Who else would it belong to if it belonged to noone before?
[/quote]
To noone. Or, to the tribe of the person. Or, to the city of the person. Or, to the nation of the person. Depends on which "In the beginning there was______you’re inclined to. Everyone of these systems depends on aggression to translate it to reality. The newcomer and outsider is excluded, unless a decision is made otherwise. But he certainly isn’t free to use this unmade matter any longer, though he may have never taken such liberties of ‘ownership’ had he’d been the finder. Perhaps he would say “I use what I can immediately, and leave the rest for others to take as they need” and then moved on. He might not have even thought someone else say “All this? MINE!”
[/quote]
How could there be any “aggression” if noone comes along and wants to take it?
[quote]orion wrote:
All of this however does not take away from the age old general principle of finders keepers or if you want it more elegant, prior tempore, potior iure in combination with res nullius cedit occupandi.
[/quote]
And that age old general principle is no more moral than ‘to the victor belong the spoils’. And again no more moral than ‘The earth belongs to the Lord, and everything in it’.[/quote]
Says you, but to be a victor you have to defeat someone who actually owned it before you[/quote]
What makes you think they “actually owned” it?
What moral ground do you have to claim possession of something you didn’t create just because you were first to restrict access to it via force?
[/quote]
What moral right do I need?
It belongs to noone, so mine, mine all mine.
If you want it more Lockean, if I own myself and my life I have the right to sustain my life and the right to private property directly follows because otherwise staying alive gets tricky.
[quote]orion wrote:
All of this however does not take away from the age old general principle of finders keepers or if you want it more elegant, prior tempore, potior iure in combination with res nullius cedit occupandi.
[/quote]
And that age old general principle is no more moral than ‘to the victor belong the spoils’. And again no more moral than ‘The earth belongs to the Lord, and everything in it’.[/quote]
Says you, but to be a victor you have to defeat someone who actually owned it before you[/quote]
What makes you think they “actually owned” it?
What moral ground do you have to claim possession of something you didn’t create just because you were first to restrict access to it via force?
[/quote]
What moral right do I need?
It belongs to noone, so mine, mine all mine.
[/quote]
You have no moral right to take something that is not yours unless it is given to you by the legitimate owner.
You aren’t providing a justification. You are simply saying “Well I can; so I will”. What is your justification? Solid explanations have been given for ownership from barter/trade and for ownership of what we create. But what justification is there for taking what is not yours simply because you found it first?
Again, how does the person who takes it via force have any less right to the land than you do? You don’t own it simply because you took control of it first.
Again it is highly unlikely that you were the first to discover the land; just that you were the first to be able to restrict others access to it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Completely contradictory. People don’t have to pay money damages for “non-binding” contracts.[/quote]
Good point. The way he is describing it certainly makes it binding. It’s just instead of being able to rape you you just have to pay restitution (which requires force to get). So in reality it would just mean the contract doesn’t get to dictate which use of force gets applied against you (i.e. rape vs jail time vs taking your assets etc).
I also wonder what happens if you don’t have the money to repay it. Unless you can file for bankruptcy in libertarian world then it is indebted servitude - and I can’t see filing for bankruptcy follows from a core principle of libertarianism.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So I am clear, here is what you said the first time with respect to this contract:
Now, here’s the second version:
Completely contradictory. People don’t have to pay money damages for “non-binding” contracts.[/quote]
Just poorly worded. Null was probably the wrong word. All I meant by the first was what I said in the second, namely he can walk away from any contract, even one that stipulates his death if he were to do so (as in slavery) and the other party has no right to kill him even if the contract expressly stated it. The slave holder can collect any payments and fees implied by the contract, with damages, but he can never have the right to kill that person, even if it is in contract, unless that person does physical harm to him. That is all I meant by non-binding.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Completely contradictory. People don’t have to pay money damages for “non-binding” contracts.[/quote]
Good point. The way he is describing it certainly makes it binding. It’s just instead of being able to rape you you just have to pay restitution (which requires force to get). So in reality it would just mean the contract doesn’t get to dictate which use of force gets applied against you (i.e. rape vs jail time vs taking your assets etc).
I also wonder what happens if you don’t have the money to repay it. Unless you can file for bankruptcy in libertarian world then it is indebted servitude - and I can’t see filing for bankruptcy follows from a core principle of libertarianism.[/quote]
The same thing that happens now basically. Current and future wage garnishment, seize available assets, etc.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Sure thing, as this can be a tricky topic. I will attempt to explain my position better, but here is a good article on my basic point that may help clear things up: Slavery Contracts
[/quote]
It is a good article. Thanks :). But it seems to me that the author is imposing his own morals on top of libertarianism.
I.e. That you do not own the right to your own life, and hence you cannot give it away.
Just look at his language use:
“since that obligation depends on my calling as a human being”
But of course this exact same argument can be made about many actions that standard libertarianism doesn’t support. For instance supporting your child etc. His statements do not directly stem from the non-aggression principle.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Basically, you have an inalienable right to not have physical violence done against you, if you yourself are not committing physical violence towards another. This is an absolute moral principle.
[/quote]
So then how do courts etc enforce payments? If you gave me 10,000 for x service and I spend the money and don’t perform the service then how do you get the money back if you cannot use physical violence? It obviously isn’t a case of self defense. And it disagrees with what you wrote next.
[quote]kilpaba wrote: Otherwise this would be theft, which is an act of aggression, and can thus be defended against. If they refuse to pay you, you have the right to claim it by necessary force, in our society this would mean going through claims court.
[/quote]
This seems to contradict what you said above. So would you change your above statement to “you have an inalienable right to not have physical violence done against you, as long as they are not reclaiming something that you used aggression to take from them at some point in the past”?
[/quote]
I used to be a bouncer and we had a single rule when dealing with customers: use as little force as is necessary and never under any circumstances more than the customer used on you.
It is the same here. Theft is an act of aggression against someone and their property. That said, if someone takes a tree out of my yard it does not mean I have the right to kill them for it. I do have the right to get my property back and use as much force as is necessary to do so. You only are permitted physical violence against the person if they try to physically harm you in the process of getting your property. So I would be justified in walking on HIS property and taking my tree back, but assuming he didn’t resist I could not walk on his property, stab him and then walk off with my tree.
Short answer yes you can use equal amounts of aggression to get your stuff back. Your last sentence rephrasing mine sums it up pretty well I think.
Just poorly worded. Null was probably the wrong word. All I meant by the first was what I said in the second, namely he can walk away from any contract, even one that stipulates his death if he were to do so (as in slavery) and the other party has no right to kill him even if the contract expressly stated it. The slave holder can collect any payments and fees implied by the contract, with damages, but he can never have the right to kill that person, even if it is in contract, unless that person does physical harm to him. That is all I meant by non-binding. [/quote]
This still makes no sense. This would be true of any enforceable contract - anyone can walk away from a contract upon pain of paying damages. Your contract violating this moral right is the legal equivalent of my contract for corn from the farmer down the road.
This is no complaint about semantics. What you are saying is that, yes, you can bargain away your right not to be aggressed upon, because the other party to the contract is legally entitled to be compensated for the bargain you struck.
By contrast, if the contract was null - as in, it violated a superior right that cannot be bargained away and therefore cannot stand - it is not enforceable at all, and the other party has no right to collect any damages for breach.
Non-binding means what it means - it means a person isn’t bound by it, therefore they would not be obligated to make the other party whole for breach.
You aren’t being coherent here. Either the contract is nullified in its entirety because it violates this superior right, or the contract is valid and the other party has a right to collect damages for breach when you walk away. It cannot be both.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
You have no moral right to take something that is not yours unless it is given to you by the legitimate owner.[/quote]
But your argument implies that there can never be an owner of anything because original acquisition of property under this framework is not legitimate.
Your world would be a tricky place to live if this were true.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
You have no moral right to take something that is not yours unless it is given to you by the legitimate owner.[/quote]
But your argument implies that there can never be an owner of anything because original acquisition of property under this framework is not legitimate.
Your world would be a tricky place to live if this were true.[/quote]
I don’t think it implies that all. I think it simply embraces reality. From a secular standpoint there is no moral rule to how matter none created is distributed, shared, or claimed. Someone, some community, some whatever, has to take it upon themselves to forcibly exclude others and their preference.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I don’t think it implies that all. I think it simply embraces reality. From a secular standpoint there is no moral rule to how matter none created is distributed, shared, or claimed. Someone, some community, some whatever, has to take it upon themselves to forcibly exclude others and their preference.[/quote]
So you claim no person has a moral right to sustain his own life?
Sloth’s religious belief does include the moral right to sustain your own life. And it clearly explains both the origin and the moral natue of this right.
Your ideology doesn’t.
What you call a “moral right” is not a right, but a might, and it has nothing to do with morality. At all.
also, sustaining your own life doesn’t require (nor justifiy) property at all. It only require (and justify) usufruct.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Sloth’s religious belief does include the moral right to sustain your own life. And it clearly explains both the origin and the moral natue of this right.
Your ideology doesn’t.
What you call a “moral right” is not a right, but a might, and it has nothing to do with morality. At all.
also, sustaining your own life doesn’t require (nor justifiy) property at all. It only require (and justify) usufruct.
[quote]This still makes no sense. This would be true of any enforceable contract - anyone can walk away from a contract upon pain of paying damages. Your contract violating this moral right is the legal equivalent of my contract for corn from the farmer down the road.
This is no complaint about semantics. What you are saying is that, yes, you can bargain away your right not to be aggressed upon, because the other party to the contract is legally entitled to be compensated for the bargain you struck.
By contrast, if the contract was null - as in, it violated a superior right that cannot be bargained away and therefore cannot stand - it is not enforceable at all, and the other party has no right to collect any damages for breach.
Non-binding means what it means - it means a person isn’t bound by it, therefore they would not be obligated to make the other party whole for breach.
You aren’t being coherent here. Either the contract is nullified in its entirety because it violates this superior right, or the contract is valid and the other party has a right to collect damages for breach when you walk away. It cannot be both.
[/quote]
In the nicest way possible, you are quite simply wrong on this. Not to bring legaleez into this equation, but the specific term I am referring to is what they call an ‘unconscionable’ clause in contract law (for record I am a certified paralegal- though I am not a practicing paralegal). Here is the wikipedia definition here: Unconscionability - Wikipedia
What I meant by non-binding was referring specifically to a clause in that contract that stated you could give the other party the right to kill you (i.e. the right to your life) for breaking the contract. This specific clause is ‘unconscionable’ and cannot be enforced. Such a clause is ‘non-binding’ or ‘null’ not necessarily the whole contract. This is why I was simply being sloppy in my terminology.
So you are correct, it is like any contract in that you can collect restitution for all parts of the agreement which can be claimed against. If you paid for the “slave”, and he took your money in exchange for his enslavement, he has to give it back once he backs out.
But that same person could not claim damages specifically for not being able to kill you. Obviously you can’t just take someone’s shit in an agreement and leave with no consequences, because that would be theft that constitutes an act of aggression against the other party.
Now I am no contract lawyer, but I have written and worked through several contracts as part of my current job and obviously during my paralegal training. We have had folks fall through on their contract and had to deal with that. As you no doubt are aware you can only claim damages for the parts of the contract that they violated in addition to any payout built into the contract for violation. There is some variance depending on the state laws obviously, but that is the gist. If they did meet the standard for certain aspects of the contract you cannot claim anything against that because they have performed that duty.
My whole point is that you cannot claim someone has not performed their duty of giving you the right to kill them if they decide to break the contract because such a clause is always ‘unconscionable’. So if they satisfied every other remunerative step necessary to square the contract, except letting you kill them, you could claim no damages against them for this particular aspect of the contract.
In conclusion, yes it is like any other contract, yes you can claim damages on everything BUT the right to their life as that is ‘unconscionable’ always, and yes you have the right to use necessary force to retrieve your property.
In the nicest way possible, you are quite simply wrong on this. Not to bring legaleez into this equation, but the specific term I am referring to is what they call an ‘unconscionable’ clause in contract law (for record I am a certified paralegal- though I am not a practicing paralegal). Here is the wikipedia definition here: Unconscionability - Wikipedia [/quote]
Heh. I’ll set aside the irony of your tut-tutting your credentials on this issue, but sufficed to say, no, I am not wrong on this. Even your Wikipedia entry recognizes the point:
Upon finding unconscionability a court has a great deal of flexibility on how it remedies the situation. It may refuse to enforce the contract, refuse to enforce the offending clause, or take other measures it deems necessary to have a fair outcome. Damages are usually not awarded.
Unconscionable contracts are not enforceable. Period. If there are several moving parts to a contract, a court might find other aspects of it enforceable, but there is no enforceability of the unconscionable term. That, of course, is what unconscionable is supposed to designate. But we aren’t dealing with other issues in our hypothetical contract, only what you have said is the “unconscionable” part - in which you flatly stated damages are recoverable.
In other words, your error doesn’t appear to be a mere sloppiness in terms - your story is changing.
That’s not what you said:
he absolutely can walk away and not face physical violence, he just has to pay the money and damages that he owes for not going through with his part of the bargain.
So, you originally said that the other party is entitled to recover his benefit of the bargain. When you “don’t go through with your part of the bargain”, you have to pay damages. If the “bargain” is found to be unconsionable, however, you don’t have to pay damages.
If I contract with you to kill you on pay-per-view and I spend tons of money getting the whole spectacle set up and I am out of pocket millions of dollars when you back out, and our agreement is found to be unconscionable (which it is), I don’t get to be compensated the monies I spent setting up the event.
Yes, you can, caveat emptor - and it would only be a “theft” if your eyes were closed to the benefit of the bargain, i.e., someone perpetrated a fraud on you.
Well, that is clear enough.
Again, you wander away from the issue. We aren’t talking about “other” aspects to the contract. If other parts of a contract are enforceable, they will be enforced. No one is disputing that. We talking about damages that flow from the unconscionable aspect to the contract - to which there are none, contrary to your original statement.
[quote]My whole point is that you cannot claim someone has not performed their duty of giving you the right to kill them if they decide to break the contract because such a clause is always ‘unconscionable’. So if they satisfied every other remunerative step necessary to square the contract, except letting you kill them, you could claim no damages against them for this particular aspect of the contract.
In conclusion, yes it is like any other contract, yes you can claim damages on everything BUT the right to their life as that is ‘unconscionable’ always, and yes you have the right to use necessary force to retrieve your property. [/quote]
Sure, you could claim the damages - like in my pay-per-view example - but you won’t get them, because if you were rewarded damages for some aspect of the unconscionable agreement, part of the agreement is being enforced.
Your second explanation isn’t curing your original defect.
[quote]kamui wrote:
Sloth’s religious belief does include the moral right to sustain your own life. And it clearly explains both the origin and the moral natue of this right.
Your ideology doesn’t.
What you call a “moral right” is not a right, but a might, and it has nothing to do with morality. At all.
also, sustaining your own life doesn’t require (nor justifiy) property at all. It only require (and justify) usufruct.
[/quote]
But how can there be usufruct without someone owning property in the first place?
How does someone give someone the right to use his property if he cannot even justify his own ownership?
[quote]Upon finding unconscionability a court has a great deal of flexibility on how it remedies the situation. It may refuse to enforce the contract, refuse to enforce the offending clause, or take other measures it deems necessary to have a fair outcome. Damages are usually not awarded.
Unconscionable contracts are not enforceable. Period. If there are several moving parts to a contract, a court might find other aspects of it enforceable, but there is no enforceability of the unconscionable term. That, of course, is what unconscionable is supposed to designate.
But we aren’t dealing with other issues in our hypothetical contract, only what you have said is the “unconscionable” part - in which you flatly stated damages are recoverable.
In other words, your error doesn’t appear to be a mere sloppiness in terms - your story is changing.[/quote]
What I flatly stated was that if something, like money, was exchanged you have rights to that plus damages. Never to their life. If nothing else was in the contract but the unconscionable clause in question then you are right. I will admit I interjected some sort of trade in there, because why else would you make such an agreement rationally, but this does not detract from my point. It is a simple logical deduction from my statement. If there is nothing in the contract but the clause stating you have a right to my life then yes the entire contract is unenforceable.
[quote]That’s not what you said:
So, you originally said that the other party is entitled to recover his benefit of the bargain. When you “don’t go through with your part of the bargain”, you have to pay damages. If the “bargain” is found to be unconsionable, however, you don’t have to pay damages.[/quote]
As stated above, I assumed there was some sort of trade involved here as in a standard contract which is clearly not what you meant. If there was nothing but an ‘unconscionable’ clause in the bargain then the whole thing is unenforceable, because there is nothing else to enforce.
I completely agree here. If you were never paid any money, and that was the only clause in the contract, then there would be nothing to enforce. If you had been paid money up front you would have to return that money, however.
No. If I pay a contractor XXX amount of money after a verbal or written contract, and he leaves without doing the job, this is “theft” (and probably “fraud” too) and is absolutely enforceable. I don’t think you disagree here.
But using our particular example, if money were exchanged solely for the clause of being able to kill you, I would still have a right to get my money back if you backed out. You don’t just get to keep it.
I think I addressed this above and if you stand by this last statement I agree.
[quote]
[quote]My whole point is that you cannot claim someone has not performed their duty of giving you the right to kill them if they decide to break the contract because such a clause is always ‘unconscionable’. So if they satisfied every other remunerative step necessary to square the contract, except letting you kill them, you could claim no damages against them for this particular aspect of the contract.
In conclusion, yes it is like any other contract, yes you can claim damages on everything BUT the right to their life as that is ‘unconscionable’ always, and yes you have the right to use necessary force to retrieve your property. [/quote]
Sure, you could claim the damages - like in my pay-per-view example - but you won’t get them, because if you were rewarded damages for some aspect of the unconscionable agreement, part of the agreement is being enforced.
Your second explanation isn’t curing your original defect. [/quote]
That is only untrue if you are either 1) being extremely uncharitable in reading my above example or 2) you are purposely ignoring the implications of it. From my example quoted above, it is clearly stated you can enforce other parts of a contract even if there is an unconscionable clause in it, but not the unconscionable clause itself. It is a very simple logical jump to reason that if there is only the unconscionable clause there is nothing to enforce.
Honestly it doesn’t sound like we are far apart on this at all. You can’t sign yourself into slavery, because your right to non-aggression is immutable. If there was no other clause but the slavery or death clause it would be null from the start because it is ‘unconscionable’. Assuming no other aspects of the contract, THAT is why you can’t sell yourself under a principle of non-aggression.