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.
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.
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.
If your renters signed something like that they deserve no privacy.