5 ms·

Doesn't matter if the other side enters into the transaction willingly, imo.

leetcrew 4y ago
I mostly agree, but a 367 year old contract kinda stresses the concept of "other side" and "willingly". I may be missing some subtleties of how dutch water boards work, but they seem to be a sort of quasi-governmental organization that receives tax-payer funds. so in some sense, the people of the netherlands are bound to an american private university by a contract that far predates the birth of any living citizen's great-grandparents. in this case, the interest amounts to only a symbolic amount, but imo it would be pretty unfair if it were a more significant yearly payment. no one alive today consented to the contract.
- vasco 4y ago
  Nobody alive today consented to a monarchy and we also have plenty of those around. One still in the Netherlands.
  - kergonath 4y ago
    It’s more of an argument against monarchy than for perpetual bonds.
  - kazen44 4y ago
    but people do consent to the monarchy? mind you, the netherlands is a constitutional monarchy in which the king is legally bound by the constitution. Changing the constitution to just absolve the monarchy is a possibility. One that just hasn't happened yet, because the monarchy in the netherlands is quite popular. Also, in the past two decades, the monarch had to resign some roles he still played in goverment. (like appointing the "informateur" and "formateur" during the formation of a new cabinet.) This all happens without his approval, because he doesn't have the power to draft and implement laws. That is done by both chambers of goverment.
- ghaff 4y ago
  It's not perpetual--it's 100 years--but check out Listerine royalties. https://thehustle.co/the-people-making-millions-off-listerine-royalties/ https://thehustle.co/the-people-making-millions-off-listerin...
Ericson2314 4y ago
Anyone can sign any piece of paper. The question is whether the state should spend effort on the enforcement of said contract. Liber(al,atarian) "Freedom of contract" is easily refuted child-philosophy. Society not choosing to spend communal resources enforcing your stupid contract is not an abridgement of individual rights. That is the starting point, then we can get into "contracts made under duress" with the understanding that its not incumbent on society to judge the situation perfectly every time, because ultimately society is extending a favor not a right to the contractees.

I mostly agree, but a 367 year old contract kinda stresses the concept of "other side" and "willingly". I may be missing some subtleties of how dutch water boards work, but they seem to be a sort of quasi-governmental organization that receives tax-payer funds. so in some sense, the people of the netherlands are bound to an american private university by a contract that far predates the birth of any living citizen's great-grandparents. in this case, the interest amounts to only a symbolic amount, but imo it would be pretty unfair if it were a more significant yearly payment. no one alive today consented to the contract.

vasco 4y ago
Nobody alive today consented to a monarchy and we also have plenty of those around. One still in the Netherlands.
- kergonath 4y ago
  It’s more of an argument against monarchy than for perpetual bonds.
- kazen44 4y ago
  but people do consent to the monarchy? mind you, the netherlands is a constitutional monarchy in which the king is legally bound by the constitution. Changing the constitution to just absolve the monarchy is a possibility. One that just hasn't happened yet, because the monarchy in the netherlands is quite popular. Also, in the past two decades, the monarch had to resign some roles he still played in goverment. (like appointing the "informateur" and "formateur" during the formation of a new cabinet.) This all happens without his approval, because he doesn't have the power to draft and implement laws. That is done by both chambers of goverment.
ghaff 4y ago
It's not perpetual--it's 100 years--but check out Listerine royalties. https://thehustle.co/the-people-making-millions-off-listerine-royalties/ https://thehustle.co/the-people-making-millions-off-listerin...

Ericson2314 4y ago

Anyone can sign any piece of paper. The question is whether the state should spend effort on the enforcement of said contract. Liber(al,atarian) "Freedom of contract" is easily refuted child-philosophy. Society not choosing to spend communal resources enforcing your stupid contract is not an abridgement of individual rights. That is the starting point, then we can get into "contracts made under duress" with the understanding that its not incumbent on society to judge the situation perfectly every time, because ultimately society is extending a favor not a right to the contractees.