Law and the government are there to do what benefits the society that grants them their power. Blindly upholding contracts does not benefit the society that grants them their power.

("But look at all these other things they do that suck!" - yup, I'm there with you, but the purpose of government is to be just, which is not the same thing as clueless.)

> Law and the government are there to do what benefits the society that grants them their power. Blindly upholding contracts does not benefit the society that grants them their power.

That is but one (very left) interpretation. Good luck getting everyone to agree.

I find it surprising that anyone would disagree with this. What do you view as the purpose of government? Isn't any other role just instrumental to ultimately benefiting society?

Or are you just disagreeing with the part about contract enforcement in particular?

I didn't state a preferred position, just that it's not that simple. For example, some forms of libertarian thought would definitely disagree that government has any role outside of contract enforcement.

It's "very left" to an Austrian.

To pretty much everyone else it's uncontroversial.

You're factually wrong.

Judges very much, all the time, deem whether a contract is exploitative or not. Valid contracts are signed between two parties where both are very much aware of what they're doing and fall within non-exploitative bounds.

You're not allowed to contract yourself into slavery no matter how much you want to. Indentured servitude is similarly illegal. You also can't charge someone a billion percent interest on a payday loan.

Now, granted, some people see the absurd levels of modern student debt as something not so far off from indentured servitude. But the point is that the government and judges absolutely draw lines between which contracts are permitted and not, for the express reason of protecting people from being led into terrible mistakes no matter how much they may want to. Kind of the same thinking behind certain drugs being illegal: the government trying to protect people from their worst impulses.

Of course, libertarians (as opposed to liberals and conservatives) think people should be able to contract whatever they want, hence the "liberty" in their name. But pretty much everyone else on the political spectrum thinks it's pretty essential to protect people from the absolute worst irrevocable things.

How can a contract that gives both parties equal chances of winning equal amounts of money be exploitative?

The loser is exploited. Imagine if the losing condition were that the loser is enslaved. Just because you can't tell at the start which party will be the loser (and so exploited) doesn't mean the contract itself isn't exploitative

I’m not sure you’re right about libertarians. I haven’t sensed widespread libertarian support for long term debt collection by the government to recover money for foolish lenders.

Do you have a link to anything like that?

Because the libertarian ethos ought to support debt collection 100%. I'd be shocked to see any libertarian state any position contrary to that. Libertarianism is essentially entirely about the role of government being to enforce contracts and natural rights.

I see a reluctance to involve the government in long term wage garnishing or collection

I very vaguely recall an article on reason.com that opposed protecting credit card lenders from cancellation if debt post bankruptcy (similar to student debt) but honestly I don’t really remember. I briefly tried to find it but couldn’t.

I’d be more interested in knowing more about the libertarian position on bankruptcy

I took a semester of contract law, though I am not a lawyer either. I believe what you write is not accurate. I vaguely remember a case about someone who sold a refrigerator for four times it’s retail value to a low income couple, collected three times the value, and then sued for the remainder. The court would not enforce further payment. However I believe it would not reverse what was already paid either.

I probably have a lot about this wrong but I recall the professor saying “if that’s he bargain, that’s the bargain!” Is not a good description of contract law.

Contracts are important and generally are upheld. However there are limits to how much of the governments time, resources, and monopoly on physical force the courts will marshal to enforce contracts.

Not really. I can't contract you to do something illegal for me (e.g. kill somebody, even me!). Now, if you are saying that these kind of contracts SHOULD be valid, that's another thing but that's not the case at the moment (and rightly so, imo)

The validity of hit contracts should probably be upheld in the following way: the contractee must pay the amount (in addition to whatever penalties they face), but that money is seized. It could be put into a fund that helps victims' families.

This is such a fantastically American point of view.

I believe it is not the point of view of US based contract law.

It derives from another: MYOB.

But you can't contract to do something illegal, and contracts must have consideration ("this for that"). Not sure what their test for excessiveness was.

Reminds me of predatory lending rules like charging more than X% interest is excessive.

Insanity can be written into contracts. Like an employer who states you aren't allowed to write code for anyone else for at least 5 years after termination.