Just beat Jury Service!! Yayyy!!!

[mudskipper]

Guys guys, is this the thread where we all pretend to be super grown up, intelligent and deep philosophical thinkers?

They're having a mass debate.

[SpontaneousOrder]

But in your world, slavery can exist, can it not?

No, I don't think so. As i mentioned before it's somewhat paradoxical.

Here, Murray Rothbard outlines why using much the same line of reasoning I did in the earlier post (where I contrasted 'ownership' of a man with ownership of an animal):

But there are certain vital things which, in natural fact and in the nature of man, are inalienable, i.e., they cannot in fact be alienated, even voluntarily. Specifically, a person cannot alienate his will, more particularly his control over his own mind and body. Each man has control over his own mind and body. Each man has control over his own will and person, and he is, if you wish, “stuck” with that inherent and inalienable ownership. Since his will and control over his own person are inalienable, then so also are his rights to control that person and will. That is the ground for the famous position of the Declaration of Independence that man’s natural rights are inalienable; that is, they cannot be surrendered, even if the person wishes to do so.

Or, as Williamson Evers points out, the philosophical defenses of human rights

are founded upon the natural fact that each human is the proprietor of his own will. To take rights like those of property and contractual freedom that are based on a foundation of the absolute self-ownership of the will and then to use those derived rights to destroy their own foundation is philosophically invalid.2

Hence, the unenforceability, in libertarian theory, of voluntary slave contracts. Suppose that Smith makes the following agreement with the Jones Corporation: Smith, for the rest of his life, will obey all orders, under whatever conditions, that the Jones Corporation wishes to lay down. Now, in libertarian theory there is nothing to prevent Smith from making this agreement, and from serving the Jones Corporation and from obeying the latter’s orders indefinitely. The problem comes when, at some later date, Smith changes his mind and decides to leave. Shall he be held to his former voluntary promise? Our contention—and one that is fortunately upheld under present law—is that Smith’s promise was not a valid (i.e., not an enforceable) contract. There is no transfer of title in Smith’s agreement, because Smith’s control over his own body and will are inalienable. Since that control cannot be alienated, the agreement was not a valid contract, and therefore should not be enforceable. Smith’s agreement was a mere promise, which it might be held he is morally obligated to keep, but which should not be legally obligatory.

[original PM]

Guys guys, is this the thread where we all pretend to be super grown up, intelligent and deep philosophical thinkers?

whaddyoumean

that describes every thread in general

surely?

[Dactylion]

Guys guys, is this the thread where we all pretend to be super grown up, intelligent and deep philosophical thinkers?

... or just one where a couple of winkers talk b0llocks?

[BrilloPad]

Guys guys, is this the thread where we all pretend to be super grown up, intelligent and deep philosophical thinkers?

Try tpd.

This is general. You are talking bollux, you racist odious chunt. Now f**k off and die. (*)

* = for those not used to general this is being nice.