[mum]

1) Unalienable rights cannot be alienated through any mechanism including willingly by the possessor. A slave is bereft of rights, by definition. This is an impossible scenario because the two definitions collide. Therefore slavery can only exist and continue to exist through coercion constantly reapplied -- never voluntarily

Hmm, I think I disagree still on this one. Whats the problem with entering a contract of slavery for a set period of time? Its voluntary and follows the libertarian view of contracts....

2) Block is entirely indifferent to the survival of the infant in his abortion argument. He states that it would be "better" if the child was not killed by "eviction" but it is not necessary to justify the eviction for him and it is still justifiable if the fetus dies or nobody expects it to live.

I don't remember the details on this now. I was under the impression that my previous point was the case. I guess it comes down to what constitutes a "human" and "murder". Like I said, I believe abortion is murder.

As for Bastiat -- he is very readable and even humorous, and he gets to the point much faster and with much sharper insight than any other liberty theorist I have read. He is quite heavy on sarcasm, though, I must warn you. I recommend Economic Sophisms or The Law

Thanks for the info

Bastiat was not an an-cap though was he? from wiki...

On the other hand, Bastiat himself declared that subsidy should be available, but limited: "under extraordinary circumstances, for urgent cases, the State should set aside some resources to assist certain unfortunate people, to help them adjust to changing conditions."

Which I disagree with.
Welfare creates dependancy, a reduction in responsibility and an every growing need for more welfare.

[SecretSquirrel]

Hmm, I think I disagree still on this one. Whats the problem with entering a contract of slavery for a set period of time? Its voluntary and follows the libertarian view of contracts....

You sell yourself into "voluntary" slavery for say one month. On day 14 your "owner" decides he is going to rape you. You do not want this. A master may rape his slave, assuming the definition of chattel slavery. Does he have the right in your opinion then?

I don't remember the details on this now. I was under the impression that my previous point was the case. I guess it comes down to what constitutes a "human" and "murder". Like I said, I believe abortion is murder.

If you don't remember details, don't make references. I agree that abortion is murder pure and simple.

On the other hand, Bastiat himself declared that subsidy should be available, but limited: "under extraordinary circumstances, for urgent cases, the State should set aside some resources to assist certain unfortunate people, to help them adjust to changing conditions."

this is out of context. real quote:

"If socialists mean that under extraordinary circumstances, for urgent cases, the State should set aside some resources to assist certain unfortunate people, to help them adjust to changing conditions, we will, of course, agree. This is done now; we desire that it be done better. There is however, a point on this road that must not be passed; it is the point where governmental foresight would step in to replace individual foresight and thus destroy it."

He is not anarcho capitalist -- not that it matters because hes pure classical liberal and voluntaryist, and thats what matters.

[Eran]

Some of his positions, like slavery contracts and his "eviction" justification for abortion are both illogical from a classical liberal conception of inalienable rights and just flat out horrifying.

I'd like to hear an actual argument against Block's positions.

Clearly, he rejects the classical liberal notion of inalienable rights, believing all rights to be alienable. Since the concept of inalienable rights is not written in letters of fire over the night sky, it requires justification other than from the vague authority of the classical liberal tradition.

As for being "flat out horrifying", you obviously missed the main point of Defending the Undefendable. The point, uncompromisingly and consistently carried by Black, is that once we determine our principles, we must follow those principles no matter where they take us. After all, being "horrifying" is often the only argument provided by statists against such traditional libertarian positions as organ markets and full drug legalisation.


On the substance of voluntary slave contracts, my personal uncertainty relates to marginal cases such as (limited duration) indented servitude. Most libertarians, for example, agree that force can legitimately be used in retaliation to property right violations. Isn't abrogation of a voluntary contract precisely such property right violation? If X was lent money by Y on the condition that X will do Y's bidding for a full year, and X subsequently refuses (while being unable to return the money), hasn't X, in effect and in retrospect, stolen Y's money? Isn't it then legitimate for Y to employ force against X so as to recover his money's worth through X's labour?

Where is the bright line between enforcement of loan agreements, indebted servitude and full-out voluntary slavery?

You sell yourself into "voluntary" slavery for say one month. On day 14 your "owner" decides he is going to rape you. You do not want this. A master may rape his slave, assuming the definition of chattel slavery. Does he have the right in your opinion then?

Chattel slavery is not the only kind of slavery possible. The voluntary slavery contract could have, for example, stipulated that rape would be prohibited. By implication, the slavery contract signed in your hypothetical didn't exclude (and thus implicitly included) agreement to be raped. In fact, the act would arguably not even be rape, since rape implies lack of consent, while in this hypothetical, consent was already given.

If you don't remember details, don't make references. I agree that abortion is murder pure and simple.

Abortion is no more murder than is the refusal to give money to aid the starving people in Africa. Free people cannot be obligated to use their property to aid others, even if the consequence is the life of the others.

Your position on abortion flatly contradicts your position on slavery, btw. If one's will is inalienable, so must be one's control over one's body. Even if the mother did enter into an agreement (implicit or explicit) to carry the baby to term, her control over her body is inalienable, and thus she is always entitled to change her mind. Having changed her mind, she cannot be forced to carry a parasite within her (or, equivalently, she cannot be rightly stopped from evicting that parasite).

That you are abhorred by the consequence of a woman's free choice is neither here nor there. As a principled libertarian, you should know better than to advocate the use of force to impose your moral sensibilities on others.

[Nunt]

I think voluntary contracts can in theory create a situation that is much like slave labor. There are just a few restrictions on contracts.

For example, a person could agree to obey the wishes of a master. The contract can further specify that the master is allowed to use physical force against the slave. However, contracts can always be unilatterally broken. Say the slave runs away, goes to a court and informs the court that he no longer wishes to be bound by the contract. The court can then dissolve the contract and force the slave to pay restitution to the slave owner. This restitution will probably be in proportion to the price the slave received from the slaver. It seems unlikely that courts will ever pronounce a death sentence for a breach of such a contract.

[Eran]

The court can then dissolve the contract and force the slave to pay restitution to the slave owner.

Which naturally raises the question of how force could legitimately be used to compel restitution payment.

Obviously (and easily), existing property could be confiscated for the purpose. But assuming the runaway slave doesn't own sufficient property, what may the court do?

[Nunt]

Which naturally raises the question of how force could legitimately be used to compel restitution payment.

Obviously (and easily), existing property could be confiscated for the purpose. But assuming the runaway slave doesn't own sufficient property, what may the court do?

Forced labor untill he has paid back what he owes. Different from the slavery contract in that it's duration is fixed: forced labor until the sum has been repaid instead of lifetime forced labor. Also he is no longer bound by the commands of the slaver, he is made to pay restitution but can do that outside of the jurisdiction of the slaver.

I also want to stress that at no point the slave can become the property of the slaver. In fact I am envisioning a sort of extreme wage contract in which the obligations of the slave and possible punishments are enumerated.

[Eran]

So you don't have a problem with indebted servitude - a limited-duration contract which gives the "owner" many rights, including restricting choices made by the servant, but in which the servant still retains some rights?

[Nunt]

So you don't have a problem with indebted servitude - a limited-duration contract which gives the "owner" many rights, including restricting choices made by the servant, but in which the servant still retains some rights?

I don't have a problem with that. However, I think that in order for such a contract to be enforced, any rights that the owner has over the servant should be enumerated in the contract. The owner only has rights over those things that the servant explicitly gave away.

[Eran]

In that case, it is hard to see a bright line separating such contracts from outright chattel slavery.

The term could be 1, 3, 7 or 15 years. The terms could exclude or explicitly include physical punishment, transfer to a different owner, etc.

[SecretSquirrel]

Sorry Eran, but unalienable rights indeed are written in fire on the night sky, to borrow your expression

[Eran]

We can both agree that certain rights are inherent to the basic principles of mutual respect for members of the moral community.

How is their inalienable nature justified?

[SecretSquirrel]

the origins of rights have nothing to do with society or respect. rights predate society. the only reason human beings seek society is to prevent power from violating their rights.

riots stem from autonomy and self ownership. It does not matter what you agreed to last week; if somebody is attempting to kill you against your will today, you have the right to try to prevent that. you can allow somebody the right to kill you, but not the right to murder you. you can allow somebody the right to have sex with you, but not the right to rape you. you can let somebody have something you own, but you cannot let him have the right to rob you of it. Does this distinction manifest itself to you?

that is why slave contracts are prima facie null. They purport to give somebody the right to rob, murder, or rape a person.

[Eran]

I am not sure I understand where you draw the line.

Libertarians often see property rights in physical objects as an extension of self-ownership. If I agreed yesterday to give you my car, your coming to take it today isn't robbery - it is you taking possession of what is now your property. Even if I changed my mind.

By stating that by changing my mind, say, with respect to prior agreement to have sex, the sexual act becomes rape, you are assuming what is under discussion, namely the inalienable nature of my self-ownership.

If you didn't assume that nature, we wouldn't call the act rape, but merely you asserting possession of what has become yours (namely the use of my body) through prior voluntary agreement.

[SecretSquirrel]

Rape is the forcing of an unwilling person to submit to sex. It doesn't matter what s/he said yesterday or last year or what s/he wrote on a slip of paper.

Your line of thinking is exactly the sort that legitimised husbands raping their wives for thirty centuries.

According to your line of reasoning, the following would be perfectly OK:

Patient A (who is completely mentally healthy and in no way mentally impaired in his decisionmaking) wants to die, for whatever reason, so he calls up doctor Kevorkian and signs a contract with him agreeing to let the doctor euthanise him (no problems yet). Then, when he's strapped down and helpless, A realises that he in reality wants to live, and he communicates this change of heart to doctor Kevorkian. Kevorkian, though he clearly understands the patient, proceeds to kill A anyway. He reasons that A already signed a contract in sound mind giving him prior assent to the euthanisation.

I in no way wish to disparage the late Dr. Kevorkian. He would have never done such a vile deed in reality. He in fact had several patients back out on him and he respected their wishes in concordance with basic ethics.

...

There is more to talk about here, especially in regards to the lesser issue involving mere property, but I wish to see you dance out of this minefield first, before I lay the next one.

[Eran]

Absolutely.

No rational patient would sign such a contract without the stipulation that he is allowed to change his mind until the last moment (or that the irreversible final act is conditioned upon his final go-ahead. Indeed, when people in authority are making critical decisions, you routinely see, prolonged preparations notwithstanding, the entire operation hinging on a last-minute approval.

The same scenario could be turned to deal with alienable property. The person in your thought experiment, expecting to die, also signs away his entire possessions to his favourite charity. If he continued to live, he would be completely destitute, suffering a life of homelessness (he is without family, nor means of earning money).

Assuming Dr. Kevorkian (of your judgement of whom I whole heartedly agree) does respect the last minute change of heart, is that charity similarly obligated to do the same?

From a moral/ethical point of view, one cannot but acknowledge the similarities. Yet from a right perspective, you claim there is a world of difference.


To put a slightly more realistic twist on your story, assume that person A held an unconditional life insurance policy (i.e. one which pays regardless of cause of death). Prior to the events in your story, he sold his life insurance policy under the explicit condition that he does allow his life to end. He then spent the entire proceeds on a lavish cruise around the world. NOW he is trying to change his mind. What of that?



I will counter with my own version. A known prostitute enters into a contract to engage in sexual acts of the kind she engages in routinely. Being somewhat unreliable, and the buyer being both cautious and motivated, she agrees to an explicit clause in the contract which conditions a fat advance being paid on giving the buyer the right to proceed with the act even should she change her mind. The terms of the clause are negotiated and discussed in detail - there is no fraud or misunderstanding. The prostitute agrees because she urgently needs the money to pay for her mother's operation, while the buyer insists that the risk of paying dearly is unacceptable if the prostitution retains the right to change her mind.

All is agreed, the money is paid, the mother is saved, the prostitute appears in the designated time and place, and places herself at the mercy of the buyer. NOW, at the last moment, she decides to change her mind, insisting on an additional amount to be paid if she is to agree for the act to proceed (note - she is still willing to go ahead if she is paid the extra amount). The buyer is outraged, cites the terms of the contract, and proceeds with the act. Rape? Arguably. Immoral? Probably? Unjust? Why?

[SecretSquirrel]

No rational patient would sign such a contract

You are not responding to my scenario. The patient is rational and he did sign it.

Answer me. Where (if anywhere) is the doctor wrong by proceeding with the contract? Both parties are rational and of sound mind. There was a meeting of the minds. there was mutual consideration. There was offer and acceptance.

I want to see how you can find anything wrong with it without admitting that the right to life is unalienable

[houndred]

I think you can make a voluntary slavery contract but it would only be enforcable, if you decide to break it ,through a tort claim.

[SecretSquirrel]

still waiting on Eran to respond to my specific scenario

[Nunt]

I think you can make a voluntary slavery contract but it would only be enforcable, if you decide to break it ,through a tort claim.

I agree with this and this also solves SecretSquirrel's question. The doctor would not be allowed to kill the patient, but since the patient previously agreed to the deal, he should pay some restitution to the doctor.

[SecretSquirrel]

You guys need to read up on contract law. No slavery or death contract is enforceable in a common law jurisdiction, and not simply because slavery and murder are illegal (which admittedly would also invalidate it).

The underlying issue is that a mandatory element of a legal contract is mutual consideration. Look it up, I'm in no mood to go into detail.

Since slavery and murder both totally deprive the victim of everything, there can be no consideration for him in the cotract, and it is thus void.


STILL waiting on Eran to respond to my challenge.