Re: [s-d] Contract Ideals Discussion

Elliott Hird on Thu, 27 Nov 2008 17:12:52 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] Contract Ideals Discussion

To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [s-d] Contract Ideals Discussion
From: Elliott Hird <penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 00:12:50 +0000
In-reply-to: <50b58cbd0811271610h5ae4218ek69721e5b83df0604@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <dbedf4da0811271550tf7e8f3bj85d1bce0e94d88b6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <285c99840811271601y1761d6dkf4d280028a24ad81@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <50b58cbd0811271610h5ae4218ek69721e5b83df0604@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On 28 Nov 2008, at 00:10, Sgeo wrote:

> I would support something where contracts can be designated "safe" or
> "not-safe", at the contract maker's discretion. Contracts designated
> "safe" would have protections for parties to the contract that
> "not-safe" would not have..

safe contracts are against the spirit of nomic.

IMO.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [s-d] Contract Ideals Discussion
  - From: Warrigal

References:
- [s-d] Contract Ideals Discussion
  - From: Tyler
- Re: [s-d] Contract Ideals Discussion
  - From: Charles Schaefer
- Re: [s-d] Contract Ideals Discussion
  - From: Sgeo

Prev by Date: Re: [s-d] Contract Ideals Discussion
Next by Date: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Refresh Proposal: Referendum
Previous by thread: Re: [s-d] Contract Ideals Discussion
Next by thread: Re: [s-d] Contract Ideals Discussion
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread