Power being disproportionate is obviously not sufficient to void terms - that's not what the comment you're replying to said. It is necessary to void terms when there is a power imbalance.
> Should the state just prohibit all agreements between two parties unless the state's adjudicator decides they are exactly equal in "power" and permits it?
This is obviously ridiculous and makes me think you are not arguing in good faith. Terms have to justify their existence according to logical principles that we argue about. It does not follow that there has to be a "state's adjudicator"! I am just describing how democracies come up with laws - it is not some fantasy Orwellian nightmare.
> I get that many people are subservient and would much prefer that
Ironic comment!
What are you trying to say here? I didn't claim the previous poster didn't think it was necessary, I was just commenting on the sufficiency part of the claim -- sufficient being a subset of necessary.
> This is obviously ridiculous and makes me think you are not arguing in good faith.
What is ridiculous is that you're pretending not to recognize a reductio ad absurdum, particularly in the context of a reply that included McDonalds dictating how you eat a hamburger! Makes me think you are not arguing in good faith, I may be forced to report you to an adjudicator to rule on how we are permitted to debate.
> Terms have to justify their existence according to logical principles that we argue about.
And that's exactly what I'm asking about. OP made a claim about what terms were "justified" and I'm trying to find out the basis for them.
> Ironic comment!
It isn't, you're just unable to address it.
It's pretty simple. You can write whatever you want into a contract, but if you want to enforce an unreasonable term, you will lose in court and might be forced to remove the term from current and future contracts. That's how it works everywhere. The difference between legislations is just what is considered a reasonable term.
This is a strawman and you know it. Please at least make an attempt to argue in good faith, otherwise there's no point.
Of course there should be a reasonable middle-ground. The current situation with completely bogus ToS is not it.
Let me turn it around: should the state just abandon it's duty of creating an fair and equal playing field between large corporations and clients and let society devolve into a corporatocracy where laws are enforced purely to further corporate interests? Because that's exactly what you seem to be suggesting.
See? Not particularly conductive to discourse, is it :D
Uh yes? And you clearly know it too. It was a bit like your McDonalds strawman.
> Please at least make an attempt to argue in good faith, otherwise there's no point.
No need to get in a huff when we obviously both know what we're talking about. It's not conducive to the discussion.
> Of course there should be a reasonable middle-ground. The current situation with completely bogus ToS is not it.
I don't know exactly what the current situation with completely bogus ToS is, I'm willing to accept it could be adjusted. I was asking specifically about your proposed adjustment to it though. Your reasons for the new framework you suggested.
> Let me turn it around: should the state just abandon it's duty of creating an fair and equal playing field between large corporations and clients and let society devolve into a corporatocracy where laws are enforced purely to further corporate interests? Because that's exactly what you seem to be suggesting.
That isn't what I was suggesting. I was asking you how you came to your conclusion in the previous post. (EDIT: Sorry you did not conclude that, the grandparent did the parent of my first post you replied to, but you posted seemingly in support)