No one has a right to deny your making of a contract. And you don’t have the right to force that contract or any supposed terms of said contract upon anyone, nor does any court have a right to force action or transaction upon anyone to anyone. You just don’t get it… You refuse to understand the terms “voluntary” and “force.”
No one can force anything. That’s it. The person breaking the contract will at least be less likely to secure any trades with anyone in the future, especially under mildly favorable terms for him. The consumers are constantly “voting” in a free market with their business, and poor business choices (like dishonesty and inconsistency) will earn fewer votes. The initiation of force or threat of force is invalid in a free society. So no, you not any court cannot force anyone to do anything.
Really? You could’ve simply asked me what my position was, rather than trying to put words in my mouth. In other words, I don’t think your behavior showed good sportsmanship, but I’m not surprised given your history here.
In other words, you don’t actually hold that position. Thanks for supporting my accusation.
If you want to alienate your right to life for any reason, that’s up to you. I don’t consider myself to have the right to deny you to alienate that right.
From the understanding of contracts you’ve all presented, severance pay clauses should not not be legally binding. Is this correct?
Again, I challenge you to show where I have presented such an understanding of contracts.
I can’t point to any one instance. So do you agree that employers should be legally required to provide any severance packages that they specified under contract? If so, how is this different from my contract?
They should. But if they don’t, who will force them to?
If they don’t, new employees will be less likely to work for them, let alone believe that a severance pay clause is actually worth the paper it’s printed on.
You keep alluding to the notion of “legally binding” as you just said. The meaning you seem to imply requires a central authority to enforce, but an ancap society would lack this. Now, a minarchist society might, however, the offender might be able to escape the society and then what? The society would have no right to go into a neighboring ancap society and abduct him. So if you’re asking for a minarchist society, you could probably have this court that all must answer to (so long as they all voluntarily agree to it and it’s terms). I’m just curious as to what this society will do one one wishes to opt out? It cannot be a liberty-minded society if it attempts to disallow such a thing as secession or peaceful exit. But this won’t exist in an ancap society.
But some justice system is going to exist to enforce the law. The private courts are responsible for enforcing compensation for crimes and so forth.
In other words, you implicitly concede that not all the understandings of contracts presented necessarily consider severance clauses to not be legally binding. So why did you assert otherwise? I really suggest that you stop being so sloppy with your arguments.
Let’s try to unpack this. Do you agree that contracts are about assigning/transferring rights?
I’ll take that as a “no.”
Yes. When someone doesn’t pay their legal agency, the legal agency has the right to come after them to collect payment.
I strongly suggest you not jump to such a conclusion.
Well that depends on the terms of the contract, doesn’t it? And what do you mean by “legal agency”? That seems to be a new term you’ve introduced just now.
You know, the legal agencies (LA) discussed in ancap theory.
So I guess the LAs can indeed come after people and use force to collect contracted payments.
No, I don’t know. Why don’t you explain to me what you mean. That’s why I asked, after all.
Are you really arguing with me? Or are you really just arguing with yourself? You keep trying to jump to predetermined conclusions. The more you do that, the less honest you appear.
If you want to learn about it, here’s a discussion of private defense agencies, more or less aka legal agencies.
My point is that I haven’t seen the term “legal agency” used in this context before, so I think it was reasonable of me to ask what you meant by it. I also don’t think that “legal agency” carries the same connotation as “private defense agency”. So what’s your point with using the different terminology? I’ll go out on a limb and say that your whole point here is to (try to) manipulate anarcho-capitalists into unwittingly embrace statism.
They already have endorsed a police apparatus, they just call it different names (like “enforcing natural law”).
Let’s have another example. Let’s say someone agrees to an employment contract for a sugar plantation. As a condition to the contract, they first have to implant a bomb that goes off if they leave the plantation. What right have you to deny them this contract?
What definition are you using for “police apparatus”?
How is this example any different from the one you presented before? You seem to have forgotten what I said previously. I wouldn’t be surprised if this forgetting is deliberate.
Any police, anywhere.
The difference is that the worker can leave the contract at any time. No one will use force against him. The bomb will use force against him, but that’s like saying it’s illegal for microwaves to blow up when you turn them on (which would be a consumer safety regulation, and evil).
So you’re defining “police apparatus” to be synonymous with “police”. Then why not just say “police”? Furthermore, if there are multiple defense agencies operating in the same area, how exactly is there a single apparatus?
Finally, what do you even mean by the word “police”?
I see this example as essentially the same as the other one. As I see it, both involve the employee alienating his right to life under certain conditions.
so someone does something they have no natural right to do, then what?