Under this logic, gambling would basically be outlawed since you could just terminate your contract when you lose a bet.
If a prostitute takes cash from a customer, and then refuses to consent to sex and he forces her, it's assault and rape. She has an obligation to return the money, but he does not own her body and has no right to use it without her permission. It would be the same with a "slave." If the poor person wants to work for a few years under the conditions similar to slavery, that his right, but to force him to continue the work when he wants to leave is assault. That makes sense.
In a free market, law would be that which is determined by private justice systems. Much like common law. And yes, laws have emerged from free markets. Look up the Lex Mercatoria, a system developed by Italian traders in the Mediterranean and without any government. It's the basis of the the US UCC. So you don't hold that rights are unalienable. Well, first, I'd point out, that even if you sign a contract that says someone "owns" you, such would be impossible because no one can own you except you. You always have free will, even if your actions are restricted by use of or threats of violence or other restraint. Your will is unalienable and always yours. I am sure you are aware of the Libertarian party pledge, which is that it's wrong to initiate aggression? The philosophy is that since self-ownership is unalienable, then all the rights that stem from that - such as right of association, self-defense, speech, etc. are also unalienable. Unalienable means that it cannot be contracted away or liened. Forcing someone who has done no harm to you nor threatened to harm you is initiation of aggression, even if you think you are protecting a contract of involuntary servitude.
Incorrect. A gamble is an agreement to transfer title given certain conditions. If you lose on a gamble, the money has already transferred to the person to whom you offered if you were to lose. If you walk away without paying, you are effectively stealing that money. Transferring title in property is easy enough, because money doesn't have free will. I could not, however, sell my child in a gamble (though by Rothbardian standards, you might be able to transfer responsibility for your child) because the child owns himself.
I hate utilitarian justifications in general. First because utilitarianism ignores there rights of the individual in favor of "the collective good" Marx would be proud. Second because these justifications are often so (*)(*)(*)(*) disingenuous. Drinking, smoking, driving a car, skiing, and a million other things affects society by having to pay for the repercussions. Do we ban all these things. Pot for example will likely incur less societal cost than alcohol but pot is illegal ? The inability of the legal system to make these simple distinctions is overwhelming. Meth, in comparison to pot for example is a nasty nasty drug .. and one can come up with good justification for making that illegal. Prostitution is often linked with human trafficking but this is punishing the prostitute for the actions of criminals. In Britain recently they wanted to set a minimum price for a pint of beer to curb binge drinking. The public revolted claiming why should the majority of responsible drinkers be punished for a few irresponsible folk. In general I think that unless there is "overwhelming" societal damage directly linked to that activity "meth" for example, the rights of the individual should trump utilitarian considerations.
Prostitution should be legal!!! And then lots of it so there will be competition and you'd have to chack the market to see if coochie was on the rise or plummeted in share price!
Sorry, but laws about suicide and prostitution are both stupid. If someone wants to make money by having sex, more power to them. And, if someone wants to kill themselves, they not only should be allowed to, we should have clinics to make it fast, painless and sure. Slavery is illegal, so selling oneself into it is not even in question. Since it is illegal to own someone, then no one can sell themselves into slavery. The law has no right to prevent someone from dying, if that is what they want to do and it has no right to prevent them from having sex, for money or free.
While I would generally agree with conclusions, I'm curious, upon what principle do you basis your opinion that the "law has no right" to prohibit something in some cases but not others. Of what rights do you speak?
Simple, as in the following example The law has no right to make me wear a helmet on my motorcycle. The law has the right to make me wear protective lens when riding my motorcycle. In the first instance, the law is to protect me from me, which is nonsense. In the second, the law is to protect you, from me (if I get something in my eye and run into a restaurant window, killing 9, (big bike) for instance. I do not believe the govt has the right to protect me, from me, if I want to overdose on drugs, or shoot myself in the head, that is for me to decide. However, if my actions cause problems to others, then the govt MAY have the right to butt in.
Who says you can't continue a discussion from three months ago? Gambling would essentially be illegal in a society where you could opt out of a contract at any time (even when it says you can't). I have the right to my property, but I can voluntarily give that right away. If I agreed upon a gamble among Event X which did not go my way, I cannot simply say "I opt out of my contract now." The person who I signed the contract with has the right to initiate aggression upon me to take the money that I did not pay. Opting out of a slavery contract (which, by the way, would probably never happen in a free market) would effectively be stealing money from the person I contracted to since he now has to hire another worker. I would have to pay him the money he already gave me -- if I spent it all, oh well for me. It seems we agree that you can consent to anything (so as long as it isn't involuntarily depriving anyone else's rights), but at what point you can consent is where we differ. I think prior consent overrides current consent while you think current consent overrides prior consent. Both positions would draw the conclusion that prostitution should be legal but one draws the conclusion that other activities should be legal such as gambling.
From where does the state and individuals derive rights? As for your example, one could avoid wearing a helmet, get hit by a rock, be knocked out and plow one's motorcycle into a farmer's market, or perhaps into oncoming traffic and causing a much larger tragedy. If, as you argued above, it is imperative for government to manage some amount of risk (protecting the motorcyclist's eyes), then by what objective reason should it not manage any and all risk?
No, I think that the right to life, liberty and property are unalienable. I can consent to be like a slave to you, but the moment I withdraw my consent, any action on your part to make me remain like a slave is initiation of aggression by you. If there is a contract, then the only thing you are entitled to is recovery of any consideration which a court would consider reasonably remaining in lieu of the service that I was providing. A contract cannot put a lien on my natural right to freely associate and attempting to force me to continue that association is assault on my rights. Yes, I agree, you can consent to anything, but you can also withdraw your consent. An example Rothbard used is that of the marriage agreement. You, for instance, agree that you will marry your fiance. You sign a contract that says you will show up at the alter and agree to be bound in marriage. You then, at some point before the wedding, decide you really don't love the other person and you call the marriage off. Do you believe that by signing that contract that your fiance can now force you to marry him or her?
You can't base a law on what someone "wants"... you have no way of determining what they actually want (or wanted). Many people who attempt to commit suicide do so because of delusion, impulse, or external pressures... I imagine many people who choose to prostitute themselves don't want to make that choice. Your argument about owning slaves being illegal doesn't discount the analogy. Hiring a prostitute is also illegal. The issue is whether these things should be illegal. Laws don't have rights, they exist to protect people's rights. The question is not whether the law has the right to prevent someone from harming themselves, it's whether those people have a right to be protected from harm... even when it's consensual. It's a tough issue, I don't think there is a simple answer.
You used "imperative to manage some amount of risk" not me. My standard for govt control is logical uses uncommon sense. I have personally known people to wreck because of getting something in their eye--two people in fact, and one ran into another vehicle. I have never heard of anything like the situation you suggested, nor could I find any valid example of it online. Logic and uncommon sense would suggest that the possibilities of such a happening are foolishly high and not worthy of govt intervention.
An accurate and simple definition of 'unalienable' is available in the title of this post. As you can see, Life, liberty and property are NOT unalienable rights, since a person or government with a weapon can take them all away from you. Oh, and pay no attention to anything from the Libertarian Party, the few members of it I have personally known are totally nuts, completely off their rockers with no concept of reality. From what I can read on the Libertarian website and what gets posted here, about them, the traits of being nuts seems to hold true for most of them.
We disagree, it is a simple issue, riding a motorcycle without a helmet should be legal, and prostitution should be legal.
Prostitution is not just an issue about individual rights. There is vast societal benefits in legalizing it. One often unmentioned is the following. Legalizing prostitution stablizes marriages and all forms of long term relationship. Why? Players just go and buy for sex! No scam and confusion in the bars. It makes life easy for some guys and many more potential couples who are looking for long term relationship. Without prostituion the only way to get sex is in the relationship market, pretending to be a potential suitor and then telling her that "I don't want anything serious or let us just be friends." Ladies are the ones getting hurt the most in this area. Prostitution separates the relationship market from the sex market. It solves the fundamental problem in the relationship market-information asymmetry. The girl can safely assume that the guy is serious in relationship when he is in the relationship market, because if he is not, he can always make his life alot easier by paying.
You are not trying to kill yourself by paying for sex. Prostitution should be far more accpetable than riding without a helmet.
That may be, but the standard of "unacceptable" shouldn't be used for determining the legality of something. Adultery is generally unacceptable, but it's not illegal nor should it be.
They aren't taken away, they are just forcefully prevented from being exercised. The fact of self-ownership is undeniable. That you can disagree with me proves that you owner yourself and no other can make you agree or disagree, though they may use force to get you to say one thing or another.
With "should be" as a normative statement, can you define the objective principle you apply by which some things should be legal, and some things should not be legal? One thing about libertarians, the principles of natural rights do provide an objective, rational framework for determining right from wrong. I wonder, however, if you have some other framework of ethics that are objective and rational, or if you base your opinions on gut emotion and irrational motives.
As long everyone else agrees it's legal to walk away from the rider when he's bleeding and broken in the freeway asking for help... both literally and from a tax point of view -- I could get behind that first statement. I use a helmet because I choose too. I was never a fan of making it a law. But what we allow some people to demand of other people who find themselves in desperate situations... well, I don't know what should be legal there. I find it far from a simple issue.
