're arguing for the ability to sign legal protections away. Yes I'm arguing that people should be free to make their judgments on what offer to accept. We don't need to deny people the right to offer terms because we assume that others lack the judgment to decide for themselves whether those terms are in their interest. >>Then provide a more direct solution. I did: provide more resources for legal representation for less-resourced parties. >>This is a start, but doesn't address the potential loss of livelyhood. It does, because a strong enough case of contract violation will allow legal firms to pay the wronged party living costs on the expectation that the defendant will need to cover those costs at a later date. >>It also doesn't address the potential for abuse at the contract negotiation process. And your solution doesn't address the vast swathes of mutually beneficial contracts that are prohibited by your cookie-cutter restrictions. Problems should be addressed on a case-by-case basis, through court proceedings that weigh the facts of each case. Cookie cutter rules that generalize entire classes of ostensibly mutually voluntary interactions as "involuntary", based on ridiculuos equations like "unequal power leads to unfair contracts" are not justice. They are not good government. They are not reasonable laws. >> some form of basic income No thank you. No universal welfare extracted through pain of imprisonment from those producing value. >>And yet I just gave a laundry list of counterexamples. I refuted every one of your examples. >>Repeating utterly untrue statements doesn't lend them more legitimacy, it just makes you look out of touch. Which, to be clear, you are. Any reasonable person would view a third party forcibly interfering and preventing a mutually voluntary interaction between two consenting adults as patronizing, and totalitarian. That's a fact that's clear once you strip away political partisanship, appeals to legality and ideological rationalizations. You're just in denial that the ideology you bet the farm on is, like all ideologies, wrong. >>Your proposed system would allow people to sign themselves into slavery. No. No court would allow that under common law. A court would find an argument that what a person agreed to a decade earlier cannot bind the person they are in the present, because the two people are not in effect the same person, as reasonable. Like I said: arguing with libertarians and showing how naive and simplistic their assumptions are is sport for intellectual types in the US. You're a typical example of that.