The Problem of "Crime"

But if "usefulness" was a requirement for a contract being "rational", then our example involving the loans would in fact be irrational;

No it wouldn't. You're saying there's nothing of use for a high interest loan to the borrower? The borrowerer can't do anything with the money he's loaned? The borrower can still derive benefit from the borrowed money even if the interest is extremely high. How would that be irrational?

Irrational means something devoid of reason, incoherence. There's nothing incoherent about a high interest loan. The contract still makes sense, it's just not a very competitive offer. A bad offer can still have consideration.

In our hotel example, you seem to contend that privacy is the only purpose of renting a hotel room. What about just getting a bed to sleep on?

Just getting a bed to sleep on is not the only thing I'm renting. I'm renting a room with a bed.

What are some the qualitative characteristics of a hotel room?

1) A room with 4 opaque walls, floor and ceiling.
2) A room with a door that locks.
3) A window with opaque curtains.

These things define what a hotel room is. Inherent in that definition is that the entire room was constructed with privacy in mind, hence a door that locks, 4 walls, etc. If we start stipulating no privacy can be granted to the guest, then we have destroyed the concept of renting a hotel room. The defintion of the product I am selling implicitly states a guest ought to derive a reasonable amount of privacy to the room.

If it's alright for me to offer a "bad" choice, i.e. loans at 20%, why isn't it alright for me to offer a "bad" choice in a hotel room with no privacy, but a bed to sleep on?

You're dropping context. We are talking about renting a hotel room, not just renting a bed.

Post 81

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 7:24pm

If we start stipulating no privacy can be granted to the guest, then we have destroyed the concept of renting a hotel room. The defintion of the product I am selling implicitly states a guest ought to derive a reasonable amount of privacy to the room.

Ok, I will accept that if no specific contract is signed, your implicit definition is fine. But I am saying, that if he chooses to, a hotel owner should be allowed to specify the terms of the transaction. If this goes against your concept of a hotel room, fine, lets form a new concept or qualify it as a certain type of room, whatever it takes.

A bad offer can still have consideration.

Why can't the bad offer in my example be considered? Let's say that I own a homeless shelter (I know these things aren't for-profit, but bear with me). I charge $1 a day for the privelege of sleeping on a cot with about a 100 other people in a large open area. Now, if I have my "guests" sign a contract in which they acknowledge that I have hired a police man who will patrol the open area because I know drug abuse to be a problem among the homeless (and yes, I advocate legalisation of all drugs, but for the sake of this argument...). Now, just as in my hotel example, this does not mean that they have to automatically agree to warrantless cavity searches or pat-downs, but simply that they are giving me their consent to let an officer patrol, and if evidence is in plain sight of something illegal, then that is probal cause, etc, etc. I would compare this to our hotel example. In neither case am I advocating that the guest waive their right to be free from unreasonable searches of their "person", i.e., their luggage and personal effects, but simply that the room is not their property, and therefore I reserve the right to allow an officer into the room. Back to your original example, this would mean that the officer could come into the room, and if the inhabitant matched the description of the robber, then that would be probably cause. But he could not come in and rummage through the luggage for the stolen goods, without a warrant. And again, I don't think that hotel owners would choose to implement a policy like this because of competition on the free market, I'm merely advocating that they should be allowed to make that choice.

Post 82

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 7:40pm

A bad offer can still have consideration.

Why can't the bad offer in my example be considered?

I don't understand your question. The bad offer in your example does meet the definition of consideration. Again I refer you to the definition of consideration in contract law:

* Consideration: There must be consideration (see also consideration under English law) given by all the parties, meaning that every party is conferring a benefit on the other party or himself sustaining a recognizable detriment, such as a reduction of the party's alternative courses of action where the party would otherwise be free to act with respect to the subject matter without any limitation. Consideration need not be adequate, e.g. agreeing to buy a car for a penny may constitute a binding contract. (q.v. Chappell & Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1959] 2 All ER 701. (UK common law))

Let's say that I own a homeless shelter (I know these things aren't for-profit, but bear with me). I charge $1 a day for the privelege of sleeping on a cot with about a 100 other people in a large open area. Now, if I have my "guests" sign a contract in which they acknowledge that I have hired a police man who will patrol the open area because I know drug abuse to be a problem among the homeless

Your example is fine. You are renting a cot in an open room with many other guests, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in this hypothetical you gave so there is no problem in how you are running the homeless shelter.

f evidence is in plain sight of something illegal, then that is probal cause, etc, etc. I would compare this to our hotel example. In neither case am I advocating that the guest waive their right to be free from unreasonable searches of their "person", i.e., their luggage and personal effects, but simply that the room is not their property, and therefore I reserve the right to allow an officer into the room

Well we seem to be going in circles, but to address your statement, you're saying if evidence is in plain sight. If I am renting a hotel room, how does this homeless shelter example apply to this? You can't possibly see something in plain sight if a room has 4 opaque walls. And the person paid for the right to occupy a private room for the day. That occupied space is his, not the hotel owner's. The hotel owner sold him the right to that private space for the day, which I've already stated in these previous posts.

Post 83

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 8:00pm

Given that I don't speak "legalese", I'll probably have to reread your contract definitions some other time when I'm not so tired. What I was saying by "plain sight", is that the guests do not have to waive their right to be free from warrantless strip searches, or searches of their luggage or other belongings, but if the owner chooses, they may be forced to waive their rights to inhabit the room without the police walking in with the owner's consent. I may just have to accept your definition of the way things are, and realize that there are probably more important things we could debate, especially since because of the free market, the owners hypothetical right would be a non-issue, IMHO, and we could better spend our time debating whether or not man's rights are absolute ;-)! Or it could just be that I'm sleepy. Either way, I'm off to bed. Thanks for your insight. Hopefully I'll awake re-energized, and eager to debate this further!

Post 84

Wednesday, May 17, 2006 - 8:42pm

LOL, well you're probably right. There are probably more important things to debate, but this was fun. I must say being in the hospitality industry my whole life I never sat down and philosophically analyzed that deeply what I do for a living and I think I've learned from this discussion.

All in good fun.

By the way you're right about man's rights being absolute, referring to the other thread you got going there. I won't debate you on that :)

Post 85

Thursday, May 18, 2006 - 4:59am

I'm going to make one more attempt to explain my position. If my example of the cots in the gymnasium was ok, then my hotel room example should be alright as well. Just imagine, because I'm a nice guy, I decide to put up "opaque walls" around each sleeping area. And what the heck, because I'm a super nice guy, I replace the cots with beds. Now, I want to give my "guests" some semblance of privacy, but I still want to retain my right to have the police patrol the area where they sleep. So I install a door, but do not equip it with locks. Do you see where I am going? You are trying to convince me that this is not the case in an ordinary hotel. I'll agree with you there. But shouldn't I have the right to open my own kind of a hotel, and retain the right to enter the room? What I was trying to convey was that I should, but that I still shouldn't be able to strip-search any of the guests without a warrant. It's the same as if I go over to a friends house. Since it is his house, he can invite the police in if he wishes to, whether they have a warrant or not. Now, if I am smoking a joint when they walk in, they have every right to search me. That's probable cause. But my friend cannot give them permission to pat me down, or anything like this. I'll let you have the last word.

Post 86

Monday, May 22, 2006 - 8:42pm

Sorry to take so long to respond. After further thought I understand your reasoning. I think we have to use what we call "reasonable expectations" to privacy. For example sleeping in a gym with other people your right to privacy is low. Sleeping in a private room with the caveat in a contract that random searches could be conducted, your expectation to privacy should be higher than a gym. Sleeping in a room where your privacy to that room is implicit in the contract is even higher.

And I can understand a hotelier may be in his rights to run a hotel where he or the police could conduct random searches, this would not be the product I sell but I can understand if we change the parameters of the definition of this product, then the guest starts to lose that reasonable expectation to privacy. Innkeeper's laws I think have in mind only the kind of hotel room product most hoteliers sell, which is to say a product that by it's definition affords the guest a high reasonable expectation to privacy. Since the law I think just follows what most rational people expect and demand from a hotel room, this right to privacy is guaranteed.

But we do have to keep in mind the reasonable expectation to privacy, one's rights may not violate another so if it is implicit in the product I sell, the guest's right to be free from unreasonable search must be granted and I the property owner should have no such metaphysical right over the privacy of my guest, unless one of the 4 standards of losing that right is met which I outlined previously.

I guess I could find a niche market of exhibitionists that like to undress for everyone to see, so instead of opaque walls my hotel room could have translucent walls? LOL, yeah I think I'll just stick with the product I know :)

Post 87

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 9:57am

John, to answer your question from another thread, we stayed at a Quality Inn on the Outer Banks (N.C., if you're not familiar). And my post over there wasn't intended to give "too much information", but I can see how you might interpret it, I was simply poking fun at the debate we've been having. I too have reached a realization. I think that by virtue of a hotel room having a deadbolt/chain/whatever, there is an implicit transfer of ownership, or however you want to phrase it. Looking back, I think my argument was a little pedantic, but I'm glad you see what I was saying.

Post 88

Tuesday, May 23, 2006 - 10:19am

John, to answer your question from another thread, we stayed at a Quality Inn on the Outer Banks (N.C., if you're not familiar). And my post over there wasn't intended to give "too much information", but I can see how you might interpret it, I was simply poking fun at the debate we've been having

Ah, my apologies for taking your words out of context. I'm still waiting for beach weather up here in CT so I'm jealous. Probably not until a few weeks will the weather be warm enough. Damn New England weather! :)

(Edited by John Armaos on 5/23, 10:20am)

Post 89

Friday, May 26, 2006 - 10:48am