What business is it to anyone else, least of all the government?
Being your brother's keeper doesn't mean getting an IRS agent and some agent with a gun to force someone who didn't consent to someone else playing football/rugby to pay for their injury. Being brother's keeper doesn't mean removing consent.
I think what you should really be arguing for is the rugby association to properly compensate anyone with medical disability as a result of their employment.
High school and youth players are neither paid nor are they old enough to consent.
Collegiate players are old enough to consent, but aren't paid (excluding tuition/room/board).
Regardless of the sums of money, do we as a society, really want to allow people to allow themselves to become brain damaged in exchange for money? If not, we need to decide where we draw the line.
>You're only thinking about the NFL.
The article was literally about professional rugby players. Yes I realize most of those guys are not making millions.
>High school and youth players are neither paid nor are they old enough to consent.
Which is why I said those who consent, who are you arguing against? My statement was "Person A consents." If you believe a minor cannot consent then by definition we haven't spoken about high school and youth.
As an aside, do you believe all sex amongst 17 year olds is rape as well, since you are not attributing them the ability to consent?
Or maybe you really believe it is in the governments interest to clearly define what consensual conduct is allowed. Just curious, but do you check with government interests before agreeing to a certain sex position with a partner? After all, it is the government's business; they should really probably know. I hope you also seek government definition of your conduct of pissing in a bush next time you're out in the public woods (make sure the contract of your public use of lands isn't ill defined).
The idea contract law makes what voluntary consensual conduct you do the business of government is a hilarious and gross misinterpretation of the the utility of contract law.
If you live in libertarian la la land, then sure, both sides should be able to come to a consensual agreement without government interference. But in the real world, there are actual, real limits to what you can put in a contract that will stand up in court.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_contract_law
>If you live in libertarian la la land, then sure, both sides should be able to come to a consensual agreement without government interference
Yes and currently people still come to "illegal" consensual agreements like in the drug trade. When they're unable to seek peaceful intervention through the courts, they're forced instead to engage in violence and vigilante justice. That sounds much better to you, huh?
It's not just libertarians that have an interest in government butting out of these sorts of agreements. For instance, pot shops (run by all kind of folks) have trouble entering any sort of banking relationship due to asinine federal drug laws. Or if you're into certain alternative health ideas, you'll find you're completely unable to come to an agreement with a farmer across state lines for obtaining unpasteurized raw milk. Hope you've never purchased from a child's unlicensed lemonade stand either.