4 ms·
I see that you're making the same error, equating all contracts in ways that aren't reasonable. When I buy a stick of gum I'm also entering into a contract (of
by throwaway09223 4y ago
I see that you're making the same error, equating all contracts in ways that aren't reasonable.
When I buy a stick of gum I'm also entering into a contract (of sale). It would be disingenuous and dishonest of me to claim that the 7-11 clerk is exploiting me in ways similar to indentured servitude (or I, him) simply because both scenarios involve a contract.
The relevant aspect is whether the contract binds someone such that they cannot escape. Uber does not do this, period. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
- ckw 4y agoThis is a really simple concept. There is a very small chance that the reason it’s difficult to understand is that you’re suffering from carbon monoxide poisoning, a stroke, or some other medical issue, so to the extent that you can easily eliminate those as possibilities, you should.
- throwaway09223 4y agoI accept your implicit concession, rude as it is.
- P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y agoWhat you're missing is that there's a limit to what contracts can legally do. I can certainly enter into a legal contract that requires someone to eat my feces for breakfast, but I bet you if I tried to enforce such a contract I'd be told the law won't do it. This here is why the idea of being able to walk away from a contract doesn't make the contract valid or legal, nor does it prevent the contract from being exploitative. Find another reason why it's not exploitative, because them being able to legally walk away from it isn't enough. Not even the LAW uses such a lax definition.