Okay. I think I was confused a bit by what looked like your definition of "insurance" - namely "pooling resources amongst people with an equally likely chance of randomness happening, with no previous knowledge of who exactly it will happen to". Yes, people within a given insurance pool will have a roughly equal likelihood of incurring a given type of loss, to the best of probabilistic ability. But I'm still not sure what difference difference you see between "prepaid collision liability coverage" and "insurance".
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
So are you saying than an individual has control over whether a crime is committed against them?
Crime is something an individual can insure themselves against. Maybe you should read the article you referred me to again.
'' The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'' Stephen Hawking
I would call it by the name I refered to it in the post: limited liability coverage.
That doesn't help me any, sorry. I still don't see the difference between that and what you call "insurance". I'm not saying there is necessarily no difference between them - just that I don't see what you say is the difference between them.
I was refering to Bob Murphy's plan which is sort of the reverse of most ancaps in that he thinks you would 'insure' yourself against COMITTING crime. That is certainly an example of limited liabiltiy coverage and not insurance qua insurance.
But to your point, there are most certainly actions you can take to avoid crime happening to you, at least certain crimes. Its certainly not completely up to chance. Wether those differences are enough to cause people to be grouped into different pools and wether or not its cost effective to find that kind of information is up to the market.
I work in the wireless industry at the retail level. We offer a package in which you pay a monthly fee and if your phone is lost, stolen, or damaged, you can pay a deductable and get it replaced. You have full control over wether or not the phone gets lost, stolen, or damaged, it would all be a result one way or another of your neglegance. I would not call this insurance, I would call it limited liabiltity coverage. You pay a monthly service for this coverage, and if you have to make a claim, you pay a reduced price than if you had to get it replaced w/o the coverage.
Oh. Obviously I agree that one can't insure themselves against committing a crime.
On the subject of preventing crimes: well obviously some actions could be taken for certain crime, for example putting better locks on your house's door, but I think that you can insure yourself against a crime being committed against you. This is analogous to your house insurer telling you to put a second fire alarm in your house.
I think most libertarians are very optomistic about how complex insurance and limited liability coverage would become in a free market. I think that we tend to focus on all the factors that it is possible to account for without really taking into account the cost of acquiring such information, as well as the benefits of simplicity that most consumers prefer. That is, companies might knowingly expose themselves to greater risk (or more likely over offer their prices and expose themselves to competition) for the sake of simplicity.
I think markets are the best way to have the world run as efficiently as it can, but that does not follow that every market activity is run with 'perfect efficiency'
"It is not the responsibility of a victim (or "society") to subsidize the security costs of the community by confining criminals."
What about in a case like this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15936276
Would you be ok if this guy were let go and walked the streets again?
That probably wouldn't be much of a problem in Libertopia (everybody could have guns etc.) One of the reasons psychots like that are able to commit mass murders is because guns are outlawed for ordinary citizen. Yeah, he could walk in streets, why do I care? Someone could hit him with a car, I wouldn't care either.
And I'm not talking about prevention, which is completely another topic.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
"Yeah, he could walk in streets, why do I care?"
Even if you have kids? And you guys are playing at the park? Sure, if he snipes one of your kids, you might kill him, but he might kill one of your kids first. That's ok?
You are basically asking "if some evil guy killed my kids, would I appreciate that". The answer is no. The thing is, why is he walking on a streets? Because of market failure? Or government failure? I guess the latter. I doubt that in free market majority of people would be ok with letting him freely go on the streets (their property, or "public property"). Imagine, where would he go? To shop? No one would let him to do that without insurance. Who would give him insurance if he is insane? He is practically walking corpse. Anyone could shoot him just for "greater good". And I wouldn't care.
Again. You are asking questions "in vacuum". But Libertopia is not in vacuum, but a very decentralized community of mini "states". Don't forget about DRO/PDA. Any known criminal probably would not be allowed on anyones property without the owners permission so to speak. At least, I wouldn't like to go to a shop that is famous for letting in insane criminals. Of course, unless they payed restitution to their victims or at least are working on that. But still, I wouldn't be safe in such building. And many people wouldn't be. And the shop keeper would lose his business.
Insurance companies providing insurance would be beneficial in several ways.
So insurance companies could pay for the prisons?
Hey Joe, sorry for dropping this. Maybe you'll swing by sometime and see my new replies.
Joe:I was refering to Bob Murphy's plan which is sort of the reverse of most ancaps in that he thinks you would 'insure' yourself against COMITTING crime. That is certainly an example of limited liabiltiy coverage and not insurance qua insurance.
We might still have a discrepancy between definitions here. My own definition of "insurance" is "financial coverage up to some amount of economic loss". Note that this requires the loss to be against oneself. It's also presumed to be due to factors beyond one's control. Committing a crime is certainly within one's control, and it causes (or at least can cause) a loss against someone else, so I fail to see how insurance could exist for it under my definition.
The phrase "limited liability coverage" strikes me as denoting a restriction on one's liability to the coverage he has. I don't think this would exist in a free-market society - every individual would be considered fully liable for any judgement rendered against him.
Joe:But to your point, there are most certainly actions you can take to avoid crime happening to you, at least certain crimes. Its certainly not completely up to chance. Wether those differences are enough to cause people to be grouped into different pools and wether or not its cost effective to find that kind of information is up to the market.
Agreed. There may even be different policies among insurance companies. For example, some car-insurance companies may cover the cost of property stolen from within one's vehicle (up to a certain amount) even if the doors were left unlocked, the windows were left rolled down, etc. I don't think there's any way to predict how much negligence would end up being subsidized by "the market".
Joe:I work in the wireless industry at the retail level. We offer a package in which you pay a monthly fee and if your phone is lost, stolen, or damaged, you can pay a deductable and get it replaced. You have full control over wether or not the phone gets lost, stolen, or damaged, it would all be a result one way or another of your neglegance. I would not call this insurance, I would call it limited liabiltity coverage. You pay a monthly service for this coverage, and if you have to make a claim, you pay a reduced price than if you had to get it replaced w/o the coverage.
A person has full control over whether another person attacks him and runs off with his phone while he's incapacitated? If you're serious here, then I most definitely disagree with you. No one ever has control over anyone else's actions. So I would indeed call the wireless package you're referring to as "insurance", as it involves financial coverage (up to a limit) in the event of an economic loss.
Autolykos: Hey Joe, sorry for dropping this. Maybe you'll swing by sometime and see my new replies. Joe:I was refering to Bob Murphy's plan which is sort of the reverse of most ancaps in that he thinks you would 'insure' yourself against COMITTING crime. That is certainly an example of limited liabiltiy coverage and not insurance qua insurance. We might still have a discrepancy between definitions here. My own definition of "insurance" is "financial coverage up to some amount of economic loss". Note that this requires the loss to be against oneself. It's also presumed to be due to factors beyond one's control. Committing a crime is certainly within one's control, and it causes (or at least can cause) a loss against someone else, so I fail to see how insurance could exist for it under my definition. The phrase "limited liability coverage" strikes me as denoting a restriction on one's liability to the coverage he has. I don't think this would exist in a free-market society - every individual would be considered fully liable for any judgement rendered against him. Joe:But to your point, there are most certainly actions you can take to avoid crime happening to you, at least certain crimes. Its certainly not completely up to chance. Wether those differences are enough to cause people to be grouped into different pools and wether or not its cost effective to find that kind of information is up to the market. Agreed. There may even be different policies among insurance companies. For example, some car-insurance companies may cover the cost of property stolen from within one's vehicle (up to a certain amount) even if the doors were left unlocked, the windows were left rolled down, etc. I don't think there's any way to predict how much negligence would end up being subsidized by "the market".
but you would also be covered if you dropped the phone in a sink, or went swimming with the phone. Also, while its not your 'fault' that someone steals something from you, certain behaviors are going to lead to more victimizations of theft, and other behaviors are going to lead to less.
Joe:I definitely think we are still talking past each other. Yes I also agree that insurance could not exist for something that you have control over. And on the limited liability coverage issue, I don't think you are understanding the point of it. Yes I agree that limited liability should not exist in a ancap society. However, people could get 'wiped out' if they were exposed to having to bear the full brunt of a liability for say killing someone or something else extreme where we would think the damages awarded would be very high. Prepaid limited liability coverage is not designed to screw over victims, the victims still get paid in full, the just get paid from the company who 'bought' the offenders full liability costs (in exchange for a guaranteed monthly fee or whathaveyou). SInce you have control over wether you commit a crime, I don't think you can use the word insurance, at least not in a Austrian technical manner to describe that sort of situation, even though it may very well be the case that colloquially these companies are referred to as liability insurance company or crime insurance or offenders insurance, etc. And Murphy's point is that well, it may seem obvious at first glance that the people who don;t plan on committing crimes will simply not buy it and then only the people that do commit will buy it and then that cuts out the margin for the company to make any money because their rates would have to keep going up and up and eventually they can't afford to cover anyone. However, Murphy thinks that these companies could serve an important role in signaling and in reputation. How do I know I can trust this random stranger who is going to patronize my business? Well he is covered for up to $100 million in damages and that is backed up from a well reputed firm that I DO know, and know could pay that out should such an atrocity occur.
And on the limited liability coverage issue, I don't think you are understanding the point of it. Yes I agree that limited liability should not exist in a ancap society. However, people could get 'wiped out' if they were exposed to having to bear the full brunt of a liability for say killing someone or something else extreme where we would think the damages awarded would be very high. Prepaid limited liability coverage is not designed to screw over victims, the victims still get paid in full, the just get paid from the company who 'bought' the offenders full liability costs (in exchange for a guaranteed monthly fee or whathaveyou).
SInce you have control over wether you commit a crime, I don't think you can use the word insurance, at least not in a Austrian technical manner to describe that sort of situation, even though it may very well be the case that colloquially these companies are referred to as liability insurance company or crime insurance or offenders insurance, etc.
And Murphy's point is that well, it may seem obvious at first glance that the people who don;t plan on committing crimes will simply not buy it and then only the people that do commit will buy it and then that cuts out the margin for the company to make any money because their rates would have to keep going up and up and eventually they can't afford to cover anyone. However, Murphy thinks that these companies could serve an important role in signaling and in reputation. How do I know I can trust this random stranger who is going to patronize my business? Well he is covered for up to $100 million in damages and that is backed up from a well reputed firm that I DO know, and know could pay that out should such an atrocity occur.
Thanks for clarifying. I think I do know what you're talking about now. Basically you're talking about surety bonds, such as performance bonds. These are bonds (or more generally, financial instruments) that are provided to cover things like failure to carry out contractual obligations and damages from negligence. While I don't think they cover intentional damages, I don't see why they couldn't. Of course, the problems of moral hazard and adverse selection still come into play. I also agree with your and Murphy's point that such "surety companies" could provide signaling for trustworthiness and reputation in general.
So to conclude, I think the distinction can be made between "insurance", which is economic coverage for losses against oneself, and "suretyship", which is economic coverage for losses somehow caused by oneself against others.
Joe:but you would also be covered if you dropped the phone in a sink, or went swimming with the phone. Also, while its not your 'fault' that someone steals something from you, certain behaviors are going to lead to more victimizations of theft, and other behaviors are going to lead to less.
I understand your point, but first off, my point was that other people's actions are necessarily not under one's own control. Second, I seriously doubt that, even in this day and age, all or even most of the circumstantial variables have been controlled for when it comes to things like estimating probability of theft. Indeed, not all of those variables may even be known yet.
I think if they dealt with a lot of the victimless crime more reasonable there would only remain a lot of the more severe crimes and i could definitely see how a sort of prison system could develop within a private law society. Especially for such deranged violent individuals that are uncontrollable, that are in continuous psychosis. I find it very interesting as to how such an industry or organisation(s) would develop. I think that it would be different from today's prisons by a large amount and more similar to today's mental institutions. But I do think that today's mental institutions and other similar juvenile based state institutions would no longer exist. Which would also change the mental health industry. As well the changes from lack of regulation in pharma industry. It would be a completely different situation, it would be difficult to make guesses about its characteristics.
that sounds about right.
I'm pretty sure the answer lies somewhere in the difference between risk and uncertainty.
Rothbard in M, E, S: http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap8b.asp#9._Risk_Uncertainty_Insurance
Murphy said this in the study guide for the section: 9. Risk, Uncertainty, and Insurance
Following the pioneering treatment by Frank Knight, the
distinction between risk and uncertainty is that risk refers to
unknown outcomes with quantifiable probabilities. Risks can be
insured against, while uncertainty cannot. All entrepreneurship
involves bearing uncertainty; it cannot be transferred away.
True but who exactly would pay?
On insurance, I don't buy the idea of true risk. As Warren Buffet said, risk is not knowing... blah blah. The agnosticism of insurers about anything is their personal truth, not necessarily anyone else's. I might never buy any form of insurance unless I had a specific reason to think that an actuarial model is inaccurate in my favour. (I say this having done a life insurance course.)
In the case of a tort or of a contractual debt where the debtor's liability is unlimited, the victim of the tort or the creditor would have every right to enslave the debtor to work off the debt. Likely, most people wouldn't want to do this themselves, so they would sell the debt-slaves to private prisons at a discount to the full value of the debt, and the private prisons would in turn have the right to work the debt-slaves up to the full value of the debt.
However, I imagine that almost all contractual debts would involve limited liability for the debtor, so most debt-slaves would be poor tortfeasors. But even this kind of debt-slavery would be rare IMO, because it might well be more profitable in most cases to put a lien on the income of a free person than to put him into debt-slavery.
In the case of a tort or of a contractual debt where the debtor's liability is unlimited, the victim of the tort or the creditor would have every right to enslave the debtor to work off the debt. Likely, most people wouldn't want to do this themselves, so they would sell the debt-slaves to private prisons at a discount to the full value of the debt, and the private prisons would in turn have the right to work the debt-slaves up to the full value of the debt. However, I imagine that almost all contractual debts would involve limited liability for the debtor, so most debt-slaves would be poor tortfeasors. But even this kind of debt-slavery would be rare IMO, because it might well be more profitable in most cases to put a lien on the income of a free person than to put him into debt-slavery.
I like that idea. Have killers work to compensate the families of their victims and pay for their prison stays.
@Minarchist,F4M: It is not at all obvious that debt-slavery or any kind of slavery could exist in a private law society. Rothbard's arguments on this point (from the standpoint of the inalienability of the will) are very persuasive.
I like to analyze these kinds of questions from the point at which it would matter one way or another: a real dispute. John Slave escapes the plantation. Bob Slaveholder manages to track him down - however, by this time, John Slave has become fairly well-to-do and is armed. Bob Slaveholder decides an armed conflict with John Slave is not worth it, so he files a lawsuit instead. In the lawsuit, Bob Slaveholder argues "John Slave, the defendant, is my property. He is currently ensconced in his home and will not allow himself to be repossessed by me. This lawsuit is seeking to force John Slave to be peaceably repossessed or to pay $X in damages and restitution."
Now, there is something odd about having a dispute with your own property. After all, you'd never sue your pet goat or the family tractor. And this is precisely where I think the approach used by Hoppe in his Argumentation Ethics does apply. Namely, John Slave can point out that he must not be Bob Slaveholder's property precisely because Bob Slaveholder is suing him. If John Slave were, in fact, the property of Bob Slaveholder, no such lawsuit could come into being anymore than the lawsuit "Bob Slaveholder v. Bob Slaveholder's Tractor". I can't imagine why a private law court would see it any other way.
That said, local variation is the rule, not the exception, in law. Hence, there could be pocket communities - slaveholder communities - where a slave could never even get a hearing in a court of law. But for all the reasons given by economists spelling out the reasons that chattel slavery died of economic causes, I doubt that such enclaves of slavery would be economically significant or widespread.
Clayton -
Clayton, if you're defining "slavery" as "ownership of a person by someone other than himself", then I'd say that neither debt-slavery nor any other form of slavery as a legal institution is impossible in an anarcho-capitalist society. But I do think that debt bondage or indentured servitude would likely exist as such.
"I know a lot of socialist anarchists want to abolish prisons and end punishing criminals all together which I think is insane. I support having a free market prison system with competing prisons. Only I've encountered some problems with this view. First of all, who would pay the private prison company? Who is the "customer?" I know there's solutions here but I want to ask others."
I think prisons could live on, but not as an involuntary, coercive option abused by the state. Rather, they would be more like a system that criminals could use to try to prove that they are trustworthy, or as an alternate agreement of how to pay restitution, or as a way for the criminal to more securly promise that restitution will be paid. Prisons would not be specialized buildings, as such things are expensive. Rather, the imprisonment would be agreements to restrict ones own behavior. It would more resemble the home imprisonment system currently used for some criminals, where the criminal will be monitored, and imprisoned in his own house. In a sense then, the "customer" is the criminal, instead of the state.
Slightly off topic, I haven't seen any mention of the home imprisonment systems currently in use by the state on mises.org, where a criminal is forced to follow a particular schedule, and monitored. I would appreciate it if someone could show me an article or forum post discussing this.
Schools are labour camps.
It is not at all obvious that debt-slavery or any kind of slavery could exist in a private law society. Rothbard's arguments on this point (from the standpoint of the inalienability of the will) are very persuasive
Slavery does not involve alienation of the will. When a person becomes a slave he does not become an automaton. When a person becomes a slave, he waives (sells or forfeits, as the case may be) his right to be free from violence: either totally and unconditionally (as with chattel slavery) or partially and conditionally (as with lesser forms of slavery). But the same is true with all obligations, whether contractual or arising from torts. To be obligated to do anything is to have waived your right (by contract or by tort) to be free from violence to a certain degree: i.e. insofar as the other party can justly use violence to force you to fulfill your obligation.
See Block's "Toward a Libertarian Theory of Inalienability...." http://mises.org/journals/jls/17_2/17_2_3.pdf
I like to analyze these kinds of questions from the point at which it would matter one way or another: a real dispute. John Slave escapes the plantation. Bob Slaveholder manages to track him down - however, by this time, John Slave has become fairly well-to-do and is armed. Bob Slaveholder decides an armed conflict with John Slave is not worth it, so he files a lawsuit instead. In the lawsuit, Bob Slaveholder argues "John Slave, the defendant, is my property. He is currently ensconced in his home and will not allow himself to be repossessed by me. This lawsuit is seeking to force John Slave to be peaceably repossessed or to pay $X in damages and restitution." Now, there is something odd about having a dispute with your own property. After all, you'd never sue your pet goat or the family tractor. And this is precisely where I think the approach used by Hoppe in his Argumentation Ethics does apply. Namely, John Slave can point out that he must not be Bob Slaveholder's property precisely because Bob Slaveholder is suing him. If John Slave were, in fact, the property of Bob Slaveholder, no such lawsuit could come into being anymore than the lawsuit "Bob Slaveholder v. Bob Slaveholder's Tractor". I can't imagine why a private law court would see it any other way.
Again, slavery does not involve alienation of the will. There is nothing "odd" about the fact that a slave can appear in a courtroom and argue with his owner about whether he is in fact a slave. Like with any case, it would depend on who had the evidence. Does Bob Slaveholder have the contract where John Slave agreed to be a slave for 5-years in exchange for room and board, can Bob Slaveholder prove that the other person in the courtroom is in fact John Slave, etc. There's no difficulty here.
But for all the reasons given by economists spelling out the reasons that chattel slavery died of economic causes, I doubt that such enclaves of slavery would be economically significant or widespread.
I quite agree.
If Bob owns John, it does not mean that Bob can do whatever he wants (physically) with John: i.e. John might refuse to cooperate. Bob does not control John's will. What it means for Bob to own John is for Bob to be able to do whatever he wants (legally) with John, such that no one can make a legitimate claim against Bob for doing anything with John, including John himself.
Likewise, if Bob owns a horse, it does not mean that he can do whatever he wants (physically) with the horse: i.e. the horse might refuse to cooperate. Bob does not control the horse's will. What it means for Bob to own the horse is for Bob to be able to do whatever he wants (legally) with the horse, such that no one can make a legitimate claim against Bob for doing anything with the horse.
Some additional thoughts on debt-slavery:
As I said before, the owner of the debt-slave has the right to use violence for the purpose of extracting the debt. It follows that the owner is liable for any use of force other than for the purpose of extracting the debt, and so the debt-slave may rightfully seek restitution from his owner for such a violation of the terms of their relationship, or designate an agent who may do so on his behalf and per whatever terms the debt-slave and the agent may have agreed upon (e.g. the agent gets a share of the restitution in payment for his services).
Problem: what if the debt-slave is physically unable to file suit because his owner is confining him, and for the same reason he is unable to designate an agent (and did not already designate an agent before beginning his term of servitude)? Is this poor soul just doomed?
If the slave is locked away and no one can meet with him to be designated his agent, then I would argue that anyone (who has proven that he tried and failed to meet with the slave to be designated his agent) can homestead the right to restitution against the owner of the debt-slave. If he proves his case, then the agent of the debt-slave should be entitled to the restitution from the owner, but only after he sees to it that the debt-slave is actually freed from his former owner's custody. In this case, the debt-slave doesn't get any restitution for the abuse he suffered, but at least he's free.
I think one point that should be made is that some people will say:
If in the free market system, a murderer only has to pay money to the victim's family, then arent you saying that money = a life?
--This is iffy because even if the murderer went to jail under state rule, does that mean that the amount of time spent in jail equals a life? I dont think so.
Only life = life, but in most civilized societies, lex talionis would not be the prevailing ruling.
So yes in the free market system payment for a murder doesnt bring about Justice but it does try to settle the case like and prevent Open conflict like Clayton said.
Question. What if the murderer didnt want to obey the court?? After all it IS a voluntary society. Unless your volition is taken away as soon as yo commit crime?
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
kelvin_silva: Question. What if the murderer didnt want to obey the court?? After all it IS a voluntary society. Unless your volition is taken away as soon as yo commit crime?
If a murderer didn't want to be a part of the legal system, it seems likely he would become an outlaw.
waives (sells or forfeits, as the case may be) his right to be free from violence
This doesn't make any sense. A person cannot waive his right to defend himself from violence, it's inalienable because he can always begin moving his hands and feet in such a way as to deflect the blows rained on him and return blows of his own. This is a Platonic way of thinking about rights and it's mistaken.
A person cannot waive his right to defend himself from violence, it's inalienable because he can always begin moving his hands and feet in such a way as to deflect the blows rained on him and return blows of his own.
You are assuming that the right to defend oneself from violence is identical to the abilility to defend oneself from violence.
It is not.
If it were, then it would follow that if I am unable to defend myself from a given act of violence I have no right to do so.
Is that your position?
Also, if you believe that rights are inalienable, do you reject every kind of enforceable obligation? For example, if rights are inalienable, then how can a victim justly force a tortfeasor to pay restitution? Traditionally, libertarians have argued that the tortfeasor waives his right to be free from aggression insofar as he aggressed against his victim: i.e. the victim can violate the rights of the tortfeasor to the extent that the tortfeasor violated the rights of the victim. But if the tortfeasor's rights are inalienable, then he waives none of them through the commission of his tort, and therefore the victim who forces him to pay restitution is committing an act of aggression, no?
If you truly believe that rights are inalienable (and don't make arbitrary distinctions such that certain kinds of rights [e.g. those which concern the body] are and others aren't), pure pacifism is the result. And keep in mind this isn't just for torts, it would be for contractual obligations as well: e.g. a creditor could not force his debtor to repay. Essentially, the doctine of inalienability eliminates the possibility for any legitimate use of force: i.e. force where the recipient thereof either explicitly (by contract) or implicitly (by committing a tort) waived his right to be free from aggression [to some extent, to a certain person, etc].
Another way of putting it is: if rights are inalienable, then all violence is aggression.
This is a Platonic way of thinking about rights
My view is that the right to defend oneself from aggression is not identical to the ability to defend oneself from aggression, but it does not follow that I think of rights are Forms or some such thing floating around in a Platonic otherworld - far from it. Rights are social phenomena. My right to defend myself from aggression exists insofar as "society" (putting aside the problems of speaking about abstractions in this way) agrees that it does. Whether I am in fact able to defend myself from aggression is an entirely separate matter.
One might say that my ability to defend myself rests in my arms, but my right to defend myself rests in the minds of other men.
Of course, some who believe in objective ethics would indeed place rights in some otherworld, but not I.
Minarchist: Another way of putting it is: if rights are inalienable, then all violence is aggression.
It seems that Clayton is referring to the inalienability of the will. Contracts regarding people's wills are invalid (we are not talking about the transfer of property after death, we are talking about the mind and body). Someone saying that they waive their right to self-defense is making a claim regarding their will, and these are invalid. I suggest you read the thread Inalienability of the self.
Regarding the quote, the claim that rights are inalienable is a strange one, though most everyone knows it. Most peopel who use that phrase are talking about life, liberty and property (or the pursuit of happiness). Well, these are alienable. You can transfer the right to your life, depending upon the law. You can transfer the right to your liberty, depending upon the law. You can transfer your right to property. The will (mind and body) is different. No matter how much you want to, you cannot transfer your will to anyone else. Sure, someone could make a law saying so, but it could never be done.
Anyway, if you wish to read more about what I think on the matter, you can read the thread I linked to. I won't hijack this one.
It seems that Clayton is referring to the inalienability of the will.
The will certainly is inalienable. If that's Clayton's point, I don't understand what he saw in my comments which led him to believe that I view the will as alienable. I was clearly speaking about the alienation of rights, not of the will. O well...another non-conversation.
But anyway, I thought Clayton was taking Rothbard's position against voluntary slavery (for inalienable self-ownership) on the basis of the inalienability of the will - and this is what I've argued against, taking Block contra Rothbard.
EDIT: Looking back, here's what Clayton actually said:
A person cannot waive his right to defend himself from violence, it's inalienable...
So, Clayton is indeed saying that the rights are inalienable. And why are they?
...because he can always begin moving his hands and feet in such a way as to deflect the blows rained on him and return blows of his own
Because the will is inalienable.
It appears he is taking a Rothardian approach, as I thought.
Block's position fundamentally misunderstands Rothbard's.
How would you summarize Rothbard's position?