First, my opinion: I think some contracts should not be enforced (or allowed to be made in the first place), precisely because of the practical consequences you cited. For instance, if you allowed people to enslave themselves, some would, and some of those will live a crappy life because of a mean master, and I don’t like that.
Now I don’t think there is any deeper moral principle. It’s just simpler to act indignant and stick to one-sided, simple arguments. If you argue about the badness of some consequences, you also have to accept any goodness that could arise. And then you need to decide if the Bad out-weight the Good. And then to convince others of your conclusion.
Such a reasonable way of doing things is completely demolished by one-sided soldier arguments in some settings (typically when one has to convince a wide audience in less than a minute).
If slavery contracts are banned, work-for-money contracts will be offered instead. People who prefer slavery to starvation will prefer that to slavery, and so are better off despite the removal of an option they previously took.
For further detail of how this sort of thing works, see here
But not everyone who would have gotten a slavery contract would get a work-for-money contract. Also, while one side (the slaves/employees) are being made better off, the other side is being made worse off.
If people enter into such contracts, it’s because they prefer to be in them.
First, I challenge that. They may not be fully aware of what they are getting into. Second, the very possibility of such contracts could bend the society into generalizing them. For instance, if voluntary slavery is permitted, it might become the only way, but for an elite few, to get a job.
Why do your preferences override theirs?
Why not? My preferences do take other’s preferences into account, to the point I would mostly let them live their lives in peace. But the buck has to stop somewhere. For instance, when 2 persons’ preferences conflict (like, they are at war), my preferences says something about acceptable resolutions of the conflict. Having both parties risk their lives is not acceptable. I would strip them of their weapons if I could.
OK. I can accept that. In the theoretical sense I think that basic libertarian principles are extremely obvious, and it’s strange to me that people refuse them out of hand. Of course I know that in practice you also have to weigh the potential negative effects, and sometimes that does outweigh the value of giving people freedom of choice, and sometimes it doesn’t. This seems to be the criteria that should be used when deciding if to ban things like this.
As such, I do agree with what you are saying. In particular, your point about why people don’t in practice weigh the possibilities in this way seems sadly accurate.
First, my opinion: I think some contracts should not be enforced (or allowed to be made in the first place), precisely because of the practical consequences you cited. For instance, if you allowed people to enslave themselves, some would, and some of those will live a crappy life because of a mean master, and I don’t like that.
Now I don’t think there is any deeper moral principle. It’s just simpler to act indignant and stick to one-sided, simple arguments. If you argue about the badness of some consequences, you also have to accept any goodness that could arise. And then you need to decide if the Bad out-weight the Good. And then to convince others of your conclusion.
Such a reasonable way of doing things is completely demolished by one-sided soldier arguments in some settings (typically when one has to convince a wide audience in less than a minute).
If people enter into such contracts, it’s because they prefer to be in them. Why do your preferences override theirs?
People want to defect in a one-shot prisoner’s dilemma, but would be better off if there was a law against it.
I don’t see how this is relevant. People would prefer not to be able to defect in a prisoner’s dilemma—that’s their own preference.
If slavery contracts are banned, work-for-money contracts will be offered instead. People who prefer slavery to starvation will prefer that to slavery, and so are better off despite the removal of an option they previously took.
For further detail of how this sort of thing works, see here
But not everyone who would have gotten a slavery contract would get a work-for-money contract. Also, while one side (the slaves/employees) are being made better off, the other side is being made worse off.
At the cost of all of the people who prefer slavery>starvation>work. What makes people with that preference order inherently irrelevant?
Their rarity.
How large of a minority is irrelevant to oppress? If someone develops a nonsensical (to you) value function, does that make them irrelevant?
First, I challenge that. They may not be fully aware of what they are getting into. Second, the very possibility of such contracts could bend the society into generalizing them. For instance, if voluntary slavery is permitted, it might become the only way, but for an elite few, to get a job.
Why not? My preferences do take other’s preferences into account, to the point I would mostly let them live their lives in peace. But the buck has to stop somewhere. For instance, when 2 persons’ preferences conflict (like, they are at war), my preferences says something about acceptable resolutions of the conflict. Having both parties risk their lives is not acceptable. I would strip them of their weapons if I could.
OK. I can accept that. In the theoretical sense I think that basic libertarian principles are extremely obvious, and it’s strange to me that people refuse them out of hand. Of course I know that in practice you also have to weigh the potential negative effects, and sometimes that does outweigh the value of giving people freedom of choice, and sometimes it doesn’t. This seems to be the criteria that should be used when deciding if to ban things like this.
As such, I do agree with what you are saying. In particular, your point about why people don’t in practice weigh the possibilities in this way seems sadly accurate.