View Full Version : "Sanction" contacts?
AutoDas
04-21-2008, 02:03 PM
Contracts are necessary for businesses so what happens if an employer makes a clause that if you are late for work then you must have an RFID chip installed. So should contracts be valued above laws?
nickcoons
04-21-2008, 05:28 PM
Contracts are necessary for businesses so what happens if an employer makes a clause that if you are late for work then you must have an RFID chip installed.
Then that employer might have a great deal of difficulty finding employees, and be forced to amend their contracts in order to stay competitive in business.
So should contracts be valued above laws?
Can you give an example of what you mean? In what way would a contract conflict with a law (a real free-society law, not one of the crazy laws we have on the books today)?
DriftWood
04-22-2008, 05:26 AM
should contracts be valued above laws?
Its an interesting topic. I'll make a more extreme example. Whats happens in professional fights (UFC, boxing) seems to me to be a conflict between (informal?) contract and law. What if one person dies? Killing or beating another person is illegal by law, but because both people know the rules and have signed a contract then that overrules law (in some countries). What about gladiator fights (fight to death), should those be legal as long as both parties have signed a contract by "free will"? From a libertarian perspective its seems that they should.
And what aboutr selling youself as a slave to an employer (selling away all your rights and protection under law). If both of parties signed the contract shouldnt that be respected? Your employer would be able to keep you in chains to stop you from running away. If you managed to run away that would be breaking the contract and you would be a fugutive. Should this be allowed?
(Should parents be able to sell their childeren as slaves? Do parent own their childeren. Does the govt own the childeren. Do they own themselves? Does a mother own its feutus or does the futus own itself?)
I know these are abit silly and extreme questions but from a libertarian view i dont see how you could justify arguing against them.
I guess what it comes down to is if there are some rights that cant be sold. And if so what makes some rights fundamental and others not?
Cheers
nickcoons
04-22-2008, 08:39 AM
Its an interesting topic. I'll make a more extreme example. Whats happens in professional fights (UFC, boxing) seems to me to be a conflict between (informal?) contract and law. What if one person dies? Killing or beating another person is illegal by law, but because both people know the rules and have signed a contract then that overrules law (in some countries). What about gladiator fights (fight to death), should those be legal as long as both parties have signed a contract by "free will"? From a libertarian perspective its seems that they should.
And what aboutr selling youself as a slave to an employer (selling away all your rights and protection under law). If both of parties signed the contract shouldnt that be respected? Your employer would be able to keep you in chains to stop you from running away. If you managed to run away that would be breaking the contract and you would be a fugutive. Should this be allowed?
For the most part, yes. A couple of thoughts here. First, slavery is inherently involuntary, so you couldn't sign up to be a slave per se (because you can't voluntarily take an involuntary action), but you could sign up to be a servant. If you escaped, you may not be a fugitive, but rather you will have broken the contract, and be bound by whatever restitution the contract provides to the other party.
(Should parents be able to sell their childeren as slaves? Do parent own their childeren. Does the govt own the childeren. Do they own themselves? Does a mother own its feutus or does the futus own itself?)
According to Murray Rothbard (http://www.mises.org/story/2568), children are not under the absolute ownership of their parents, but the role of the parent is more of a trustee (see the above link for a detailed explanation of how he arrives at this conclusion). This trustee role can be given away or sold, the recipient will have the same trustee rights as the parent did, and the child will still have self-ownership.
familydog
04-22-2008, 07:51 PM
According to Murray Rothbard (http://www.mises.org/story/2568), children are not under the absolute ownership of their parents, but the role of the parent is more of a trustee (see the above link for a detailed explanation of how he arrives at this conclusion). This trustee role can be given away or sold, the recipient will have the same trustee rights as the parent did, and the child will still have self-ownership.
I always found this critique of that particular Rothbard argument interesting.
http://www.l4l.org/library/chilroth.html
nickcoons
04-23-2008, 08:53 PM
I always found this critique of that particular Rothbard argument interesting.
http://www.l4l.org/library/chilroth.html
I've had the debate over "selling one's will" before. It started with the premise of "one cannot contract to be a slave or to have himself murdered, because such a contract would unenforceable."
As I mentioned earlier, I agree that one cannot contract to be a slave, but that's a semantical argument, not a moral one, since a "slave" implies "involuntary", and one cannot voluntarily do something involuntarily.
Regarding contracting to have one's self murdered, I believe that is doable and enforceable; but in the same way that any other contract is enforceable. Contracts have clauses in them that dictate what will happen in if either party breaches the contract. So if you and I had a contract for you to murder me, and I breached it by changing my mind, and you wanted the contract enforced, then it would be enforced by the clause stating what would happen in the case where I breached the contract.
I believe that one does own one's self, and therefore has the right to transfer ownership of of anything owned to someone else. But a right does not imply an ability. I may have the right to sell my will, but I may not (and probably don't) have the ability. But not having the ability to take an action does not mean that the right to take that action doesn't exist.
DriftWood
04-24-2008, 03:24 AM
I've had the debate over "selling one's will" before. It started with the premise of "one cannot contract to be a slave or to have himself murdered, because such a contract would unenforceable."
As I mentioned earlier, I agree that one cannot contract to be a slave, but that's a semantical argument, not a moral one, since a "slave" implies "involuntary", and one cannot voluntarily do something involuntarily.
Regarding contracting to have one's self murdered, I believe that is doable and enforceable; but in the same way that any other contract is enforceable. Contracts have clauses in them that dictate what will happen in if either party breaches the contract. So if you and I had a contract for you to murder me, and I breached it by changing my mind, and you wanted the contract enforced, then it would be enforced by the clause stating what would happen in the case where I breached the contract.
I believe that one does own one's self, and therefore has the right to transfer ownership of of anything owned to someone else. But a right does not imply an ability. I may have the right to sell my will, but I may not (and probably don't) have the ability. But not having the ability to take an action does not mean that the right to take that action doesn't exist.
Its an interesting subject that leads into philosophy if you take it far enough..
Future self
A individual owns himself.. okay. But does he own his future self? What if i sign a really stupid long term permanent contract but now have changed my mind. I cant undo a contract simply by changing my mind. But what if i was drunk or depressed or whatever when i signed the contract. You could claim that i way not myself when i signed the contract and that it should therefore be invalid. But if i was not "myself" then who gets the authority to decides when people are themselves. Its like an old person dying from alzheimer. If i got the desease, i would probably want to die before I "lost myslef". I could try and write a contract so that people should give me a morfine overdoze when that time came. But when the time came, obviously i would already have lost it and in a way i was another person. This other person might not want to die. This "other person" might not be coherent or even able to talk but he could make it clear he does not want to die by fighting off anyone that tried to stick him with morfine needles. In a sense, honoring the contract of my former self would be murdering this "other person". In a sense this other person never signed (or would have been able to sign) such a contract. Maybe this other person is perfectly happy being "stupid".
Slaves
My personal take on it is that people do own their future selves, whoever they may be. So it would not be wrong to carry out the contract. Even more i do think people shuld be able to sell themselves "as slaves" if its voluntary. At the end of the roman empire some free men started selling themselves as slaves because slaves did not need to pay taxes and did not have to worry about buying food. As i understand it the slaves did not have any rights and when their master died they sometimes where killed. (Correct me if im wrong?) Still so many people traded away their freedme for slavery that the govt had to make it illegal to sell oneself to slavery. A similar thing happened in the dark middle ages. People sold themselves and their lives to land owners. As i understand it the land owner thier lives and could legally do whatever he wanted with them even kill them. The childeren of the slaves where also owned by the land owner. People voluntarily sold themesleves as slaves because that meant getting fed and getting protection from the violence of other mighty land owners. Slowly thru the generations these slaves eventually managed to buy back their freedom from their lords. They got the money and power to do this by doing alittle work on the side for themselves and trading it when the lord was not looking. The lords could not stop human nature in the slaves, to work harder for themselves than for their owner.
Childeren
In the end i think people should be able to sell all and any rights away if they choose. Also I think parents "own" their childeren until the childeren can "buy" themselves free or simply take their freedom. I know it sounds horrrible and cold but the only other practical option is for the govt to own them. Childeren do not own themselves because they have no way of defending their freedomes. A "weak" individual needs to allay with someone "stronger" who can protect them, in a sense the weaker one needs to sell away their freedoms/rights. The relationship between childeren and parents are a mutually benificial. Childeren get protection and food. Parent get to tell them what to do, they could make them work or take care of grandparents etc. When the childeren grow up the relationship gets less benificial to them and they start rebelling and finally gain their freedom. In a sense a child is a slave to its parent.
Thats allot of thext and I drifted around a bit but I just find it very interesting..
Cheers
DriftWood
04-24-2008, 04:09 AM
I finally skimmed thru the Rothbard argument (and the critique against it). I think he get lost in morals, how things should be instead of how they are. He say you shuldnt be able to sell away your life becuse you have a fundamental right to freedom. I dont think there are any fundamental rights, so i think you should be able to sell anything you own including your life. Even if you did that, you cant change your human nature. You will still be looking out for yourself first and others (including your onwer) second. This driving force will in the long run make sure that people who are owned by others will eventually own themselves. They will find a way out because an individual has more control over his own mind and body than does some outside individual or entity. I guess its the law of the power. Individuals will gain as many "rights" as they can control. Its very hard to control other people unless they are weak and need your protection. Therefore weak people (like fetuses) have fue rights, and stong ones like adults will have many. I dont think this ahould be so much a moral issue, its just the most natural and most efficent way for a society to work. Laws or customs will naturally form to strengthen individuals right to their owns selves because individuals have so much power and control over themselves. Feuteses have very little cntrol and power over themselves, the mother has much more power over it. Therfore feuteses have fue rights. Thats the way things are and maybe thats the way things should be. Therefore passing laws to protect feuteses from their mothers will not work, because a mothers power over the featus is stronger than the govts.
Cheers
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.