-
[quote user="ravochol"]My contention is that word sounds and pieces of paper in no way change people's fundamental rights; that the person who waives rights in contract is committing fraud, and the person who enforces an unjust contract is committing aggression. [/quote] Nonsense. Do you consider yourself a socialist (of some form)? Your
-
[quote user="Angurse"]Because you are selling your services, not simply your body, which cannot be transferred like a car or an apple.[/quote] Again this is all covered in Block's essay... "Ownership" = "legitimate control" Let us begin with self-ownership (in so doing, we will ignore the issues of whether contract
-
I'll get to it eventually. Don't worry, I haven't forgotten and will pull up some points you made in older threads. Did you read my last link? To get a taste of what I am working on, see Reinach's The Apriori Foundations of the Civil Law . If, you want to understand Reinach's philosophy James DuBois' Judgment and Sachverhalt
-
Why would an opt-out clause be required for selling one's body (permanently), but not an apple or a car? In each case a decision is made by the individual to transfer title to something which He has untrammeled ownership of. I could just as well regret my decision to sell my tasty apple or favorite car and have to resort to criminal action to "get
-
Slavery is defined as involuntary servitude to a person or persons. If it is voluntary then it is not slavery. Actually, the applicable definition here is "right to punish in any way". Yeah, I'm going to disagree with Block on this one. Not all contracts are valid, any contract lacking the option to opt out isn't valid and shouldn't
-
And a contract that forces you into slavery is not a valid contract. Incorrect. Read my link.
-
Libel is an obvious non-crime. I would agree that SN makes boycott more feasible. Ostracism or exile are another matter. While it might work in favor of that somewhat, modern communication and transportation work much more strongly in the other direction.
-
If one can't sell themself or kill themself, they don't truly own themself. Moans about chattel slavery are not valid arguments to limiting the actions of individuals. detailed explanation here
-
Dondoolee, I think what I actually want to know is how I - or some other word - is used besides just as a "descriptive term". The arguably more important point is the importance of methodological individualism versus the perils of collectivism, false organismic analogies, and the way we use language (see). These evils play a part in statist
-
Also I have one more question (this is kind of a side note), when we consider hayekian knowledge, shouldn't we conclude that a labor managed firm (through worker democracy) should be superior to a capital managed firm, as it is more decentralized? Why do you think this doesn't happen? Division of labor. Some people have more skill at adapting