Whats your take on this. Noznick agrees so does Block but Rothbard says its contradictory as enforcing it will lead to violence.
Here is a left anarchist talking about ‘anarcho capitalism’ and voluntary slavery.
Here is an dillema on this idea: Lets say a man enters into a contract with a woman who agrees to cohabit with him for money so that she can clear her debt or whatever. He wants three children from her at the end of the contract and both agree to it. She doesn’t like it and runs away after delivering one child so he catches her and rapes her and has her held captive untill he gets two more children from her. Did he violate the nap? Or his actions can only be constructed as a willful enforcement of a contract and retaliatary violence and hence not a violation of NAP.
People here will definitely agree that it is in violation of the NAP, as evidenced by their objection to even gambling.
The argument is whether a contract which doesn’t involve property can be enforced. My position is that any contract, if people want to stick to it, can be laced with property.
Then again, I have not read much on contract theory, so I cannot say for sure, but hope to learn from this discussion.
Imo any contract can be considered a service, hence enforceable.
“Slavery, or hegemony, is defined as a system in which one must labor under the orders of another under the threat of violence” (MES 82).
By definition, then, slavery cannot be voluntary.
On a digression, I think it is a good, merciful idea to enslave murderers to private companies, as opposed to the less merciful idea of the death penalty.* (That’s just personal preference though; the punishment simply must be proportional to the crime, and this could be anything up to the death penalty).
*Except in cases of multiple murders, in my opinion.
Imo any contract can be considered a service, hence enforceable.
I actually think there are two different questions…
If something is a ‘violation of the NAP’, (i.e wrongful), and it causes harm, it’s grounds for claiming damages… So if someone is a voluntary “slave” for a while, and then decides one day they don’t like it anymore, can they demand damages from their “master”?
Probably not… Just like a professional boxer can’t suddenly decide that their injuries are their manager’s fault So maybe it isn’t a violation of the NAP, as such, IF it really is voluntary…
But it’s different to ask what should happen to someone when they repudiate a contract, or to assume that one can’t repudiate a contract. I don’t think you can force someone to perform specifically as they promised to in a contract. If you’ve transferred some actual property to them on the condition that they were to do something, and now they ain’t gonna do it, you can use force to get it back, as if they’d stolen it. But I don’t think you can use force to compel specific performance…
you can use force to get it back, as if they’d stolen it.
What if it is a consumed resource, and, since value is subjective, in the contract it says that if this resource is consumed, then the “slave” owes the master a specific service - working as a servant for a long time.
under the threat of violence
Alright, what is “threat.” While there are general definitions of threat, if you agree with someone that X isn’t a threat, then there is no threat of violence. If you tell the master that him beating you is in your best interest and you would indeed want it, then it’s perfectly fine for the master to beat you. Of course, the initiation of this must be voluntary.
If you cannot waive your right to not be threatened, then how can you get surgery?
No but you would never be able to observe a difference from that and 50% of all marriages in the western world! From outward appearances, most of them look the same.
"Lets say a man enters into a contract with a woman who agrees to cohabit with him for money so that she can clear her debt or whatever. He wants three children from her at the end of the contract and both agree to it. She doesn’t like it and runs away after delivering one child so he catches her and rapes her and has her held captive untill he gets two more children from her. Did he violate the nap? Or his actions can only be constructed as a willful enforcement of a contract and retaliatary violence and hence not a violation of NAP."
The act of rape and kindapping are much greater violations of rights than breaking this contract, they are disproportionate responses. The rapist becomes the aggressor. It is similar to Rothbard’s bubble gum thief example here: http://mises.org/resources.aspx?Id=ec3c86fe-d84c-4587-9b4f-0ae922383578
This is also does not address whether or not you can enter into voluntary slave contracts in the first place…
"She doesn’t like it and runs away after delivering one child so he catches her and rapes her and has her held captive untill he gets two more children from her. Did he violate the nap?"
And some people believe this isn’t violation of NAP? WHAT? Doesn’t matter what contract says, rape is always violation of NAP or else it would be voluntary sex (like prostitution, for money).
I fail to see how everyone who posted in that thread is opposed to gambling.
It depends on what you mean by “enforcement”. If you mean “threats and/or exercises of coercion that lead to the other party upholding his/their side of the contract”, then any contract can theoretically be enforced. However, that takes the notion of aggression out of the picture. What I’m concerned with is whether given enforcement of a given contract can be considered aggression, given the premise of self-ownership.
Let’s say you and I agree to a future exchange of property. Before we actually exchange anything, however, I change my mind and back out. Since I haven’t taken anything from you, I haven’t harmed* you in any way. If you come to me and literally twist my arm in the hope that I’ll again agree to the exchange, you’re now harming me. I’d say you’re also aggressing against me, since I didn’t harm you first. Hence that kind of enforcement of a contract is what I’d call “aggressive enforcement”.
So that’s an example of a contract that involves property, yet can’t be legitimately (i.e. non-aggressively) enforced IMO unless and until property has actually been transferred. I don’t consider mere promises to be enforceable in the above sense.
How much greater? Is there a chart somewhere that gives the proportions of various NAP violations, like how many broken contracts equal 1 rape? Whats the common denominator here? Or if its ordinal, how do you know rape is worse than breaking the contract?
That depends on whether the future exchange is scheduled to occur more than one hundred years away from now or less than one second after you two formalize the agreement by releasing the hand shake. Any time between those ranges is fair game.
/end sarcasm]
Your question applies to all agreements to exchange property. There will always be a time delay between the completion of the agreement and the fulfillment of the exchange.
Also, you seem to be implying that aggression = harm. That is not true. Aggession also includes the threat to do harm.
Maybe it would be worthwhile to examine the question: What makes a threat of coercion equal to an act of coercion?
… And what, pray tell, is your point here? Or are you just trying to troll me?
… And? I don’t see what you’re driving at here either.
I didn’t mean to imply that. I agree with you that aggression includes the threat to do harm.
I think we both understand that there isn’t an objective answer to that question. There are only varying subjective answers - that is, there are only varying opinions. One rather widespread and long-standing opinion is that a threat of coercion must constitute a “clear and present danger” to be considered equal to an act of coercion. Under that standard, threatening to break someone’s arm 100 years from now does not constitute a clear and present danger. But this standard is just an example.
How much greater? Is there a chart somewhere that gives the proportions of various NAP violations, like how many broken contracts equal 1 rape? Whats the common denominator here? Or if its ordinal, how do you know rape is worse than breaking the contract?
Have you read the chapter I linked? “the criminal loses his rights to the extent that he deprives another of his rights”. Fraud or theft (violating a contract) is less of a violation of rights than rape. Rape is more violent and more invasive. Are you asking me to explain why rape is worse than theft, or why murder is worse than stealing bubble gum?
Raping someone for stealing is disproportionate because rape is a violation greater than theft. The rapist has taken away the rights of the thief to a greater extent than the thief did to the rapist.
Let’s say you and I agree to a future exchange of property. Before we actually exchange anything, however, I change my mind and back out. Since I haven’t taken anything from you, I haven’t harmed* you in any way.
As the conclusion of that thread seems to decide, you can turn over titles in the future and have these be legally/ethically enforced. To me, a “promise” and a “transfer of title in the future” are equivalent and the issue boils down to semantics. I concede that I don’t mind using the technical jargon of “transfer of title.”
I disagree with most posters here. I think any contract can be enforceable. So in this case, rape and kidnap are okay since that woman agreed voluntary to the terms of the contract. I don’t care whether there was property exchange or not, a contract is a voluntary agreement, and libertarians should support such agreements.
In addition it provides a valuable tool. For example a regulatory company can sign a contract with a hospital, that if a doctor in the hospital fails to perform some procedure according to the rules, the regulatory company can force the doctor to go to jail for a few months, or let’s say cut his fingernail. Such agreements are very important, because they guarantee that people who are responsible for the lives of others will perform their job. Besides, if just money is involved, then rich can get they way. Sometimes the body has to go intro contract as well.
That depends on the contract. If that woman signed a contract that is obligated to bear children, and in case she refuses, it would be okay if she was raped, then I guess this type of contract could be enforced. Walter Blocks gives an example of murder parks, in which people can freely murder others as long as a contract was signed before the entrance to the park. The merchant from venice by Shakespeare is also about a contract which punishes one who breaks it with death. I think that such contracts should be legal, they are valuable, and they are voluntary.
I want you to know that this comes from the very bottom of my heart when I say this: you’re a misogynist asshole and you can go fuck yourself with a roadflare. This is the second time I’ve seen you try to diminish what rape is, and George Takei has something to say to you:
Rape is by definition involuntary, you fucking twat. Any notion that in can be justified in the name of freedom is probably the most fucked up thing I have ever heard someone say in any seriousness.
