From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sun May 26 2002 - 16:06:45 MDT
On Sunday, May 26, 2002, at 01:54 pm, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
> Phil Osborn wrote:
>>
>> No one can legally bind a kid to such a contract.
>> However, having a viable personal trust with highly
>> valued shares would be a huge asset - much more so if
>> it caught on large scale - in getting further
>> capitalization to start a business, for example. A
>> kid could revoke his trust, but, barring unusual
>> circumstances such as criminally negligant trustees,
>> for example, he could expect to pay a high price in
>> terms of lost opportunities to acquire capitalization.
>> Few people would feel very generous toward someone
>> who had simply welched on the people who had invested
>> their hard-earned dollars in raising him or her, and
>> there would be public records that would follow such a
>> person.
>
> It is not "welching" unless you, personally, agree to sign a contract.
> There is no analogy between defaulting on a credit card bill that you,
> personally, ran up, and defaulting on a debt that was run up by your
> parents
> without your consent - whether or not it was done "for your benefit"!
> Nothing morally binds a person to repay a trust except their personal
> agreement to do so. Having someone else do expensive things "for your
> benefit" creates no moral obligation in the absence of an explicit
> agreement.
The concept of parents selling obligations to be paid by their kids is
very close to child slavery. I don't see how a free and open society
can enforce debts or obligations against anyone who didn't personally
agree to take on those debts and obligations.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:23 MST