 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Whaleboy: We have an environmental law here in the States called CERCLA, whereby it is impossible to foist responsibility for your pollution onto somebody else through a contract. The greater justice requires a company to pay for its pollution, even though it believes it has signed those responsibilities away. Companies are required to pay, even if there is no certain knowledge of how much they polluted or if the company knew where it did its polluting.
|
What I mean by environmental is indirectly consequential... butterflies and hurricanes kinda thing, but if you post that example as a response that that I shall answer by saying that where the environment directly concerns everyone, this does not. The tax costs to you as an individual are negligible as a result of this case. You'll note of course that there is no CERCLA law for cases involving individuals like this, particularly regarding a claim of one individual against another, affected by highly subjective ideas such as that of responsibility. The question of pollution is clear cut and thus a limit to the power of a contract. Just as I cannot contractually absolve someone of the charge of second-degree murder because I consent to him killing me. This is a different matter.
quote:
This has nothing to do with an overbearing state, or Marxism, or whatever. It's entirely workable.
|
If you are saying that those who are indirectly responsible have to contribute according to either their degree of responsibility at the expense of the responsibility of those that one might call "directly responsible" (in this case the woman), or generally be considered equally responsible, that is fundamentally a Marxist concept, indeed was part of Sartres split between his existentialism and Marxism. Funny how we always remember him as the former  . As for it being entirely workable, while I concur with regards to corporations or large-scale individual pollution, you won't find it as easy with individuals and arbitrary cases.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Do we have the right to sign our own rights away? To sign ourselves into slavery to others?
|
If I was being a purist by my philosophy, then yes. Realistically we're hampered by regulation and red-tape but conceptually speaking I see no reason why not. If I consent to be made a slave, that's fine, as long as I retain the right to recind that agreement. One cannot recind that agreement here since no liberty has been taken away from the man or the woman.
quote:
So you do not believe that a law that establishes a minimum wage is an important human right?
|
No. If I am offered a job with a given wage, I can agree to it or disagree, I am free to walk away if the terms are unacceptable to me. However in this day and age, I understand the need for one, hence conflict between pragmatist Whaleboy and purist Whaleboy.
quote:
If the agreement violates another principle, then that person who has signed the contract can annul the contract. If a person has the right to sign away his rights, he also has the right to pick them up again when he chooses to do so.
|
Agreed with one person, with two requires mutual agreement, say a person is in a marriage, they agree to divorce but the man wants the woman back - the woman has no obligation to come back to him upon his whim.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
If I was being a purist by my philosophy, then yes. Realistically we're hampered by regulation and red-tape but conceptually speaking I see no reason why not. If I consent to be made a slave, that's fine, as long as I retain the right to re(s)cind that agreement.
|
I would argue that anyone who would accept such a contract is doing something wrong, and ought to be prosecuted for doing so. Even if you have the right to accept an offer that strips you of your rights, it does not absolve the one who offers such a contract from his actions.
quote:
One cannot rescind that agreement here since no liberty has been taken away from the man or the woman.
|
The man could argue that child support inhibits his freedoms.
quote:
No. If I am offered a job with a given wage, I can agree to it or disagree, I am free to walk away if the terms are unacceptable to me. However in this day and age, I understand the need for one, hence conflict between pragmatist Whaleboy and purist Whaleboy.
|
Agreed, that minimum wage flows from more fundamental human rights rather than constituting an individual right in itself.
quote:
Agreed with one person, with two requires mutual agreement, say a person is in a marriage, they agree to divorce but the man wants the woman back - the woman has no obligation to come back to him upon his whim.
|
Because he has consented to the separation. Now, supposing he did not consent to the divorce, would the woman be able to separate from her husband?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001
time: 21:33
|
|
I see it as being very consistent with laws such as adoption and it servers society's good by allowing infertile couples, single women, and Lesbian couples to become parents. Without legal protections no man in his right mind would donate and so these people would be denied their lives' greatest desires.
Last edited by Oerdin on 25-07-2004 at 05:16
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
it does not absolve the one who offers such a contract from his actions.
|
I disagree, and would use the most obvious example: rape. If a man has sex with a woman without her consent or against her will, it is rape... I'm sure we can concur there. If she consents, it is not. Same logic applies.
quote:
The man could argue that child support inhibits his freedoms.
|
I meant that the original agreement did not remove any of the mans liberties.
quote:
Agreed, that minimum wage flows from more fundamental human rights rather than constituting an individual right in itself.
|
Agreed, but I don't think the reasoning that leads up to the conclusion of the minimum wage is sound, but that's another story, lets not threadjack.
quote:
Because he has consented to the separation. Now, supposing he did not consent to the divorce, would the woman be able to separate from her husband?
|
Yes, just as the woman is now perfectly free to refuse to accept his payments. The example is flawed in this context because in the case at hand no rights were signed away, I used the latter to answer something else. A better example would be that of an unofficial trade. No refunds . My friend has a book. I offer him a CD for the book. He accepts, the transaction is made. Later, he decides he wants the book back. Why should I give it to him, or be forced to do so?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-07-2004 04:28
), but I tend to find your premises flawed and your views unable to form a dialectic. That's not a personal attack that's a recommendation that you be more flexible and accept that other people can provide stronger arguments...a debate is not a d*ck size contest.
|