My problem with voluntarism, self-ownership and 'freedom to contract'

Economics Political Theory
81

They are both basically the same thing, a person willing a certain state of affairs to obtain. There is a social aspect of any contract, but within it is the same individual act of willing given into illocutionary force by forming agreement. Dad makes a promise to submit to any punishment from a certain person in return for the $1 mill. to save his son. This brings about a dual set of claim and obligation on both parties. When the $1 mill. is handed over, the wicked millionaire has fulfilled his obligation and Dad’s claim disappears.

They aren’t even comparable, suicide isn’t a contract with a second party, and is physically impossible to opt-out of regardless of legal environment.

So, the objection that (an attempt to enslave) is impossible is obviously wrong. The argument that I don’t have a “right” to act with permanent determinance over my own legitimate property is obviously wrong.

I haven’t made objection one, objection two is just question-begging.

I don’t see what is left. I could hold an obligation that you will deliver milk to my doorstep next week, or each week for a year. What is the difference between such agreements and one to deliver milk “in perpetuity”? The difference is that a certain willing individual (versus a corporate entity) has no “ability to act on claims” beyond an individual actor’s death.

I’ve explained this numerous times now.

82

What if it did end – in 5 hours, 5 years, or 45 years? What if it did allow the slave the one and only freedom to enter into a new mutually acceptable (voluntary) contract with his owner? What if it did have a default (opt-out) clause such as “Slave shall become free from all obligations under this contract upon paying $10 billion to his owner.”? How about $10k, or $10 million? What if the slave was assigned a guardian with powers to negotiate for him a new contract with his owner? Would any of these alternatives make the contract legitimate in the eyes of the God of All Contracts?

If you require an opt-out clause for legitimacy (Btw, again, who are you to require anything from two parties that do not concern you one bit?), I assume you are also the decider on what opt-out clauses are acceptable, decent, not-outrageous, affordable, etc? What if I can only opt out of a contract by giving my kidney to the other party? Legitimate, or not? Your argument is shrinking way beyond absurd.

So what? What if he was allowed under the contract to make a new contract upon a payment of $10billion? Legitimate?

Indeed we can. A splendid application of reductio ad absurdum for demolishing your own position.

Yes, of course. Are you proposing that an omniscient and benevolent guard with a stick should watch over the free market and allow/disallow contracts according to his criteria for “honesty” and/or “stupidity”? Do you even want to go down this slippery avenue?

Yes, they are – especially to parties who wouldn’t even care to hear them. So follow your own advice and stop imposing them on others. In the meantime, I’ll be finishing my Super Healthy Deep Fried Tripple Fudge With Butter Ice-cream which I voluntarily exchanged for my own money before you step in and illegitimize it due to suspected fraud.

83

What if it did end – in 5 hours, 5 years, or 45 years? What if it did allow the slave the one and only freedom to enter into a new mutually acceptable (voluntary) contract with his owner? What if it did have a default (opt-out) clause such as “Slave shall become free from all obligations under this contract upon paying $10 billion to his owner.”? How about $10k, or $10 million? What if the slave was assigned a guardian with powers to negotiate for him a new contract with his owner? Would any of these alternatives make the contract legitimate in the eyes of the God of All Contracts?

Some would, others may not..

If you require an opt-out clause for legitimacy (Btw, again, who are you to require anything from two parties that do not concern you one bit?),

It obviously concerns me if I’m the one arbitrating ther dispute:

Further, I’m not protesting one “selling” themselves, if the two parties want to play make-believe thats all well and proper, its when party A leaves that party C shall step in.

Are you okay with arbitration at all?

I assume you are also the decider on what opt-out clauses are acceptable, decent, not-outrageous, affordable, etc? What if I can only opt out of a contract by giving my kidney to the other party? Legitimate, or not?

I don’t see anything wrong with selling/trading organs. You are now simply touching on what Olovetto and I have already discussed, it applies to all criminals alike.

So what? What if he was allowed under the contract to make a new contract upon a payment of $10billion? Legitimate?

Sounds like damages to me.

Indeed we can. A splendid application of reductio ad absurdum for demolishing your own position.

As well as your own requirements. Your point is that you don’t actually have one? If rules cannot be established for valid contracts you have no case defending the validity of contracts.

Yes, of course. Are you proposing that an omniscient and benevolent guard with a stick should watch over the free market and allow/disallow contracts according to his criteria for “honesty” and/or “stupidity”? Do you even want to go down this slippery avenue with me?

How many times need this be repeated? Make all the stupid, invalid contracts you want. I’m not proposing that anyone watch over the market, however disputes will arise, somebody has to make a decision, you have an opinion until you can verify objective ethics and self-ownership, were on the same basic ground, with that… in case your interested, I know somebody with land on Jupiter who will sell it to you dirt cheap. (See, I’m not against making money off of “stupid” people)

Yes, they are – especially to parties who wouldn’t even care to hear them. So follow your own advice and stop imposing them on others. In the meantime, I’ll be finishing my Super Healthy Deep Fried Tripple Fudge With Butter Ice-cream which Ivoluntarily exchanged for my own money before you step in and illegitimize it due to suspected fraud.

What are you talking about? I’m not imposing, If you enjoy living in a fantasy world, please continue. Once you wake-up and realise you’ve been a victim of fraud come on down to AAA (Angurse’s Arbitration Agency). Otherwise, enjoy your delusion.

84

I rest my case.

85

I rest my case.

Your case being that, I think the contracts can be invalid due to the terms and conditions stated therein?

Yes, I confess…

86

Isn’t the whole purpose of entering into a contract verus your typical handshake is so both parties can force the other party to follow through?

How can an unenforcable contract or term be arbitrated valid?

87

Isn’t the whole purpose of entering into a contract verus your typical handshake is so both parties can force the other party to follow through?

The purpose of a contract is to clearly establish the terms of an agreement.

How can an unenforcable contract or term be arbitrated valid?

I don’t know, others seem to disagree though.

88

Angurse, I honestly want to understand/learn about your position. Assume two parties voluntarily sign (commit to) an agreement binding them to some obligations to each other. According to you (the hypothetical arbitrator) what criteria must this agreement satisfy for you to recognize it as a “valid contract”?

You hinted at: (1)must be non-perpetual, (2)must have an opt-out clause, (3)must be enforceable (pls explain meaning), etc. but each of these “requirements” were shown to be arbitrary at best, and meaningless at worst.

It can’t be as “simple” as: I’ll know it when I see it.

My position is that no such requirements exist, and that every voluntary contract between two sentient parties is a valid one.

89

You hinted at: (1)must be non-perpetual, (2)must have an opt-out clause, (3)must be enforceable (pls explain meaning), etc.

Actually, I’d say perpetual contracts that that have an opt-out clause can be valid, thats why I included (1) and (2) with an “and” not an “or.” (Perhaps it was unnecessary) As for 3, enforceable could mean two things: if can and should. Contracts that express things that cannot exist, like a square triangle, are obviously unenforceable, and contracts that that express things that the parties had no liberty to, like selling property you don’t own, while technically enforceable should not be.

but each of these “requirements” were shown to be arbitrary at best, and meaningless at worst.

This has been addressed, these requirement are no more arbitrary than all others expressed.

My position is that no such requirements exist, and that every voluntary contract between two sentient parties is a valid one.

This means any contract involving a 3rd party is valid, such as an assassination contract. Would you rule that because party A (a “sentient” party) signed the contract with party B (also “sentient”) he is obligated to kill Party C?

90

Answer 1: Yes. Party A may propose (or already have) a contract with Party C which allows “A” to kill “C” in exchange for some compensation to C’s family or charity of his choice. Or A could just kill C and suffer the consequences. A would be well advised to think hard about these before voluntarily committing to such a contract with B.

Answer 2: No. All parties involved in a contract must be doing so voluntarily. Party C is involved involuntarily.

If Party A signs a contract with Party B to deliver Mona Lisa to him next Monday in exchange for $200mil, “A” may or may not already have it, may or may not already have a contract (agreement) with its current owner about getting it, may or may not plan to steal it from him. I guess it would be advisable that “B” insisted on a contract clause stating that “A” may not break any laws while procuring the painting (or while assassinating “C”), as that may affect A’s ownership title (or liability for murder) later on. But I don’t see why their contract would not be valid either way.

My position is that with freedom comes responsibility. You should be free to voluntarily commit to anything. Your awareness that your actions (commitments) have consequences is inextricable from your claim to freedom.

Z.

91

Answer 1: Or A could just kill C and suffer the consequences. A would be well advised to think hard about these before voluntarily committing to such a contract with B.

But we aren’t speaking about before, what about after the contract has been agreed to? A and B are in your court, A says “I don’t want to kill anyone”, you rule "too bad’?

Answer 2: No. All parties involved in a contract must be doing so voluntarily. Party C is involved involuntarily.

So wills, trusts, and insurance policies aren’t valid.

If Party A signs a contract with Party B to deliver Mona Lisa to him next Monday in exchange for $200mil, “A” may or may not already have it, may or may not already have a contract (agreement) with its current owner about getting it, may or may not plan to steal it from him. I guess it would be advisable that “B” insisted on a contract clause stating that “A” may not break any laws while procuring the painting (or while assassinating “C”), as that may affect A’s ownership title (or liability for murder) later on. But I don’t see why their contract would not be valid either way.

Again, Party B hasn’t delivered, Party A takes him to your court. B’s defense “the Louvre won’t sell” You’re verdict is…? Is party B obligated to deliver the painting forever or can a contract be breached?

My position is that with freedom comes responsibility. You should be free to voluntarily commit to anything. Your awareness that your actions (commitments) have consequences is inextricable from your claim to freedom.

I’m not disagreeing with that vague statement, however you should be free to break commitments as well, and as with all laws, there will be consequences.

92

Yes. Then I would try to ascertain damages (if any) to B due to A’s failure to fulfill his side of the bargain, as I would with a breach of any other contract.

In my court, contracts would be defined as voluntary commitments to obligations. Beneficiaries of wills, trusts, and insurance policies are not obligated to anything. Upon the death of the insured, the insurance company is fulfilling its obligation by offering the payment to the beneficiary, who usually voluntarily accepts it, but is by no means obligated to do so against their will. Same for trusts and wills. They proscribe the option for the beneficiary to receive a benefit, not an obligation.

In my court, excuses would have little (to no) currency. If Mona Lisa was not delivered that Monday as promised, the contract is breached and I would try to ascertain damages to A for B’s failure to deliver.

Agreed.

93

Yes. Then I would try to ascertain damages (if any) to B due to A’s failure to fulfill his side of the bargain, as I would with a breach of any other contract

So we are in the exact same position.

In my court, contracts would be defined as voluntary commitments to obligations. Beneficiaries of wills, trusts, and insurance policies are not obligated to anything. Upon the death of the insured, the insurance company is fulfilling its obligation byoffering the payment to the beneficiary, who usually voluntarily accepts it, but is by no means obligated to do so against their will. Same for trusts and wills. They proscribe the option for the beneficiary to receive a benefit, not an obligation.

I didn’t ask if the agency was obligated to force it on the third party, just whether a contract involving a third party would still be valid. To which you seem to agree, it just depends on the terms.

In my court, excuses would have little (to no) currency. If Mona Lisa was not delivered that Monday as promised, the contract is breached and I would try to ascertain damages to A for B’s failure to deliver.

Our courts are looking eerily similar.

94

You can “sell” it, but you can also reclaim it at any time (that is, a person may end a contract without fulfilling it). Doing so may violate contract practice and prove one to be unreliable, but it would not be an act of theft unless payment had already been recieved for the contracted action, and even then one may return that payment and not commit theft in prematurely ending a contract.

95

Say a person is being rained on, surely it is unfortunate for them, but the fact that nature put them into a position where they are willing to pay more for an umbrella is of no concern to me. I might offer them my umbrella if I am generous, or I might charge them for use of it. Either way, the person feels they are gaining value through the transaction. Which means they are better off than they otherwise would be. If the person cannot properly reason, then it may constitute fraud.

96

“the person feels they are gaining value through the transaction.”

Just nitpicking here, but it would be more correct to say that they are losing less value than that they are gaining value. But the loss of value comes from the natural happenstance of rain, not from the umbrella vendor/lender.

97

MacFall, the rain has negative utility. If a person can remove the negative utility by getting an umbrella, they are “gaining value”.

98

Point conceded.

99

I didn’t make fun of your screen name, how is addressing you “making fun”?

100

His screen name is MacFall, not MacFail. :stuck_out_tongue: