Since when is it against the law to watch people who consented to being watched? Shit, if you’re Palantir or Flock you can watch people without consent and it’s A-OK.
Sure you can consent. But you can’t make a legally binding contract (quickly goes into slavery territory). And that would be two contracts anyway; i forgot how it was called (separation of concerns basically) but it’s limited what you can bundle into one signature.
What do you mean, why? What is moral is fundamentally just what isn’t immoral and what is immoral are just those actions we shouldn’t take. The only way to know that and not have that be entirely arbitrary is to utilize logic. Logic would mandate that since you would not desire the violation of your will, you cannot choose to violate the will of another.
But all human conflict creates will violation, so this means you just need to decide which will is actually initiating the violation of the other will and then side with the individual who’s will is being violated by the other’s.
For example, let’s say you own a car. It is your will to own that car (hold exclusive authority over it) and for me not to take it from you. If it is my will to also hold exclusive authority over that car I will need to take it from you. If I try to do this, my will is such that it desires the violation of your will which already existed prior to my desire to rob you.
This is actually what murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc. all are. Rape for example is only rape when there’s no consent. In order for the idea of rape to be made manifest, at least one “participant” must have not desired to be violated in such ways while another’s will must have been made manifest after the fact to do the violating. If this does not occur than the output is simply a consensual sexual act.
The same goes here. If a landlord asks you to consent to an idea where they can enter the place you rent anytime they like and watch you under any circumstances, then he isn’t violating your will because you consented to it. If the government (which is simply a third party utilizing violence) tells either party that they cannot engage in this consent then that is just the thuggery of the state telling people how they can or cannot consent.
The same goes here. If a landlord asks you to consent to an idea where they can enter the place you rent anytime they like and watch you under any circumstances
That’s the thing, you can’t bundle two entirely different principles into one contract here, that would be two contracts. Goes into coercion territory otherwise, US contracts are notorious for this btw.
Why can’t you bundle any number of things into a single contract? If my neighbor and I want to bundle 300 things into a single contract we both agree to, who are you, as a third party, to tell us we can’t?
This is the problem. You have to let adults make their own choices. There’s no such thing as the wiser of two people. To say there is implies that someone has answers about the universe that the other does not. Even human life holds no objective value. All value is relative to the subject.
If you don’t like how a contract is written out, you just don’t consent to it.
I would argue that you’re thinking about contracts wrong. I’m not talking about a piece of paper. The piece of paper is just a way for us to write down something that at least two consenting parties agreed with.
“Same bullshit argument like with terms of service.”
How it that a bullshit argument? I will reject a service based on its terms of service. Do you just agree to every terms of service provided to you? You’re not entitled to any services. None of them. I would go as far as to say that if a company is writing out a terms of service that’s too long, too complicated, or too one-sided, then that should be an immediate red flag that you shouldn’t be giving your money to that business.
Apple. I don’t buy Apple products because I don’t like the way that company does business. I worked consulting for years in large companies where part of what I did was consult surrounding cellular devices. I used to advise clients not to use Apple products - that’s how far I went.
You can’t control the world and chances are your vote on anything is insignificant - and so be it - but if you have principles, you should follow them. Don’t complain because of your own weakness on your own principles.
And remember: Any business committing fraud isn’t acceptable.
And another thing: One of the big problems we have with businesses in the US (and most places) is that we don’t hold the actual owners of businesses personally accountable for the actions of a business. If some company poisons a river and a little girl dies because of it, our government fines the company. What SHOULD happen is the CEO and everyone else at that business who knew the company was committed to actions of which they knew might end up taking the life of a child should be thrown in prison for life as murderers. The fact that we do not do this is a failure of our government and transforms the entire paradigm of how companies DO business in the first place.
What if I had it written in the contract that I’m allowed to watch you fuck whenever I want?
Check your lease, man, because you’re living in Fuck City.
That might make your contract void and unenforceable as it violates public policy, depends on the judge though, from what I gather.
Apart from that in many places the right to quiet enjoyment can’t be waived by contract, making that clause unenforceable.
Contract in conflict with the law makes the contract invalid. US are weird there.
Since when is it against the law to watch people who consented to being watched? Shit, if you’re Palantir or Flock you can watch people without consent and it’s A-OK.
Sure you can consent. But you can’t make a legally binding contract (quickly goes into slavery territory). And that would be two contracts anyway; i forgot how it was called (separation of concerns basically) but it’s limited what you can bundle into one signature.
Ah I see… You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Which makes the law immoral.
What, why?
What do you mean, why? What is moral is fundamentally just what isn’t immoral and what is immoral are just those actions we shouldn’t take. The only way to know that and not have that be entirely arbitrary is to utilize logic. Logic would mandate that since you would not desire the violation of your will, you cannot choose to violate the will of another.
But all human conflict creates will violation, so this means you just need to decide which will is actually initiating the violation of the other will and then side with the individual who’s will is being violated by the other’s.
For example, let’s say you own a car. It is your will to own that car (hold exclusive authority over it) and for me not to take it from you. If it is my will to also hold exclusive authority over that car I will need to take it from you. If I try to do this, my will is such that it desires the violation of your will which already existed prior to my desire to rob you.
This is actually what murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc. all are. Rape for example is only rape when there’s no consent. In order for the idea of rape to be made manifest, at least one “participant” must have not desired to be violated in such ways while another’s will must have been made manifest after the fact to do the violating. If this does not occur than the output is simply a consensual sexual act.
The same goes here. If a landlord asks you to consent to an idea where they can enter the place you rent anytime they like and watch you under any circumstances, then he isn’t violating your will because you consented to it. If the government (which is simply a third party utilizing violence) tells either party that they cannot engage in this consent then that is just the thuggery of the state telling people how they can or cannot consent.
Serious question, are you an actual child?
That’s the thing, you can’t bundle two entirely different principles into one contract here, that would be two contracts. Goes into coercion territory otherwise, US contracts are notorious for this btw.
Why can’t you bundle any number of things into a single contract? If my neighbor and I want to bundle 300 things into a single contract we both agree to, who are you, as a third party, to tell us we can’t?
This is the problem. You have to let adults make their own choices. There’s no such thing as the wiser of two people. To say there is implies that someone has answers about the universe that the other does not. Even human life holds no objective value. All value is relative to the subject.
If you don’t like how a contract is written out, you just don’t consent to it.
You seem to think that contracts are a natural law and not just scraps of paper without a ruling power to legitimate them?
Same bullshit argument like with terms of service.
I would argue that you’re thinking about contracts wrong. I’m not talking about a piece of paper. The piece of paper is just a way for us to write down something that at least two consenting parties agreed with.
“Same bullshit argument like with terms of service.”
How it that a bullshit argument? I will reject a service based on its terms of service. Do you just agree to every terms of service provided to you? You’re not entitled to any services. None of them. I would go as far as to say that if a company is writing out a terms of service that’s too long, too complicated, or too one-sided, then that should be an immediate red flag that you shouldn’t be giving your money to that business.
Apple. I don’t buy Apple products because I don’t like the way that company does business. I worked consulting for years in large companies where part of what I did was consult surrounding cellular devices. I used to advise clients not to use Apple products - that’s how far I went.
You can’t control the world and chances are your vote on anything is insignificant - and so be it - but if you have principles, you should follow them. Don’t complain because of your own weakness on your own principles.
And remember: Any business committing fraud isn’t acceptable.
And another thing: One of the big problems we have with businesses in the US (and most places) is that we don’t hold the actual owners of businesses personally accountable for the actions of a business. If some company poisons a river and a little girl dies because of it, our government fines the company. What SHOULD happen is the CEO and everyone else at that business who knew the company was committed to actions of which they knew might end up taking the life of a child should be thrown in prison for life as murderers. The fact that we do not do this is a failure of our government and transforms the entire paradigm of how companies DO business in the first place.
If your renters signed something like that they deserve no privacy.