3 ms·

That's a strange way to put it. Suppose I'm deadly allergic to all fish and fish-tasting foods. Now someone comes up with a way to cure that, so I can eat fish

by philh 12y ago

That's a strange way to put it. Suppose I'm deadly allergic to all fish and fish-tasting foods. Now someone comes up with a way to cure that, so I can eat fish for the first time. And then they say, "actually, we'd like to see what happens if someone first tastes salmon several years after they first taste haddock", and they offer me a lot of money not to eat salmon for two years. Can I consent to that, even though I don't know what I'm giving up with salmon? What about if I started with no taste at all? (N.B. This isn't meant to be a knock-down argument against your position. I disagree with your position, and this is an argument against it, but it's not my true rejection. My true rejection is along the lines of "you have no right to tell people what they can and can't agree to", but I don't care to get into that.)

CocaKoala 12y ago
"You have no right to tell people what they can and can't agree to" I know you said you don't care to get into this, but I'm honestly curious; where do you draw the line (if at all) on that position? Because the concept of enforcing an inability to consent to things is the basis behind minimum wage laws, age-of-consent, the unenforcibility of draconic EULAs and non-compete clauses, and probably some other laws that I can't think of which are wholly designed to protect people from being able to make terrible choices that hurt not only themselves, but the rest of society by validating that choice as a potential option. I'm not trying to slag on you and I recognize that you don't want this to turn into a debate where everybody shouts at you, and that's probably what's going to happen if you respond; I'm just curious about the boundaries of your position.
- philh 12y ago
  A fair question. I try not to be dogmatic. Sometimes, bad decisions have externalities that justify forbidding them. I don't think that's the case in this particular instance. To briefly address your other examples- Minimum wage: in this case, I think the economic factors probably outweigh the freedom-of-contract principle. (I'm on the fence about what the economic factors actually support.) Age of consent: I think there's a meaningful sense in which children are not "people" for the purpose of entering contracts. EULAs and non-competes: I haven't spent much time thinking about this. Off the top of my head, I feel like these should be enforceable, but not as currently implemented. Like, suppose before I let you buy my software I get you to mail in a signed form saying that you have read the EULA and agree to its terms. Then I think I should be able to enforce the EULA against you.

by philh 12y ago

CocaKoala 12y ago

"You have no right to tell people what they can and can't agree to" I know you said you don't care to get into this, but I'm honestly curious; where do you draw the line (if at all) on that position? Because the concept of enforcing an inability to consent to things is the basis behind minimum wage laws, age-of-consent, the unenforcibility of draconic EULAs and non-compete clauses, and probably some other laws that I can't think of which are wholly designed to protect people from being able to make terrible choices that hurt not only themselves, but the rest of society by validating that choice as a potential option. I'm not trying to slag on you and I recognize that you don't want this to turn into a debate where everybody shouts at you, and that's probably what's going to happen if you respond; I'm just curious about the boundaries of your position.

philh 12y ago
A fair question. I try not to be dogmatic. Sometimes, bad decisions have externalities that justify forbidding them. I don't think that's the case in this particular instance. To briefly address your other examples- Minimum wage: in this case, I think the economic factors probably outweigh the freedom-of-contract principle. (I'm on the fence about what the economic factors actually support.) Age of consent: I think there's a meaningful sense in which children are not "people" for the purpose of entering contracts. EULAs and non-competes: I haven't spent much time thinking about this. Off the top of my head, I feel like these should be enforceable, but not as currently implemented. Like, suppose before I let you buy my software I get you to mail in a signed form saying that you have read the EULA and agree to its terms. Then I think I should be able to enforce the EULA against you.