Dagon comments on Crazy Ideas Thread - October 2015 - Less Wrong

7 Post author: Gunnar_Zarncke 06 October 2015 10:38PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (114)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Dagon 09 October 2015 06:38:13PM 1 point [-]

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.

Comment author: Lumifer 09 October 2015 06:59:48PM 4 points [-]

What does "should have the right" mean?

"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).