This is a feels-good paragraph, but it does not apply to the real world we live in. Full and unlimited self-determination implies that all contracts made in an

This is a feels-good paragraph, but it does not apply to the real world we live in. Full and unlimited self-determination implies that all contracts made in any situation by an individual are valid. But not every contract is well-analyzed and well-considered and made in perfect information. If you are arguing that all contracts made by individuals are valid, even when in imperfect information, when not right of mind, etc, then I disagree with you. It may be a fundamental philosophical difference, but all your feels good "oh dont violate my right to self determination" seems weak if that person can't even properly comprehend the transaction they are making. If you are not arguing this then your entire argument falls apart: once we care about being right of mind, we can speak of restricting addicts or drunks from certain transactions. Once we care about imperfect information, we can restrict or remove usurious loans. Indeed, these basic ideas of what is a "valid" transaction give credence to to the language of "vulnerable people" and laws that aim to protect them from predatory transactions.