> Stop with the patronizing. Any transaction between consenting parties (backed by bankruptcy protection) should be allowed.
Any? Can I sell my kidney?
You are arguing an extreme minority opinion, consumer protection laws exist because it is not possible for an average consumer to understand all safety implications of vehicle design, house construction or a medical procedure.
> it is not possible for an average consumer to understand all safety implications of vehicle design
and that is why there is and must be independent regulation. The consumer doesn't need to understand vehicle design, they just need to understand safety _ratings_ that must be assessed via third parties (typically, a gov't institution).
So why did the FDA fail to assess the drug properly?
I don't see why not. Me saying you can't would imply that I have a stronger claim to your own kidney than you do. This is a pretty hard claim to substantiate. The majority can be, and often is, wrong.
> So I should be able to sell myself into slavery.
No, because that would imply that a person can own another person. Free, morally equal, people cannot own each other. It would also imply that present-you can obligate future-you in a way that fundamentally compromises future-you's freedom.
Present-you can however terminate his own existence, since present-you has the strongest claim on it.
Interactions must be consensual with the possibility to opt-out backed by bankruptcy protection. If you agree to donate your organs in return for compensation (presumably to your estate), but change your mind on the operating table, you should be perfectly entitled to do so. You may incur a bankruptcy protected obligation if you signed an agreement to that effect
Consent should be the fundamental principle guiding all interactions. It also conveniently precludes slavery.
> Interactions must be consensual with the possibility to opt-out backed by bankruptcy protection
So student loans, as they are not discharge able in bankruptcy, are a form of debt bondage / slavery?
Also in UK you have to pay to declare yourself bankrupt, which is also questionable.
Also you can’t back-out of an organ sale, you are under Anastasia and then you are dead. The idea that it’s better than still being alive seems morally myopic to me.
Student loans are not dischargeable by bankruptcy because an education is not an asset that can be seized and sold during the process. There should be (and are) pretty strict limits on how your wages can be garnished to repay this debt. However I do agree that student loans are a form of debt bondage, and are questionably ethical for that reason. I would much prefer student loans not be given special protection. That would at least help us stop subsidizing educations that do not lead to productive careers.
I would not be opposed to licensed professions (eg. doctors, lawyers) adopting policies that would revoke licenses for members defaulting on their student loans via bankruptcy. I don't imagine any intervention would be required for such policies to arise if the special status of student loans were to be reconsidered.
> Also you can’t back-out of an organ sale
Yes of course you can only back out up until the point you are rendered unconscious. You have to reconsider before then. The idea that "life" and "death" are somehow morally important states is what has been "hammered into us from a young age". Morality is a relationship between (free and equal) moral agents. The important concept is therefore agency and its expression via consent.
You have just spent four paragraphs outlining how it must be important to be able to backout of any agreement, how freedom is important, and now you propose semi-facist system!
> licensed professions (eg. doctors, lawyers) adopting policies that would revoke licenses for members defaulting on their student loans via bankruptcy.
Let's consider the meaning of this, and why it smells of fascism:
* An unrelated third party is recruited to use it's power to enforce government policy (if it's taxpayer money) or protect someone else's private investment. This is no longer an agreement between two parties, the loan is now backed by threat of force. The lender no longer has to ask themselves "well if we raise interest rate too much, people will default and we will suffer"
* The revoked license cannot be sold, like a house would be, it is of no use to the bank, the only effect is punitive and moral police
* If i am the doctor's employer, you have just inflicted loses upon me, to protect your investment that I have nothing to do with.
* If I am a customer or patient, and paid for a service, you have also inflicted loses upon me, it's now a crime for me to receive treatment from this doctor, despite the fact that they are qualified.
* It is affected by government policy and macroeconomics that even professional fund managers cannot predict, let alone an 18-year old student. You get high inflation due to war in Ukraine, and suddenly half of your doctors have their license revoked! Great result!
> an education is not an asset that can be seized and sold during the process
As any unsecured loan, you can take out a loan and spend it all on hookers and drugs.
I think this entire attitude is driven by the fact that in the English speaking west there is great contempt for the younger generation and they are okay to exploit. They are subject of derision and almost seen as sub-human. Why don't we treat pensioners this way, make them do some mandatory community service in the nursery to get their state pension! There would be riots in the streets!
There's no force here, and hence no fascism. Having your license revoked, while harmful to your career, is not violence. Professional licensing boards and private lenders are also free agents, and can come to any sort of agreements they please. I would oppose any government intervention, as I already mentioned.
I don't however agree with any laws that bar anyone from practicing their profession without a license. If all you can afford is to get your tooth extracted with a rusty tool by a street dentist (as is common for lower classes in places like India), there should be no law preventing that from happening. It represents a consensual exchange. Making it illegal harms exactly the people who cannot afford anything else.
> You can take out a loan and spend it all on hookers and drugs
Lenders don't typically offer unsecured loans, for exactly this reason.
> the younger generation
This has nothing to do with the younger generation. It stems from from a definition of liberty that rejects implicit obligation, and emphasizes consent. We are all born into this world with nothing, and all must negotiate with the people already here for everything.
> Why don't we treat pensioners this way
I would be all for entirely abolishing taxpayer-funded old age security, which represents a quarter of the federal budget in the US. There is no consent, nor any ability to opt-out of this mandatory insurance scheme. Preparing for your old age is an individual responsibility, not a collective one.
Any? Can I sell my kidney?
You are arguing an extreme minority opinion, consumer protection laws exist because it is not possible for an average consumer to understand all safety implications of vehicle design, house construction or a medical procedure.