Freeing the slaves was, I would argue, rewriting contract law on a large and massive scale. Slaves were owned, there were contracts stating as much, and they were voided en masse and without compensation
( ... )
>Various treaties with various American Indian tribes, which one could >interpret as contracts, were also voided. Those were actually agreements between two sovereign nations, and as with all such, you don't have to follow them if you have a bigger army.
So, I see the point you're trying to make. But all of those are voiding contracts to the benefit of third parties. The slaves didn't have a voluntary contract with the plantation owners. As cynic51 points out, treaties aren't really contracts enforceable in the same way that private contracts are; the bigger army wins
( ... )
Didn't you just provide a strong case for abolishing bankruptcy courts? Because one of their primary tools, we are told, is the ability to rewrite or negate existing contracts. (Don't like your union contracts? Go into bankruptcy and have them tossed out!)
And if we abolish the ability to go bankrupt, then what?
To an extent yes -- and even the government recognized that a few years ago when they tightened the requirements for bankruptcy. Allowing a court to unilaterally dictate terms on a pre-existing private contract should be the course of last resort. And then even bankruptcy has long-term implications and consequences.
In this case, we're not dealing with individuals, we're dealing with whole classes of individuals. It is roughly equivalent to the government forcing a few million people, simultaneously, into partial bankruptcy. That too should be the course of last resort. And unfortunately, it's not -- we've gone well out of our way to shield everyone involved from the worst consequences of their actions. Now we're trying to shield everyone from the consequences of bankruptcy (partial or otherwise) as well.
If there were some way to insulate those who, through no fault of their own, were sucked into the downward spiral and lost their jobs or were hit with unexpected major health issues, thus not being able to afford their homes anymore, then I would be in favor of dire consequences for those who just plain bought way more than they could ever hope to pay back. They should not be allowed to just walk away from a mortgage contract without serious penalties. Otherwise, why bother having contracts at all
( ... )
Point of information: Congress made it harder for _individuals_ to declare bankruptcy. Corporations' rules were left as they were. And now we're hearing that rather than bail out people or companies, those people or companies should go into bankruptcy and thereby escape their unsupportable obligations. No taxpayer money needed.
Except you argue that's not what should happen. People in mortgages they can't afford should live up to them anyway; union contracts should be preserved and honored. When those sorts of things just aren't possible, and there's no bankruptcy... then what?
Comments 7
Reply
>interpret as contracts, were also voided.
Those were actually agreements between two sovereign nations, and as with all such, you don't have to follow them if you have a bigger army.
Reply
Reply
And if we abolish the ability to go bankrupt, then what?
Reply
In this case, we're not dealing with individuals, we're dealing with whole classes of individuals. It is roughly equivalent to the government forcing a few million people, simultaneously, into partial bankruptcy. That too should be the course of last resort. And unfortunately, it's not -- we've gone well out of our way to shield everyone involved from the worst consequences of their actions. Now we're trying to shield everyone from the consequences of bankruptcy (partial or otherwise) as well.
Reply
Reply
Except you argue that's not what should happen. People in mortgages they can't afford should live up to them anyway; union contracts should be preserved and honored. When those sorts of things just aren't possible, and there's no bankruptcy... then what?
Reply
Leave a comment