"In all cases, two adults should be able to make any agreement or action between them, as long as they are both of sound mind, fully informed, and clearly consenting."
-
-
impossible to define the boundary of what constitutes involving a third party nonconsensually! having a kid? infecting each other with coronavirus?
-
Yeah yeah yeeaaaahhhh
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It does not exist a demarcation between involvment or not of a third part. This is why such general statements can t be juridicial doctrine. Freedom must be defined in negative.
-
Instead of saying: In all case they can do Law must say: In no case a third can stop two to do, unless... Follows a list with criteria for exceptions. This is the format of modern constitutions.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Problem: since we have laws, any interaction between two people automatically involves a significant part of the society. For example, you quoted min wages: they only exist because ownership and money exist, which are agreements between a whole nation and more.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Still goes with Sound mind
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Meant to vote 'strong disagree', clicked 'strong agree' instead.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Given the butterfly effect, how do you non-involve third parties? Alternatively, what degree of involvement do you mean?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What about third party enforcement, like in a contract?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.