[ABCLAW]

>A fair price is one that both parties agree to.

There's this lovely fiction in law that contracts should be upheld because two consenting parties both get ahead by reaching a bargain. All transactions are positive, so we should uphold bargains as a default. Super duper.

But then history gave us a ton of examples of contracts which are negotiated in the context of a power or informational asymmetry. Boo.

Contracts for labour are predominantly contracts which are negotiated in the context of power and informational asymmetries, which is why developed nations have backstopping legislation to prevent wholesale abuse.

I guess your original statement being untenable forced you to redefine fair to mean 'whatever they agreed to' which is tautological. Yes, the agreements will be what was agreed to, but does that actually address the post you were replying to?

[gbacon]

You accused someone else of brandishing tautology after having written a few sentences previous

But then history gave us a ton of examples of contracts which are negotiated in the context of a power or informational asymmetry …

No two people or entities possess the exact same information. You don’t define how you’re using power. Every transaction can be said to have these asymmetries, a tautological characterization that happens to be a bogeyman from cultural Marxism.

Voluntarily agreed contracts, in contrast, are a distinct and thus helpful category. Seeing as much does require the realization that some contracts’ terms are rejected and consequently never become agreements.

[ABCLAW]

I don't think you know what a tautology is. Me making an argument you don't like isn't tautological.

Basic contract theory requires A. A is not always true. Accordingly, we modulate applying basic contract theory on the basis of how true A is. When A is not true, we don't apply it.

This applies in respect of large M&A deals as well as in respect of labour law. Making transactions work better requires us to understand when transactions work well and when they don't.

[zeroname]

> But then history gave us a ton of examples of contracts which are negotiated in the context of a power or informational asymmetry. Boo.

If there's a power difference to the point of coercion, it's coercion and one party is not consenting. Otherwise, it's still fair. Of course a company is "more powerful" than an individual. Still, a company cannot coerce you into working for them specifically.

As for informational asymmetry, that is part of trade. The time you spend on getting quotes is opportunity cost. It goes both ways, too. If you're selling labor, your employer has no way of knowing whether you're as competent or productive as you appear. There's nothing inherently unfair here.

Of course, there's a point at which informational asymmetry turns to outright fraud. Again, at that point there is no real consent.

> Contracts for labour are predominantly contracts which are negotiated in the context of power and informational asymmetries, which is why developed nations have backstopping legislation to prevent wholesale abuse.

Such as? Last I checked, nothing stops me from offering cheap junk for a ridiculous sum of money, nor is there a law preventing me from attempting to hire workers well below market rate.

There are some political attempts at price fixing (such as minimum wage), but they generally don't work. They're either so loose as to have practically no effect or they cause shortages/unemployment.

[ABCLAW]

>If there's a power difference to the point of coercion, it's coercion and one party is not consenting. [...] Of course, there's a point at which informational asymmetry turns to outright fraud.

Yes, coercion and fraud are bad, but you'll note that you're indicating that the quality of consent appears to be on a sliding scale from 'we're reaching a real agreement between well informed equals that stand to benefit from a transaction' to 'an unsophisticated economically distressed person is forced into taking a poisoned deal'.

Yes, the law recognizes that not everyone is sitting firmly on the 'ideal contract' side of things, which is why in areas where there are systematic issues, it modifies the way the contracts work.

>Such as? Last I checked, nothing stops me from offering cheap junk for a ridiculous sum of money, nor is there a law preventing me from attempting to hire workers well below market rate.

Perhaps you don't believe labour standards, collective bargaining rules, minimum wage, and other pro-worker laws exist, but they do.

If you want to know more about the specific frameworks that exist in your jurisdiction, you can just look up any employment law digest that covers your area. If you're an employer most jurisdictions have 'employer community' circulars that contain employment law related briefs in a short newsletter format that tell you things like "Don't sexually abuse your workers" and "Don't let your workers collect evidence that you pinch secretary ass regularly".

In fact, if you're in the civilian legal world, the entire field of nominate contracts is essentially the legal community fixing systemic problems associated with different fields of contract, one by one.

Maybe you hate labour laws specifically, and want to ignore the idea that 'contracts as an idea can be gamed'. Take a look at the SEC, then. They perform the exact same function, but for wealthy investors. Do you hate them too? Are you upset you can't release yet another vaporware ICO to fleece a few hundred crypto hopefuls? I really hope not.

[zeroname]

> an unsophisticated economically distressed person is forced into taking a poisoned deal

Forced by what? By their personal situation? Even in this case, both sides stand to benefit. Any better hypothetical deal simply isn't on the table. That person still has the choice not to take the deal or to try and find another deal.

> Perhaps you don't believe labour standards, collective bargaining rules, minimum wage, and other pro-worker laws exist, but they do.

Indeed, there is always and at any time a great deal of lawmaking and lobbying underway to regulate things that presumably need regulation. This in itself is not proof that the market mechanism needs such regulation.

I already dealt with minimum wage, it's price fixing and it doesn't work.

Collective bargaining (like any bargaining) requires no laws, it is a natural right. You are right insofar as that there are some anti-discrimination laws in place presumably protecting union workers.

Safety standards are an interesting topic. Last I heard, there's no law forcing employers to publish statistics on accidents, to properly inform the laborer on the risk they are taking. They're expected to trust "safety standards" set by the government and (presumably) checked by the government. Yet they fully bear the risk of their job. They are responsible for themselves. They can and must refuse to perform an action that they deem is endangering themselves unduly.

In any event, you are dragging in a lot of stuff that goes beyond "a trade" and into labor law. Labor isn't "one transaction" that could be deemed fair or unfair. The terms are re-evaluated constantly and if there is a disagreement, either parties can terminate.

> Take a look at the SEC, then. They perform the exact same function, but for wealthy investors. Do you hate them too?

You can drop your "hate" allegations, please. Insofar as we are talking about regulating fraud, it is fine. Insofar as we are talking about being the nanny for foolish investors to not make foolish investments, it is unwarranted.

[ABCLAW]

There's a lot in here that I don't really have the time to address because I'm wrapping up my day, but I don't really feel the need to litigate reasons why radical unfettered libertarianism doesn't work. But hey, I'll toss out a few notes:

>Collective bargaining (like any bargaining) requires no laws, it is a natural right.

No it isn't, because absent laws people tend to do things like break your knees with a lead pipe if you're a union organizer.

Which happened in the states. All the time. Until the union organizers hired the mob to defend them, resulting in the teamsters running a number of unions like a racket.

No thanks. I don't like any of that.

>Safety standards are an interesting topic. Last I heard, there's no law forcing employers to publish statistics on accidents, to properly inform the laborer on the risk they are taking. They're expected to trust "safety standards" set by the government and (presumably) checked by the government. Yet they fully bear the risk of their job. They are responsible for themselves. They can and must refuse to perform an action that they deem is endangering themselves unduly.

1) Who are "They"? 2) So you agree there's an informational asymmetry, but you put the burden on the weaker party in the transaction to be responsible for the calculation of the costs and effects of it (despite agreeing they don't know as much about it). 3) You should look up OSHA. Lol.

Are we starting to understand how that allocation of responsibilities, along the axis of 'who has power here', results in sub-optimal procedures for mitigating risk? Or did you expect everyone who works in a factory to have a triple PhD in materials engineering, industrial chemical design and ergonomics, so that when a piece of warehouse scaffolding is stressed because it is loaded past it's specs, they can diagnose the defect through examined differences in metal spalling patterns, then inform their employer and not be censured for the act (because, remember, according to you we shouldn't have labour standards).

Again, no thank you. I'd rather have society put together so that people don't need to be an expert in every safety critical expertise in order to avoid harm from others.

[zeroname]

> radical unfettered libertarianism doesn't work

I agree.

> No it isn't, because absent laws people tend to do things like break your knees with a lead pipe if you're a union organizer.

You keep dragging things out further and further. Am I led to believe that without laws supporting unions, breaking knees suddenly becomes legal?

> So you agree there's an informational asymmetry, but you put the burden on the weaker party in the transaction to be responsible for the calculation of the costs and effects of it (despite agreeing they don't know as much about it)

I'm not putting the burden on them. The burden is on them, as a pure matter of fact. Every worker is ultimately responsible for the risk they put upon themselves. If they get injured or killed, they are the ones harmed. They're the ones who have to make the call.

Of course an employer that hides information on safety hazards or is otherwise negligent is liable for endangering others.

None of this is specific to trade. You're talking about fraud, coercion and extortion and all kinds of things. It's going nowhere. Of course nobody willfully "consents" to being endangered, defrauded or extorted.

> Again, no thank you. I'd rather have society put together so that people don't need to be an expert in every safety critical expertise in order to avoid harm from others.

You arguing against straw man libertarian, not me.

[ABCLAW]

I had a big issue with glaring contradictions in your position until I re-read your series of posts. I've come to recognize you're conflating multiple related 'responsibility' concepts, swapping into the different modes when it's convenient. It's very similar to how you treated the term 'fair' earlier on. This is a common argument pattern for people who like winning pitched arguments against inexperienced individuals.

Your statements regarding legal responsibility, which is what you were critiquing (remember we're talking about contracts!), are all VERY wrong. But a lay person strolling through the thread wouldn't know it, so maybe your argument seems plausible. Half the time, though, you're not making a 'legal responsibility' argument but rather a 'moral responsibility' argument. The is/ought dichotomy exists, and is a common place where people get tripped up when discussing law.

The rest of the discussion isn't really worth having given that core miscommunication. That said...

>You arguing against straw man libertarian, not me.

You literally doubled down on the same position for three paragraphs in the very same post. lol