3 ms·

> That's a completely subjective term that just describes that one part of the transaction does not like the deal that they entered voluntarily. Voluntary has

> That's a completely subjective term that just describes that one part of the transaction does not like the deal that they entered voluntarily. Voluntary has some shades of gray, especially when there is a power imbalance. Or, they might enter voluntarily, and things go quite ugly, and they feel they need to continue for their lively good. A "voluntary" contract can still be bullying and coercive. > Laws can be, and often are, immoral. This is true but most instances of a company breaking the law are not this. Especially when breaking regulation is key to that company's existence. You can argue that regulation is unjust but it's typically been enacted by the people's duly elected representatives in good faith, and purposefully building a business around breaking it amounts to disrespect.

daenz 4y ago
>A "voluntary" contract can still be bullying and coercive. I don't think so. The word "coerced" is an adequate replacement for the word "voluntary" in that situation. It can't be both. I think the issue that the GP poster has (and I have as well), is that "exploitative" is so nebulous that anyone can use it to describe almost anything. Any opportunity that an employer leverages is technically exploitation. Are all low paying jobs exploitative? They will always exist, by virtue of pay scales. But the word "exploitation" implies they should not exist. The word "exploitative" would be much more useful in conversation if there was a set of clear qualifications (agreed upon by the majority of people) for a job to be exploitative. My understanding is that these qualifications already exist in labor law though.
- asveikau 4y ago
  > The word "coerced" is an adequate replacement for the word "voluntary" in that situation. It can't be both. Lack of imagination? Lack of life experience? People are coerced into contracts all the time. As I said before, "power imbalance" between parties is a key requirement for this.

daenz 4y ago

>A "voluntary" contract can still be bullying and coercive. I don't think so. The word "coerced" is an adequate replacement for the word "voluntary" in that situation. It can't be both. I think the issue that the GP poster has (and I have as well), is that "exploitative" is so nebulous that anyone can use it to describe almost anything. Any opportunity that an employer leverages is technically exploitation. Are all low paying jobs exploitative? They will always exist, by virtue of pay scales. But the word "exploitation" implies they should not exist. The word "exploitative" would be much more useful in conversation if there was a set of clear qualifications (agreed upon by the majority of people) for a job to be exploitative. My understanding is that these qualifications already exist in labor law though.

asveikau 4y ago
> The word "coerced" is an adequate replacement for the word "voluntary" in that situation. It can't be both. Lack of imagination? Lack of life experience? People are coerced into contracts all the time. As I said before, "power imbalance" between parties is a key requirement for this.