He is arguing for something similar to castle law. In other words, your property is your kingdom, and your laws are the law.
If someone chose to have that system, I fully support them. I doubt he will have a lot of theft. But there will be further repercussions. People who disagree with his law might refuse to purchase goods from his store? I can think of a dozen scenarios of the top of my head which will persuade people from choosing ‘harsh’ or confusing laws (kinda like the kind we have now?).
Property rights, properly concieved, does not grant owners a “right to murder” by simply appealing to the fact that someone is on the property and nothing more, and it is misleading or confused to conflate genuine acts of self-defense with the maximalist position that Rothbard described. It is further a false dillema to imply that our only choices are to either embrace the maximalist position or be absolute pacifists. The shopkeeper who shoots the child is a murderer by common sense justice.
Why can’t someone voluntarily enter into servitude? The contract should be upheld if the law that said contractee subscribes to (his DRO) allows for it. Hopefully the contractee will have had the sense to put in an escape clause. If allowed by his DRO, it is a completely legally binding document and should be able to be enforced. It all depends on the DRO that the individual is subscribed to.
What is common sense justice? It sounds like the collectives feelings to me. That is definitely not something I want to be subject to.
Of course not. It gives them the right to defend their property in accordance with their laws. Nothing more, nothing less. Who are you to say otherwise? I for one would feel much safer knowing that the written law of which I have agreed to, is the law- and that some collective can’t change it on their whim.
Well, DROs are not really governments/laws to which people are subjected. At any rate, the contractee can both opt out of the ‘slave’ contract whenever he wishes and he can terminate the contract with the DRO whenever he wishes too. He can stop being ‘subjected’ to DRO law at any time…which renders your circular argument moot.
Owning a plot of land doesn’t mean you get to re-write natural law. You might have a legitimate title to the land but you don’t have any title to the people who stand on your land.
People can do anything voluntary which they agree to. But a slave contract cannot be binding to the extent that it is merely a promise. In fact, it cannot even be binding to the extent that it transfers title of one’s person, because the will is part of the person, and the will is “unalienable”. Thus, the person is unalienable.
If the contract transfers title to anything else, then the would-be slave will be in debt that much should he bail on the contract. But he can always opt out of a basic slave contract, i.e. “I will be your slave for life. Signed, Tricksy”
There will be no universally applicable law that does not require violence- except for voluntary contractual law. This is the reason scenarios like these need to be left up to each individual and the DRO of their choosing.
It all depends on what their DRO, and the contract they signed stipulates.
Anyone -can- do anything he or she would like. Repercussions are what I am concerned with. Who would recontract with said individual?
I -can- run my credit cards to their limits, then refuse to pay them. Who will lend me money after? If my contract with those credit cards stipulated that they could take any collateral which I put forth, my refusal to accept the contract does not change the repercussion that I will lose that collateral.
They are very similar. The only difference being in that they are not necessarily land based, and they are entirely contractual in nature.
Natural law is an involuntary set of arbitrary bs enforced by someone who blatantly disobeys it. Why not re-write it? The only ‘natural law’ of which I subscribe is that a voluntary contract be upheld over an involuntary one.
Anyone who violates property (ie, nature in which labor has been applied) can, and should be subject to the owner of said properties law. If you don’t like the law of the land, you don’t need to go there.
From what do you derive the right to own land, if you reject natural law? What constitutes a violation of property if not an invasion of a right which itself is derived from natural law?
How can natural law possibly be arbitrary? What a joke.
Anybody. The idea behind DROs is that they are competitive providers. Competition means that customers can switch providers whenver they want.
Invalid analogy.
In your mind. At any rate, your invoking DROs and ‘private’ law is rather irrelevant.
Here’s the thing : Forde is a customer of Trigger-Happy inc. and the alleged thief is a customer of LibertarianLaw inc. It turns out that LibertarianLaw inc. does not recognize such a thing as summary executions. So what’s next ?
If one has VOLUNTARILY entered into conscription, you are arguing that this transaction is against their will?
Let me try to understand what you are saying.. Since ones will is inextricably linked to their body, they can not trade their body. Since trading their body would necessitate a transfer of their will, which physically must stay with the body. Good so far?
What about granting someone power of attorney? Is that not granting another person power to make decisions for you?
The theory is a great response against involuntary slavery, but makes absolutely no sense against voluntary servitude. If I’ve misconstrued it, please correct me.
I don’t understand how you made that into sarcasm. If everyone were able to voluntarily choose their law, there would be a lot less violence, and a lot more peace. Can you not resort to childish sarcasm, and actually refute why you believe it is false?
If Trigger-Happy inc. granted authority for ‘summary executions’, and the thief was in violation of Forde’s property, then LibertarianLaw inc. would have little to no ground to stand on in a case. If Trigger-Happy inc. did NOT allow for it, then LibertarianLaw inc. could bring about a dispute.
Wrong. It is precisely a positive choice, an act of the will.
Wrong again. They can trade the labor of their body presently, but cannot guarantee it in the future for the will can change. They can even enter into a voluntary slave contract and continue to abide its terms; but they cannot guarantee that they won’t change their mind some day. A slave contract (one which transfers title of the person himself) is the only title transfer which cannot be binding.