So I was with Block on the issue of voluntary slavery, going with the fundamentalist principle of “if you can’t sell it, you don’t own it”, but since I’ve switched to Rothbard and his view of voluntary slavery being no more than a promise, like marriage.
This is all well and fine, but it has created a problem for me. Up until now I have considered football players who complain about wanting to switch clubs even though they still have time on their contracts as a bunch of primadonnas who should just suck it up, after all didn’t they agree to the terms?
Now I’m thinking somebody should write up an ‘Anarchist defense of the striking footballer’ in a manner of Block’s Defending for this character who is actually a freedom fighter and not a whinger at all.
It’s just a relative and customary term that exists within the scope of the division of labor… no more, no less. It is impossible to speculate much more on such thingsother than play “follow the subsidy”/ “how clear can the market signal demand”.
The NFL could easily set up performance bonds or any one of a small number of contract structures to protect themselves in the event of a contract breach…just like Rothbard outlines…
It kind of works like that already as transfer fees are technically paid by the players, albeit the money actually comes from the buying club. So if a player has a minimum release clause it’s basically the same thing as this “performance bond”. So really what creates the mess is silly English law which banns minimum release clauses claiming you can not set the price of breaking a contract in advance.
OK, so now I am at ‘striking footballer in England’ = freedom fighter, striking footballer in Spain = a pampered whinger! :S This is complex!
But enforcing voluntary slave contracts would definitely be a violation of the Non-Aggression Axiom, as well as a violation of man’s inalienable will, so I also switched over.