[anon4]

"consensual slavery" is a tautology more ridiculous than anything the Soviet Union ever wrote in their propaganda. Nobody would sell themselves into slavery if they had a choice.

Which kind of brings up an interesting angle - if every company is asking for an NCA, can't you argue that you signed it under duress, i.e. you didn't have a choice in the matter, and therefore that part of the contract is invalid?

[coldtea]

>"consensual slavery" is a tautology more ridiculous than anything the Soviet Union ever wrote in their propaganda. Nobody would sell themselves into slavery if they had a choice.

It might seem contradictory but the world is not always nice and tidy.

Consensual here just means "the other person agreed/signed to it".

But what forces pressured them to do so are seldom examined -- and lots of people assume as long as it's not a "gun to the head" it's OK.

Of course from:

a) "total freedom to evaluate and pick among many options -- or even ignore them completely" to

b) "tons of factors pressuring enormously for a quick decision, and very limited options"

there's a huge scale of "consent" before we get to "gun to the head" non-consent -- but it's seldom acknowledged. In other words, consent is seldom black and white.

If we want to make the term less ridiculous, consent should only be used when there's actual and considerable choice on the matter. Not when it's "that or immediate hunger/homelessness/etc."

Of course long term everybody could be homeless/hungry without a job, but there's a difference between a person choosing to work for company X after evaluating what they do, the salary, etc, and a person in some Asian town that has to go work to the nearby factory or else, or a non-college educated single mom in Alabama a week away from eviction, that latch-on to whatever they can get to survive.

[crdoconnor]

>Nobody would sell themselves into slavery if they had a choice.

It actually used to be common in the Roman empire. It was effectively how you declared bankruptcy.

This is something to bear in mind any time anybody advocates strengthening creditors' rights (e.g. removing bankruptcy protections or making them more onerous). The logical end point of this process is actual, literal slavery.

[eru]

You don't need to go all the way to the end. And companies might be legal persons, but not physical persons.

Strengthening creditors rights against companies can be done without strengthening them against people.

[eru]

Go start your own company?