4 ms·

Person A consents voluntarily to Person B to take large sum of money in exchange for concussion/negative health effects on their own body (which I presume we ag

Person A consents voluntarily to Person B to take large sum of money in exchange for concussion/negative health effects on their own body (which I presume we agree they own their own body including the ability to risk it). What business is it to anyone else, least of all the government?

alistairSH 5y ago
You're only thinking about the NFL. High school and youth players are neither paid nor are they old enough to consent. Collegiate players are old enough to consent, but aren't paid (excluding tuition/room/board). Regardless of the sums of money, do we as a society, really want to allow people to allow themselves to become brain damaged in exchange for money? If not, we need to decide where we draw the line.
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  Yes, we really should allow people who consent to risk becoming brain damaged to do it in exchange for money. We already allow people to do it for free, like allowing people to ride dirt bikes. >You're only thinking about the NFL. The article was literally about professional rugby players. Yes I realize most of those guys are not making millions. >High school and youth players are neither paid nor are they old enough to consent. Which is why I said those who consent, who are you arguing against? My statement was "Person A consents." If you believe a minor cannot consent then by definition we haven't spoken about high school and youth. As an aside, do you believe all sex amongst 17 year olds is rape as well, since you are not attributing them the ability to consent?
0134340 5y ago
It becomes the government's and everyone else's business because who's going to look after you if you get disabled and can't work? You'll then have to proceed to beg, steal or live on government benefits and then you become everyone else's problem. As long as we live in a society we are our brother's keeper whether we like it or not. The only escape is to move away from society so you have no interaction with it so then you can't complain about society interacting with you. Which in today's world is impossible as society will still at least affect your natural environment, unfortunately.
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  If you don't like the fact that the disabled may have to be looked out for on your dime or taxpayer's dime, that sounds more like an argument for government not "looking out" for someone who voluntarily risked their body. Being your brother's keeper doesn't mean getting an IRS agent and some agent with a gun to force someone who didn't consent to someone else playing football/rugby to pay for their injury. Being brother's keeper doesn't mean removing consent. I think what you should really be arguing for is the rugby association to properly compensate anyone with medical disability as a result of their employment.
qqqwerty 5y ago
Contract law is literally one of the main functions of government. The court system, paid for by taxpayers, is used to settle those disputes. So it is in the governments interest to clearly define what is and isn't allowed in a contract between two parties.
- quantumBerry 5y ago
  The business of the government is in enforcing the consensual contract, not in the content of consensual conduct between two parties. It would be quite draconian to suggest the government should have an interest in what particular consensual activity you choose. Or maybe you really believe it is in the governments interest to clearly define what consensual conduct is allowed. Just curious, but do you check with government interests before agreeing to a certain sex position with a partner? After all, it is the government's business; they should really probably know. I hope you also seek government definition of your conduct of pissing in a bush next time you're out in the public woods (make sure the contract of your public use of lands isn't ill defined). The idea contract law makes what voluntary consensual conduct you do the business of government is a hilarious and gross misinterpretation of the the utility of contract law.
  - qqqwerty 5y ago
    If I challenge you to a duel, and we both agree to it in writing, that doesn't make it legal even if it is consensual. Similarly, if the NFL puts a waiver in their contracts with players regarding damages related to concussions/CTE, that may (or may not) be enforceable. The US has quite a few labor laws that would likely apply here. If you live in libertarian la la land, then sure, both sides should be able to come to a consensual agreement without government interference. But in the real world, there are actual, real limits to what you can put in a contract that will stand up in court. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_contract_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_contract_law
    - quantumBerry 5y ago
      I don't find anything wrong with a duel, nor that if someone knowingly chooses to not hold the NFL accountable beyond their millions in payment and post-employment benefits that they have the right to do that. >If you live in libertarian la la land, then sure, both sides should be able to come to a consensual agreement without government interference Yes and currently people still come to "illegal" consensual agreements like in the drug trade. When they're unable to seek peaceful intervention through the courts, they're forced instead to engage in violence and vigilante justice. That sounds much better to you, huh? It's not just libertarians that have an interest in government butting out of these sorts of agreements. For instance, pot shops (run by all kind of folks) have trouble entering any sort of banking relationship due to asinine federal drug laws. Or if you're into certain alternative health ideas, you'll find you're completely unable to come to an agreement with a farmer across state lines for obtaining unpasteurized raw milk. Hope you've never purchased from a child's unlicensed lemonade stand either.

alistairSH 5y ago

You're only thinking about the NFL. High school and youth players are neither paid nor are they old enough to consent. Collegiate players are old enough to consent, but aren't paid (excluding tuition/room/board). Regardless of the sums of money, do we as a society, really want to allow people to allow themselves to become brain damaged in exchange for money? If not, we need to decide where we draw the line.

quantumBerry 5y ago
Yes, we really should allow people who consent to risk becoming brain damaged to do it in exchange for money. We already allow people to do it for free, like allowing people to ride dirt bikes. >You're only thinking about the NFL. The article was literally about professional rugby players. Yes I realize most of those guys are not making millions. >High school and youth players are neither paid nor are they old enough to consent. Which is why I said those who consent, who are you arguing against? My statement was "Person A consents." If you believe a minor cannot consent then by definition we haven't spoken about high school and youth. As an aside, do you believe all sex amongst 17 year olds is rape as well, since you are not attributing them the ability to consent?

0134340 5y ago

It becomes the government's and everyone else's business because who's going to look after you if you get disabled and can't work? You'll then have to proceed to beg, steal or live on government benefits and then you become everyone else's problem. As long as we live in a society we are our brother's keeper whether we like it or not. The only escape is to move away from society so you have no interaction with it so then you can't complain about society interacting with you. Which in today's world is impossible as society will still at least affect your natural environment, unfortunately.

quantumBerry 5y ago
If you don't like the fact that the disabled may have to be looked out for on your dime or taxpayer's dime, that sounds more like an argument for government not "looking out" for someone who voluntarily risked their body. Being your brother's keeper doesn't mean getting an IRS agent and some agent with a gun to force someone who didn't consent to someone else playing football/rugby to pay for their injury. Being brother's keeper doesn't mean removing consent. I think what you should really be arguing for is the rugby association to properly compensate anyone with medical disability as a result of their employment.

qqqwerty 5y ago

Contract law is literally one of the main functions of government. The court system, paid for by taxpayers, is used to settle those disputes. So it is in the governments interest to clearly define what is and isn't allowed in a contract between two parties.

quantumBerry 5y ago
The business of the government is in enforcing the consensual contract, not in the content of consensual conduct between two parties. It would be quite draconian to suggest the government should have an interest in what particular consensual activity you choose. Or maybe you really believe it is in the governments interest to clearly define what consensual conduct is allowed. Just curious, but do you check with government interests before agreeing to a certain sex position with a partner? After all, it is the government's business; they should really probably know. I hope you also seek government definition of your conduct of pissing in a bush next time you're out in the public woods (make sure the contract of your public use of lands isn't ill defined). The idea contract law makes what voluntary consensual conduct you do the business of government is a hilarious and gross misinterpretation of the the utility of contract law.
- qqqwerty 5y ago
  If I challenge you to a duel, and we both agree to it in writing, that doesn't make it legal even if it is consensual. Similarly, if the NFL puts a waiver in their contracts with players regarding damages related to concussions/CTE, that may (or may not) be enforceable. The US has quite a few labor laws that would likely apply here. If you live in libertarian la la land, then sure, both sides should be able to come to a consensual agreement without government interference. But in the real world, there are actual, real limits to what you can put in a contract that will stand up in court. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_contract_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_contract_law
  - quantumBerry 5y ago
    I don't find anything wrong with a duel, nor that if someone knowingly chooses to not hold the NFL accountable beyond their millions in payment and post-employment benefits that they have the right to do that. >If you live in libertarian la la land, then sure, both sides should be able to come to a consensual agreement without government interference Yes and currently people still come to "illegal" consensual agreements like in the drug trade. When they're unable to seek peaceful intervention through the courts, they're forced instead to engage in violence and vigilante justice. That sounds much better to you, huh? It's not just libertarians that have an interest in government butting out of these sorts of agreements. For instance, pot shops (run by all kind of folks) have trouble entering any sort of banking relationship due to asinine federal drug laws. Or if you're into certain alternative health ideas, you'll find you're completely unable to come to an agreement with a farmer across state lines for obtaining unpasteurized raw milk. Hope you've never purchased from a child's unlicensed lemonade stand either.