It's not. Offering someone a one-time gift for use of their stuff, is very different to them claiming a right to continuous increase from it.
For example, take a plot of land. A tenant contracts with the owner/landlord to live on it, and the landlord gets a flow of money from it. The landlord dies, and the land is passed on to his son, who also gets the flow of money. The tenant has a baby, and the child is born under the landlord's monopoly of land, and the child ends up owing a steady flow of money to the landlord as he grows up. But the child never ever explicitly contracted to it!
So here we have a situation where the 'voluntary' nature becomes something authoritarian, and the new landlord still maintains his monopoly of aggression over it all along with authority over the tenant's child. The situation becomes what Spooner criticizes about the government in No Treason-- the Constitution was indeed a 'voluntary contract' amongst the original founders, but it became an authoritarian situation. In fact the only difference would be that the 'founders' did not actually 'homestead' the land-- so basically, the entire US government today would be justified if the 'founders' had acquired the land in the 'right' way back in the 18th century. That's where everything falls apart, because ancap property theory criticizes the State while simultaneously rationalizing statism if the land was acquired the 'right' way.
But under a libsoc system, where the tenant offers to give a one-time gift to the landlord, the contract is finite, and cannot become something authoritarian in a generation or two.
Francois Tremblay wrote:How am I wrong in my interpretation?
Francois Tremblay wrote:In whose opinion?
Francois Tremblay wrote:Did the rape not happen while she was performing her duties?
NoDeity wrote:Brad Reddekopp
I expect that one would ordinarily think that a contract preventing employees from suing the employer is not meant to cover that which is not related to one's work. Rather, it would be meant to cover injuries suffered as a consequence of performing the duties one had agreed to perform. Apparently, a court has already agreed with that:
"Jones ... Read moreargued that the alleged gang rape was not related to her employment and thus, wasn’t covered by the arbitration agreement. Finally, two years later, a federal court has sensibly agreed with her. Tuesday, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2 to 1 ruling, found her alleged injuries were not, in fact, in any way related to her employment and thus, not covered by the contract." -- from http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/16/jones-sue-kbr/
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests