AndrewKemendo:At the point in which someone completes suicide their autonomy is moot - the case is similar for slavery because it may for all intents and purposes be suicide.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
justinx0r:The voluntary exchanging of promises between the two parties makes it an obligation.
Violating a contract based on a promise would simply merit lying, not an act of aggression.
justinx0r:Just like when you take out a loan to buy a car - you are obligated to pay it back even if you don't want the car anymore.
You've introduced new information into this scenario which doesn't translate to youf first claim. First you had exchange of promise, now you have exchange of property, two completely different concepts.
one can change ones mind if one remains alive, but one may have given someone a contractual right to act upon one with violence if one deviates from following a set of contracually agreed upon behaviours...if this responsive act is deathbringing and this was prior consented to, then the above analogy is made
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
how about, if you promise to chauffer someone in your car, or pay a 100£ penalty to finish the contract, in exchange for the other party taking you dog for a walk or paying a 100£ penalty to finish the contract. what should happen here, if the first party doesnt drive when he should, or the second party doesnt walk when he should?
Juan: AndrewKemendo:At the point in which someone completes suicide their autonomy is moot - the case is similar for slavery because it may for all intents and purposes be suicide. Except it's not, so for all intents and purposes you just provided a wrong analogy. Last time I checked you couldn't change your mind after committing suicide.
Indeed you cannot in either case - thus any discussion about your autonomy is a useless. Your signing away your liberty removes from you the ability to choose otherwise as was the case with the suicide.
AndrewKemendo:Your signing away your liberty removes from you the ability to choose otherwise as was the case with the suicide.
No at all. Signing a slave contract does not remove your abillity to will. The only thing you could say is it removes your ability to have legal recourse.
If the first party drove the other, and the other party failed to walk the first party's dog, or vise-versa, the party that didn't proform their service would have aggressed against the other party by recieving a service and not paying for it. It would effectively merit theft.
If neither party proformed their service, and one party decided to terminate the contract the other party would have no enforcable claim to 100£ since an exchange never took place.
but if only one wanted to break the contract, then that one would have to pay the 100 to the other?
nirgrahamUK:but if only one wanted to break the contract, then that one would have to pay the 100 to the other?
If an exchange already took place, yes.
If not, no.
AndrewKemendo:Your signing away your liberty
Juan: AndrewKemendo:Your signing away your liberty Stupid nonsense. You can't sign away your liberty -- it is 'inalienable'. I'm getting rather fed up with 'libertarian' legal positivism.
not helpful, liberty is an anti-concept. its simply a description of a lack of political coercion. you dont have liberty positive, you have a right not to be coerced. but if you give a permanent consent for someone to do any phsyical act to your body then where would coercion next enter into your story?
(i think it would be super foolish to permit someone to forever do whatever they would to your body, but its possible)
its not so much that you are 'signing away your liberty' - 'signing away your right to be coerced' - you are rather signing an agreement that interprets another persons actions towards you as never being illegitimate so you would never be coerced, since you explicity consented to all that would follow
I thought contracts helped solidify these meandering states of man's mind so that man can find agreement or truth and understanding. Everyone keeps talking about the right to change their mind. Aren't contracts drawn up for this very reason, to help counteract the mercurial nature of man?
If you want someone freed from a contract, shouldn't you be required to purchase the contract (assuming the other party doesn't agree to nullifying it)?
Also, if someone agrees to a contract but then wants out of it and they do this constantly, how many times should a libertarian society see to it that they are allowed to do so? It's one thing to say, "this ought to be and this ought not to be", but words are empty unless there's force to back them up.
How many times can someone want out of a contract before you say enough is enough?
"The best way to bail out the economy is with liberty, not with federal reserve notes." - pairunoyd
"The vision of the Austrian must be greater than the blindness of the sheeple." - pairunoyd
NUK:but if you give a permanent consent for someone to do any phsyical act to your body then where would coercion next enter into your story?
you are rather signing an agreement that interprets another persons actions towards you as never being illegitimate
Is it possible to voluntarily give up your life with suicide? Yes.
Why then is it impossible to give up your liberty - as life is arguably less alienable than liberty.
That is anything but nonsense.
AndrewKemendo:Is it possible to voluntarily give up your life with suicide? Yes.
AndrewKemendo:That is anything but nonsense.
AndrewKemendo: Is it possible to voluntarily give up your life with suicide? Yes. Why then is it impossible to give up your liberty - as life is arguably less alienable than liberty. That is anything but nonsense.
Because you literally can't contract away your will. You can't transfer away your right to make your own decisions and actions, as it isn't something that you control. It is an inherent part of being a human being. Part of this also stems from the fact that you can't compel specific performance in a personal contract; all you can due is reclaim your rightful property, if any was exchanged. What you could do is pay someone $X in exchange for a lifetime of servitude and then reclaim the $X (plus damages, perhaps) if and when the contract is broken; you cannot, however compel someone to work for you, whatever a purported contract says.
IMO, voluntary slavery is one of the problems that flows from the deeper problem of taking non-aggression as an "axiom", instead of thinking of the NAP as a principle that relies on deeper ethical concerns.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Juan: AndrewKemendo:That is anything but nonsense. It is philosophical nonsense and is of course practical nonsense as well. In a nutshell, some 'libertarians' are worried because in a free society slavery might not be properly enforced...
Practically I agree it is absurd right now. However philosophically it holds as reasonable as there may be in the future a way in which to practically sell yourself (I am thinking of a "being john malkovich" type of situation - before you call THAT absurd check out the advances in transhumanism and the overcoming bias blogs).
In this case, in the future, anarchists would still hold that liberty is inalienable which I would argue it is not and would be a choice that a person should be free to make.
Juan: I already explained that you can't transfer your right to life. It is not alienable. Did you fail to read my post ? Or did you fail to grasp it ?
I already explained that you can't transfer your right to life. It is not alienable. Did you fail to read my post ? Or did you fail to grasp it ?
People do this all the time. I can grant you the right to my life and, as such, you may do with my life as you see fit and still have the right of contract. This can be done by doctors who are contracted to kill their patient, etc.
AndrewKemendo: In this case, in the future, anarchists would still hold that liberty is inalienable which I would argue it is not and would be a choice that a person should be free to make.
This depends on how you define liberty, as a state of being or is it the will.
Secondly, a contract need only be enforced - not be realistic. If I contract away my life to an individual, then I have revoked the ability of legal recourse in tresspass of my life.
JackSkyLark:People do this all the time. I can grant you the right to my life and, as such, you may do with my life as you see fit and still have the right of contract. This can be done by doctors who are contracted to kill their patient, etc.
Juan: Please read what I wrote before replying.
Please read what I wrote before replying.
I did (I read back four pages), and I believe you are wrong and that I did not misrepresent you. I think you have a poor definition of liberty, a seeming disregard for contracts, and that you mistakenly assert that "inalianation" voids contracts.
Juan:I'm late to the party, but, isn't "self-ownership" a metaphor of sorts, not to be taken literally ? Self-ownership is another way to say that such a thing as natural rights exists ?
This is where we differ, I would argue that natural rights exist becasue of self ownership, and that "natural rights" is only a metaphor and not to be taken literally. Since the employment of those "rights" come from self ownership.
JackSkylark:...and that you mistakenly assert that "inalianation" voids contracts.
JackSkylark:This is where we differ, I would argue that natural rights exist becasue of self ownership, and that "natural rights" is only a metaphor and not to be taken literally. Since the employment of those "rights" come from self ownership.
He can't give up his self-ownership in the deterministic sense, but what is being proposed is the voluntary erection of penalties in the form of exit clauses regarding long term all consuming labor contracts.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
1. A sane person certainly wouldn't, unless he was in such desperate measures where the contract would actually be beneficial, for example if it insured the welfare of a loved one that otherwise would be in jeapordy. It is not mine nor your place to ascertain the likelyhood of such contracts, only to clarify its ethical (not necessarily moral) justification.
2. We are not bent on justifying slavery, only on having a systematic, non-arbitrary ethical/judicial framework so people like you can't moralize someones rights away.
3. On the contrary, it is you who seems to hold a conservative moralist view. I am not advocating such comprehensive contracts (Slave Contract, as I mentioned previously, is a misnomer), but I am arguing their legitimacy.
It is not mine nor your place to ascertain the likelyhood of such contracts,
it is you who seems to hold a conservative moralist view.
zefreak: He can't give up his self-ownership in the deterministic sense, but what is being proposed is the voluntary erection of penalties in the form of exit clauses regarding long term all consuming labor contracts.
And those exit clauses can only specify damage, not specific performance, in which case it isn't a slavery contract, its just a really bad wage labor job.
Why are people who pretend to be libertarian so bent on having and/or justifying a legal system that enforces slavery ?
zefreak: 2. We are not bent on justifying slavery, only on having a systematic, non-arbitrary ethical/judicial framework so people like you can't moralize someones rights away.
And that's the rub. This issue is so ethically charged that the point of the right libertarians gets obfuscated around the issue.
None advocate slavery or any other overtly exploitative entity. However, for anyone else to make the claim that another person cannot do what they wish - even to their ultimate detriment and demise - is anathema to the liberty inclined mind.
This issue is tricky because many advocate that liberty is a state of being rather than a physical will. Some argue the basest idea of liberty as being a physical dimension, which cannot currently be alienated - which I agree with at this point in technology. While others argue that liberty, no matter what your physical will is simply a state of mind or rather a state of being as the slave master in essence controls the slaves movement.
Rothbard argues in MES that a "voluntary" slave contract is something different than slavery entirely because it is made voluntarily - so it ceases to be slavery in any sense. It is hard to mentally grasp the concept of voluntarily creating a situation in which one is not better off even in some minute way - which would be a neccessary condition of a voluntary slave contract. Yet we need to take this mental leap in order to put our idea of liberty to the test. Then the question becomes not wheter it is practical or possible for someone to alienate their body but if it was possible would they have the freedom to do it.
So if one answers no, then it must be asked - well who then would enforce the rule? Is that person not then being coercive to the individual? However if the answer is yes then at the point that the decision is made the liberty is voluntarily lost - and no second party will have coerced the individual.
This is a topic in hot debate over in the transhuman world because if it is the case that we can create synthetic and immortal replicas of our brains and thus conciousness, do we have the right to exterminate our former mortal brain and conciousness at the point in which both are operating. (obviously a different and longer debate - but I am just showing that it is an actual real physical discussion)
Juan:Newsflash for you zefreak, libertarianism is a moral system. So, if you don't like moralizing maybe you can join the state and their legal positivism, which magically solves any moral problem...such as slavery in a 'free' society. [snip] So, can you tell me why slavery in a free society is so important ?
Please drop the term slavery, as it isn't relevant to the discussion. As has been pointed out many times, slavery is by definition involuntary. I am not discussing slavery. You are simply erecting a strawman at this point.
You are correct insofar as liberty is an ethical construct. Your views on arguing for the elimination of contracts you deem "too strict" or "too encompassing" are not consistent with libertarian ethics. Unless you can formulate a non-arbitrary way to determine the limits of breach of contract stipulants which is derived from the NAP and not your subjective judgement regarding the likelyhood, necessity, or benefit of said contracts, then you are "merely moralizing" in the coloquial sense.
zefreak:You are correct insofar as liberty is an ethical construct.
Your views on arguing for the elimination of contracts you deem "too strict" or "too encompassing" are not consistent with libertarian ethics.
zefreak:As has been pointed out many times, slavery is by definition involuntary.
I've read Rothbard and agree with much of what he says, but as Hazlitt says in Foundations of Morality, "A dwarf who stands on a giant's shoulders sees farther"
Disregarding your appeal to authority, all contracts limit freedom in the sense you use the term. If the terms of the contract are not binding, how will a libertarian society (or any society) function? If they are binding, just not when you feel they shouldn't be, how can you express that in a non-arbitrary, systemic fashion?
Let's use Rothbards example (from memory, so I might get aspects wrong). A celebrity or speaker signs a contract to show at a given date or time to perform. If he/she breaks the agreement, what happens? It is not left up to the judge or jury how much should be payed in damages, as it is currently. It relies solely on the breach of contract stipulants. If it was agreed upon to forfeit payment plus assess a payment of $1,000, that is a binding agreement. Do you agree? Or is that destroying the freedom of the celebrity/speaker? When is it binding and when is it not?
Now please explain where the limit on breach of contract stipulants exists in a libertarian judicial system and why.
Fair enough, title transfer theory seems to answer a lot of the issues I was raising about when a contract is enforceable or not. It has been a while since I have read TEOL. One question though, in the case of promise or expectation theory, where for example a grandfather promises to pay for his grandsons college, can there be included breach of contract terms? In the example Rothbard states, it is simply a promise, and not a tranfer of title. What if the agreed upon contract states that failure of the grandfather to pay results in damages or a "gift" transfer of $1,000? Would that be enforceable?
AndrewKemendo:Rothbard argues in MES that a "voluntary" slave contract is something different than slavery entirely because it is made voluntarily - so it ceases to be slavery in any sense.
AndrewKemendo:Rothbard argues in MES that a "voluntary" slave contract is something different than slavery entirely because it is made voluntarily - so it ceases to be slavery in any sense. It is hard to mentally grasp the concept of voluntarily creating a situation in which one is not better off even in some minute way - which would be a neccessary condition of a voluntary slave contract. Yet we need to take this mental leap in order to put our idea of liberty to the test.
Rothbard argues that once the "slave" decides to no longer be a slave there is no legal premise from which the "slave owner" can force the "slave" to continue serving.
Then the question becomes not wheter it is practical or possible for someone to alienate their body but if it was possible would they have the freedom to do it.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but you're saying that if it's possible to seperate an individual from their body, that individual can no longer legally claim ownership of their body in the future.
This is only true to the extent that they can no longer claim anything since they no longer inhabit their body. You're talking about a situation in which an individual is no longer really the same individual. Since such a concept is not actually being practiced and you haven't proposed a way that this could actually happen (someone not inhabbiting their body but still existing in a natural state), it's silly to even discuss it.