What does “should have the right” mean? Should current parents who invest heavily in prenatal (or other pre-competence) improvements to a child have this right?
I’m generally uncomfortable with the idea of long-term contracts that don’t have fairly clear termination options. I think people and cultures change too much over a few decades to have any clue what’s going to be right for them (let alone others) in the far future.
And if you do include the standard options (primarily bankruptcy), it’s pretty easy to game: declare bankruptcy immediately, before you have any earnings.
What does “should have the right” mean? Should current parents who invest heavily in prenatal (or other pre-competence) improvements to a child have this right?
I’m generally uncomfortable with the idea of long-term contracts that don’t have fairly clear termination options. I think people and cultures change too much over a few decades to have any clue what’s going to be right for them (let alone others) in the far future.
And if you do include the standard options (primarily bankruptcy), it’s pretty easy to game: declare bankruptcy immediately, before you have any earnings.
“Should have the right to enter a contract” means, generally speaking, that the legal system will enforce this contract.
People can enter into any contracts they want, the question is whether these contracts are enforceable.
In this case there is, of course, the issue of the contract binding a third party (the child).