That's what I'm saying. There isn't just no guarantee that a contract will be kept, there are NO GUARANTEES. It's not possible. Government cannot make them, nor can individuals. But individuals can voluntarily agree that if party A does this, party B will do this. If neither do said act, there is no violation of contract. If A holds up his end of the deal and B doesn't, A can try to take B to some private court or at least use some mutually agreed upon arbiter to settle the dispute. Should B refuse, what is the result? A never does business with B again, and encourages others not to either. B will forever have more trouble getting people to do any sort of trade with him as a result. B will likely be less inclined to do something like this again, or will be poorer as a result of not being allowed to enjoy the fruits of division of labor again. You (a statist) kid yourself into thinking the government can guarantee higher employment, lower prices, better life, no violence, no theft, no accidental death. You are being played for a fool.
You do not understand contracts, particularly as they pertain to an anarcho-capitalist society. Stop acting like you do understand either of those concepts; or realize no one believes you do.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
You (a statist) kid yourself into thinking the government can guarantee higher employment, lower prices, better life, no violence, no theft, no accidental death. You are being played for a fool.
I agree with you fully there, and never said anything of the sort. Maybe less violence, but that's just a hypothetical. The important point is that failure to enforce contracts leads to dishonesty and exploitation and is inconsistent with natural law as praticed by the first humans.
Dishonesty, exploitation, and inconsistency leads to less favor among the free market and therefore, among society, which leads people to guard themselves more strongly from you. Possibly the best, most fair form of justice that could be developed by humans, at least thus far. You rip people of in ancapistan, you will be poorer from your own karma. But you still don't get it do you?
I get what you're saying. I just believe that contracts are central to capitalism and should be enforced.
What about a separation fee- i.e., both parties pay some penalty for terminating the contract?
Still waiting for you, Ban-Evader, to elaborate on this: "Under a system of truely enforced contracts both parties would have to keep their word."
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Yes, free market legal agencies would enforce contracts and penalize those who didn't keep their word. At the least, contracts would include penalties or conditions in the case that the contract was violated.
Well, I'm sure most people would disagree with suicide but not the right to suicide :)
Ban-Evader:Yes, free market legal agencies would enforce contracts and penalize those who didn't keep their word. At the least, contracts would include penalties or conditions in the case that the contract was violated.
I don't see how at-will employment arrangements couldn't exist in a free market.
But what right have you to deny an agreement where both parties agree for a third party to enforce it? At the least, by what right can you deny severance pay or other penalties for breaking contracts?
I don't see how this refutes or otherwise invalidates the notion of an at-will employment agreement in a free market. Can you explain?
That's fine; I'm not disagreeing with it. Now how can you deny severence pay, third party enforcement and other penalties for breaking contracts?
... Did I ever say I deny those things?
I'll take that as a yes.
If I agree to be euthanised as a condition for violating my employment contract, you have no right to deny me this contract.
A yes to what? Your original question didn't seem to be looking for a yes/no answer.
Now I'd appreciate it if you actually answered my question. It wasn't entirely rhetorical. I would like to know just where you think I denied any of those things, because I don't believe I denied them anywhere.
You seem to be intending the case of euthanasia as a penalty for violating an employment contract to constitute a reductio ad absurdum. What makes it look absurd in your eyes?
I never saw you disagree with it. It doesn't look absurd in my eyes. In fact, it's an entirely legitimate contract to make. I believe people have the right to agree to a contract where they work for someone else their whole life and cannot leave the contract without being subject to penalties specified in the contract, including death.
Ban-Evader:I never saw you disagree with it.
Then why did you imply otherwise?
Ban-Evader:It doesn't look absurd in my eyes. In fact, it's an entirely legitimate contract to make. I believe people have the right to agree to a contract where they work for someone else their whole life and cannot leave the contract without being subject to penalties specified in the contract, including death.
I'm now going to accuse you of outright lying here.
Who should enforce them??
You're asking not for what I'm advocating, which is anarcho-capitalism in a society with libertarian values. No one has authority over any other. So only you can attempt to enforce your contract. This is where your misunderstanding is. You confuse what we have today (crony-capitalism) with what we wish to see in the future (a free society). You want others to be responsible for you and your well-being, we want everyone to take that liberty and responsibility for himself.
impala76: I'll take that as a yes. If I agree to be euthanised as a condition for violating my employment contract, you have no right to deny me this contract.
Lol, so this is your endgame? It's a rather silly one because no one would agree to such a thing. You can't slip murder and slavery in the back door this way. All you would have to do is break the contract at that point and walk away, the other party could sue for recourse, and there's no court in existence that would demand specific performance on an unethical euthanasia clause, sorry.
Because I had to make sure that was your position.
Which part? I'm holding this position for the sake of argument.
Do you have the right to deny me that contract? I'm assuming you do not.
and there's no court in existence that would demand specific performance on an unethical euthanasia clause, sorry.
That's a failure to uphold a contract. What about severance pay? If the penalty for breaking the contract was a severance payment, would the court demand performance? If so, what makes that case different?
No one has a right to deny your making of a contract. And you don't have the right to force that contract or any supposed terms of said contract upon anyone, nor does any court have a right to force action or transaction upon anyone to anyone. You just don't get it... You refuse to understand the terms "voluntary" and "force."
No one can force anything. That's it. The person breaking the contract will at least be less likely to secure any trades with anyone in the future, especially under mildly favorable terms for him. The consumers are constantly "voting" in a free market with their business, and poor business choices (like dishonesty and inconsistency) will earn fewer votes. The initiation of force or threat of force is invalid in a free society. So no, you not any court cannot force anyone to do anything.
Ban-Evader:Because I had to make sure that was your position.
Really? You could've simply asked me what my position was, rather than trying to put words in my mouth. In other words, I don't think your behavior showed good sportsmanship, but I'm not surprised given your history here.
Ban-Evader:Which part? I'm holding this position for the sake of argument.
In other words, you don't actually hold that position. Thanks for supporting my accusation.
Ban-Evader:Do you have the right to deny me that contract? I'm assuming you do not.
If you want to alienate your right to life for any reason, that's up to you. I don't consider myself to have the right to deny you to alienate that right.
From the understanding of contracts you've all presented, severance pay clauses should not not be legally binding. Is this correct?
Ban-Evader:From the understanding of contracts you've all presented, severance pay clauses should not not be legally binding. Is this correct?
Again, I challenge you to show where I have presented such an understanding of contracts.
I can't point to any one instance. So do you agree that employers should be legally required to provide any severance packages that they specified under contract? If so, how is this different from my contract?
They should. But if they don't, who will force them to?
If they don't, new employees will be less likely to work for them, let alone believe that a severance pay clause is actually worth the paper it's printed on.
You keep alluding to the notion of "legally binding" as you just said. The meaning you seem to imply requires a central authority to enforce, but an ancap society would lack this. Now, a minarchist society might, however, the offender might be able to escape the society and then what? The society would have no right to go into a neighboring ancap society and abduct him. So if you're asking for a minarchist society, you could probably have this court that all must answer to (so long as they all voluntarily agree to it and it's terms). I'm just curious as to what this society will do one one wishes to opt out? It cannot be a liberty-minded society if it attempts to disallow such a thing as secession or peaceful exit. But this won't exist in an ancap society.
You keep alluding to the notion of "legally binding" as you just said. The meaning you seem to imply requires a central authority to enforce, but an ancap society would lack this
But some justice system is going to exist to enforce the law. The private courts are responsible for enforcing compensation for crimes and so forth.
Ban-Evader:I can't point to any one instance.
In other words, you implicitly concede that not all the understandings of contracts presented necessarily consider severance clauses to not be legally binding. So why did you assert otherwise? I really suggest that you stop being so sloppy with your arguments.
Ban-Evader:So do you agree that employers should be legally required to provide any severance packages that they specified under contract? If so, how is this different from my contract?
Let's try to unpack this. Do you agree that contracts are about assigning/transferring rights?
Let's try to unpack this.
I'll take that as a "no."
Do you agree that contracts are about assigning/transferring rights?
Yes. When someone doesn't pay their legal agency, the legal agency has the right to come after them to collect payment.
Ban-Evader:I'll take that as a "no."
I strongly suggest you not jump to such a conclusion.
Ban-Evader:Yes. When someone doesn't pay their legal agency, the legal agency has the right to come after them to collect payment.
Well that depends on the terms of the contract, doesn't it? And what do you mean by "legal agency"? That seems to be a new term you've introduced just now.
You know, the legal agencies (LA) discussed in ancap theory.
So I guess the LAs can indeed come after people and use force to collect contracted payments.
Ban-Evader:You know, the legal agencies (LA) discussed in ancap theory.
No, I don't know. Why don't you explain to me what you mean. That's why I asked, after all.
Ban-Evader:So I guess the LAs can indeed come after people and use force to collect contracted payments.
Are you really arguing with me? Or are you really just arguing with yourself? You keep trying to jump to predetermined conclusions. The more you do that, the less honest you appear.
If you want to learn about it, here's a discussion of private defense agencies, more or less aka legal agencies.
My point is that I haven't seen the term "legal agency" used in this context before, so I think it was reasonable of me to ask what you meant by it. I also don't think that "legal agency" carries the same connotation as "private defense agency". So what's your point with using the different terminology? I'll go out on a limb and say that your whole point here is to (try to) manipulate anarcho-capitalists into unwittingly embrace statism.
They already have endorsed a police apparatus, they just call it different names (like "enforcing natural law").
Let's have another example. Let's say someone agrees to an employment contract for a sugar plantation. As a condition to the contract, they first have to implant a bomb that goes off if they leave the plantation. What right have you to deny them this contract?
Ban-Evader:They already have endorsed a police apparatus, they just call it different names (like "enforcing natural law").
What definition are you using for "police apparatus"?
Ban-Evader:Let's have another example. Let's say someone agrees to an employment contract for a sugar plantation. As a condition to the contract, they first have to implant a bomb that goes off if they leave the plantation. What right have you to deny them this contract?
How is this example any different from the one you presented before? You seem to have forgotten what I said previously. I wouldn't be surprised if this forgetting is deliberate.
Any police, anywhere.
The difference is that the worker can leave the contract at any time. No one will use force against him. The bomb will use force against him, but that's like saying it's illegal for microwaves to blow up when you turn them on (which would be a consumer safety regulation, and evil).
Ban-Evader:Any police, anywhere.
So you're defining "police apparatus" to be synonymous with "police". Then why not just say "police"? Furthermore, if there are multiple defense agencies operating in the same area, how exactly is there a single apparatus?
Finally, what do you even mean by the word "police"?
Ban-Evader:The difference is that the worker can leave the contract at any time. No one will use force against him. The bomb will use force against him, but that's like saying it's illegal for microwaves to blow up when you turn them on (which would be a consumer safety regulation, and evil).
I see this example as essentially the same as the other one. As I see it, both involve the employee alienating his right to life under certain conditions.
so someone does something they have no natural right to do, then what?