4 ms·

>>So you're saying that a blanket rule to make contracts that involve selling ones-self into slavery makes sense? Or that there are certain circumstances in whi

>>So you're saying that a blanket rule to make contracts that involve selling ones-self into slavery makes sense? Or that there are certain circumstances in which selling oneself into slavery is alright, and so it should be adjudicated by the court on a case by case basis? If courts rule that selling oneself into slavery is in all circumstances non-consensual, then there's no problem at all with codifying that with a statute. This would never be the case with minimum wage or 'fair' housing laws. Courts would absolutely find numerous if not almost all instances of such interactions as consensual. >>How even could someone who is a slave (and therefore likely limited in their movements) petition a court? The slavery is a private relationship, not one that is relevant to the court. The government doesn't deperson someone just because they enter into a slavery agreement with another party. The court would accept petitions from all legal persons. >>People sign contracts for more than 10 years all the time (mortgages, as an example). You saying we can just back out of those? Mortgage contracts govern property, not people. One has a right to give property away. One doesn't have a right to give their future self away.

joshuamorton 7y ago
> One doesn't have a right to give their future self away. This contradicts what you said earlier, which is that you should be able to sign away legal protections in a contact. It seems we agree on one point: there are some rights you cannot sign away, and it is the government's responsibility to intervene in such a situation. You draw that line at somewhere around slavery. I simply draw the line elsewhere. We're both willing to violate your previously involiable right to contract. If you truly believed it were involiable, you would respect a person's right to sign themselves into slavery or indentured servitude. There are situations where one might be willing to make such a decision: to save a loved one, perhaps. But you've said that such a contract could be voided, even if at the time of signing the parties consented. We both agree that there should be limits on the right to contract, much as there are limits on most other rights. I simply claim that the line should be drawn differently than where you believe it should be.
- CryptoPunk 7y ago
  >>This contradicts what you said earlier, which is that you should be able to sign away legal protections in a contact. I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to sign away "legal protections", which is a vague term that has a very subjective meaning based on one's perspective on a particular contract. I said that one shouldn't be able to sign away someone else's rights. I think a court would find that selling one's future self into slavery falls into this category. You can't just blur the distinction between these two very different things and claim that I'm indirectly supporting one by supporting the other. >>We're both willing to violate your previously involiable right to contract. The right to contract doesn't need to be violated to end selling one's self into slavery. All that needs to happen is that a court find that in the future self is not the same person as the present self. Unlike you I want these determinations to be made by courts of law not by very ill-informed and ideologically motivated social activists who are not carefully weighing the evidence of each case. Claiming that selling ones self into slavery and accepting a lease agreement that says the property owner is not obligated to keep renting to you at the same price after 1 year are equally easy to make a blanket judgment about not being consensual, is disingenous. And with regard to the very extreme scenario of the former; I'm not even saying we should make a blanket judgment about that at the legislative level. I'm saying that the courts should judge that and only if they determine that all cases of this situation are non-consensual, should a law be made to ban it. So we have very differing views on this, despite the superficial similarities you pointed out, and which are only similarities when viewed out of context. >>We both agree that there should be limits on the right to contract Wrong, the right to contract does not allow violating other people's rights. Violating someone else's rights is non-contractual. I oppose an agreement to sell oneself into slavery only insofar as a court after careful and considered deliberations has determined that it is a violation of a party's rights, and thus not a fully consensual/contractual interaction. You are not willing to make that leap and say that only courts should be making these determinations because only courts do the deliberation needed to competently judge these very complex matters. Because if you did make that leap then you would have to admit that you're a Libertarian and that left-wing ideology does not work. And you are not willing to do that.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago

joshuamorton 7y ago

> One doesn't have a right to give their future self away. This contradicts what you said earlier, which is that you should be able to sign away legal protections in a contact. It seems we agree on one point: there are some rights you cannot sign away, and it is the government's responsibility to intervene in such a situation. You draw that line at somewhere around slavery. I simply draw the line elsewhere. We're both willing to violate your previously involiable right to contract. If you truly believed it were involiable, you would respect a person's right to sign themselves into slavery or indentured servitude. There are situations where one might be willing to make such a decision: to save a loved one, perhaps. But you've said that such a contract could be voided, even if at the time of signing the parties consented. We both agree that there should be limits on the right to contract, much as there are limits on most other rights. I simply claim that the line should be drawn differently than where you believe it should be.

CryptoPunk 7y ago
>>This contradicts what you said earlier, which is that you should be able to sign away legal protections in a contact. I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to sign away "legal protections", which is a vague term that has a very subjective meaning based on one's perspective on a particular contract. I said that one shouldn't be able to sign away someone else's rights. I think a court would find that selling one's future self into slavery falls into this category. You can't just blur the distinction between these two very different things and claim that I'm indirectly supporting one by supporting the other. >>We're both willing to violate your previously involiable right to contract. The right to contract doesn't need to be violated to end selling one's self into slavery. All that needs to happen is that a court find that in the future self is not the same person as the present self. Unlike you I want these determinations to be made by courts of law not by very ill-informed and ideologically motivated social activists who are not carefully weighing the evidence of each case. Claiming that selling ones self into slavery and accepting a lease agreement that says the property owner is not obligated to keep renting to you at the same price after 1 year are equally easy to make a blanket judgment about not being consensual, is disingenous. And with regard to the very extreme scenario of the former; I'm not even saying we should make a blanket judgment about that at the legislative level. I'm saying that the courts should judge that and only if they determine that all cases of this situation are non-consensual, should a law be made to ban it. So we have very differing views on this, despite the superficial similarities you pointed out, and which are only similarities when viewed out of context. >>We both agree that there should be limits on the right to contract Wrong, the right to contract does not allow violating other people's rights. Violating someone else's rights is non-contractual. I oppose an agreement to sell oneself into slavery only insofar as a court after careful and considered deliberations has determined that it is a violation of a party's rights, and thus not a fully consensual/contractual interaction. You are not willing to make that leap and say that only courts should be making these determinations because only courts do the deliberation needed to competently judge these very complex matters. Because if you did make that leap then you would have to admit that you're a Libertarian and that left-wing ideology does not work. And you are not willing to do that.
- joshuamorton 7y ago