There are already plenty of things that can't be enforced by contract. You can't sell yourself into slavery, for instance, because the state isn't allowed to make sure you submit to your agreement.
As another commenter said, sign whatever you like. Some companies make you sign non-competes in California, we just all know they don't mean anything.
Um, slavery is one of those things that've been outlawed -- meaning the courts will not recognize it as an institution. It makes his argument look strong. Outside of the state of nevada, he could've also said prostitution.
You're not addressing my point. Slaves (in the most obvious case) didn't enter into unfair contracts to make themselves slaves. So, you get points for snark, but not for advancing an argument.
Slavery would be a matter of contract law in the present day if it was permitted -- since people would be allowed to sign themselves into slavery in return for whatever they could get out of it.
You're not "allowed" to sign yourself into slavery, even if you want to (because the state won't enforce the contract).
Non-competes will have the same properties above (if this bill is passed), therefore I suggest that slavery is a valid analogy for non-compete agreement in this context.
This opens up the opportunity for further discussion. For example it can be argued that the state is defending your freedoms by refusing to enforce a slavery contract. On the other hand, it can be argued that the state is denying you the freedom to sell yourself into slavery.
It is interesting to consider the case of non-compete agreements in a similar fashion.
(Please don't be rude or I'll be uninterested in discussing with you further, and don't tell me what I get "points" for: I'm not in a competition with you.)
That's an interesting argument tactic. Slavery is a valid analogy to noncompete contract terms if you redefine the concept of slavery to be a contractual obligation between slave owners and slaves. Indeed, then, you are right: Massachusetts would not enforce that contract clause. Good catch!
(I take it you're being sarcastic, and thus I shall try to explain more clearly.)
The OP made an argument of this form:
"I dislike the government asserting that I am not a fully competent adult, capable of making my own decisions about what agreements I enter into and which I do not.
If I'm not competent to read a <contract of form X> and agree, or not agree, to it, then why do they think that I'm competent to drive a car, or vote, or sign a lease?"
The reply by toby noted "You can't sell yourself into slavery" by way of pointing out that the argument does not hold when X = selling yourself into slavery.
Thus toby was demonstrating the OP's argument was not valid as it stands for all forms of contract X, and so it needs to be clarified to indicate why it is valid for X = non-compete agreement (for example by reframing the argument from one based on competence to: "I don't believe the state should refuse to enforce contracts merely on economic grounds")
No, but indentured servants did enter into contracts to make themselves slaves (for a limited period of time) and that's no longer allowed by law, either.
I agree with you that "slavery" was a sloppy argument, but indentured servitude is a better one.
As another commenter said, sign whatever you like. Some companies make you sign non-competes in California, we just all know they don't mean anything.