The Libertarian Approach to Contracts (eg GPS Speed Regulation)
Why is there no mention in the contract of: - Providing the customer the data upon return to the shop for review - A dispute mechanism (heavily used I predict) - Why should the auto manufacturer know all the places I've been in their car, what if the locations are business sensitive - Can the rental agency sell that data to others - Is it ethical to sell the data to the drivers regular insurance carrier even though there is no indication that the behaviour in the rental auto is comparable to behaviour in their own car (I know lots of people who figure 'I paid the insurance and it ain't my car, what the hell') - And who arbitrates the dispute, clearly it shouldn't be the rental agency as they have a vested interest The typical Libertarian approach is to support whatever puts the primary service provider (Libertarians almost always use producer-consumer examples, why is that?) in the primary profit making position and the service consumer in the least protected position. The typical Libertarian figures that if you can make a buck of the sucker, then any failure or harm in the contract by the provider is the dumb blind luck of the consumer. The concept of 'fair' is a pretty rare concept for most Libertarians. Then again, what is 'fair'? (Being a Pantheist the concept of 'absolute right/wrong' is foreign to me, only within the concept of human psychology and a specific social milieu is it definable) -- ____________________________________________________________________ Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Ludwig Wittgenstein The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com> wrote:
The typical Libertarian approach is to support whatever puts the primary service provider (Libertarians almost always use producer-consumer examples, why is that?) in the primary profit making position and the service consumer in the least protected position. The typical Libertarian figures that if you can make a buck of the sucker, then any failure or harm in the contract by the provider is the dumb blind luck of the consumer.
It is the responsibility of the consumer to make sure that the terms of the contract are agreeable prior to entering the contract. That doesn't leave them in an unprotected position, it leaves them in a position of power. If they don't like the contract, they leave. Easy. How could it possibly be any other way? "Oh, wait, I didn't know about that clause in the contract, so my obligation is null and void." That would be a great step forward for contract law, no? -- Riad Wahby rsw@mit.edu MIT VI-2/A 2002 5105
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 12:04:52AM -0400, Riad S. Wahby wrote:
It is the responsibility of the consumer to make sure that the terms of the contract are agreeable prior to entering the contract. That doesn't leave them in an unprotected position, it leaves them in a position of power. If they don't like the contract, they leave. Easy.
The clarity of Riad's message above is a welcome reprive from the Choatian posts elsewhere in this thread. It is true that companies may offer us contracts we don't like. It is true that sometimes consumers will in fact have "little choice" (though in a modern society where starvation is not the norm, they'll always have some choice) when there's only one rental car firm in town, for instance. But if they dislike the policies of that rental car company to the extent they are willing to pay $100 for a cab to the next city, they can vote with their pocketbook. This may be an annoying situation on occasion, but nobody said capitalism was perfect -- just that it's better than statism. -Declan
participants (3)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Jim Choate -
Riad S. Wahby