3 ms·

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 draconi

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.

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.