← Back to context

Comment by hekkle

1 month ago

> Being betrayed gives you every right to be angry, but it is what you do with that anger that matters.

I am not angry. What I was ultimately describing was referred to as a 'social contract'. Like a regular contract, once it is not fulfilled, you cannot rely upon it ever again.

To illustrate this concept better I will explain it by example:

If you hire someone to fix your roof, you pay them, and they don't fix it; then a few months later you re-hired them again to fix your roof, and again they take your money and refuse to fix it.

Who is ultimately responsible for you losing money the second time around?

I would argue, (and so would their lawyers if you sued them), that you had a legal duty to "mitigate losses", and as you didn't learn the first time, you are responsible for throwing good money over bad, not them. You knew they didn't honour their contracts, so it was on you that you re-engaged with them.

That is not anger, that is common sense, and a basic common law legal concept.

That analogy doesn't fit the situation of a social contract not being fulfilled, and your overall point is extremely antisocial.

You appear to be saying if one person or group fails to uphold their obligation to you at any time, you are thereafter released from your obligation to the rest of humanity.