If the people think the above is a good idea, they can also ignore the contract. It is not like there is some kind of supernatural power that enforces contracts.
That natural power is just people. Ignoring the contract is only significant if people choose to stand by the contract. But if the people believe what's contained in the original comment is a good idea, why would they stand by the contract? Without a supernatural power to uphold the contract, and without people to uphold the contract, there is nothing.
Because of the rule of law? A court does not have the power to annul a contract simply because they think it was a really bad idea. Although I guess there ought to be some sort of a escape hatch for forced renegotiating of contracts that are as detrimental to the society at large (ie. the taxpayers) as this one. I have no idea whether there is one.
The rule of law is just people. It is only as good as their willingness to uphold it. If the people believe what is told in the original comment is a good idea, why would they uphold the contract? It is not like there is some supernatural power that enforces contracts.
You can say that about anything. All laws are just enforced because people agree to do so. What you’re proposing is literally anarchy, and nothing good comes from that.
As much as people might be annoyed by their city’s foolish agreement, most people nevertheless believe that a deal is a deal, because that is fundamentally what our society is based on. If you abandon that, you revert to the tyranny of the strongest, and that’s no good for anybody except the strongest. And to head off the argument that strength comes from the people, well, history has shown time and time again that that’s only true in societies where a deal is honored as a deal; in the vast majority of cases, a deal doesn’t mean anything to those who wield absolute power.
Oh, please. You are proposing that people just ignore a contract that they don’t like, because, according to you, if enough people do so there are no consequences.
> I am surprised I have to say this, but it is best to read the comments before replying.
You’re not serious here. You know full well I read your comments; to pretend otherwise to prove some weird point is downright insulting. I assume you now intend to play word games about the meaning of “propose”. I have no interest in debating an obvious troll. Kindly take your semantic quibbling elsewhere.
> You are proposing that people just ignore a contract that they don’t like
Not even close. In fact, even if somehow there was a misinterpretation earlier, I just got finished explicitly clarifying that this is not the case – literally stating "I am not proposing anything." The only possible way you can still hold onto this is if you haven't read the comments. Read the comments first.
True but there are many other contracts that are critical to our daily functioning.
If the city honors this terrible beast of a contract according to the rule of law, that bodes well for all the good contracts the entire government of the States has.
Smashing parking meters in some "clever" attempt to evade the contract already doesn't bode well for other contracts. Once you've gone that far down the rabbit hole, the contract already means nothing.
Obviously in the real world it is unlikely that the people would think that the above is a good idea, but if they did then the contract is only as worth as much as the paper it is written on. It can simply be ignored. It is not like there is some kind of supernatural power that enforces contracts.
One of the US’s biggest assets is its trust-ability. People around the world clamor to do business in the US, and creating outsize demand for the US’s currency because of it.
Obviously, the people of the US can choose to reduce that perception, but there are tradeoffs. See Somalia and their currency’s purchasing power at the other other end of the spectrum.
Obviously the people wouldn't actually think that smashing parking meters to renege on a contract is a good idea, but, as we said, if they thought it was a good idea then it wouldn't matter if the contract states something about not smashing meters. There would be nothing to enforce the contract. It is not upheld by a supernatural force.
