FFRF gets its panties in a twist

[MrJonno]

Oh citation
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ ... G_10026449

There is no specific list that sets out what religion or belief discrimination is. The law defines it as any religion, religious or philosophical belief. This includes all major religions, as well as less widely practised ones

Oh did a bit if quick research and some US states have similar laws that specific mention political affiliation

[Coito ergo sum]

And, you said, "Libertarianism does not mean that a community can set rules for everyone who might enter that community,"

I don't see why they wouldn't be able to, under your theory.

What if the 9,000 put up signs at all entry points to their town and on the signs it says, "By entering this community and proceeding past this visible and readable signage, you agree to abide by the following rules: [insert list of rules]" - and they should be able to set up a toll, right? A toll booth on the road that says, "The 9,000 paid for these roads, and if you want to drive on them, you have to pay these tolls..."

Can't they do that?

Yes, they can. If they paid for the amenities, they may restrict use of the amenities to those who have paid to use them, or assess a fee for use by others on a per-use basis.

And, if they can do that, then can't they say on the sign: "By entering the community of the 9,000, you consent to be bound by the Rules Applicable to Visitors, which are on file at the town center and which can be viewed on our internet web site." Also, "If you choose to reside in the community of the 9,000, your act of taking up residence constitutes acceptance of the Rules Applicable to Residents, and the Taxes, Fees and Tariffs applicable to Residents."

Among those rules, can't there be a "no vagabond" rule and a "no selling postcards on streetcorner" rule that visitors and residents agree, by entering into the Community, to abide by?

Yes and no. The basis of any rule or regulation that is to be enforced against anyone who has not voluntarily consented to such a regulation must be founded in the prevention of an initiation of force or fraud by the person regulated. "Status" regulations (being a "vagabond" or "black" ) or any other characteristic that has nothing to do with the actual initiation of force or fraud by that person are not permitted under the Libertarian system because such regulations are themselves inherently an initiation of force against the individual who has done nothing to initiate force or fraud against the community.

Well, then they can't make whatever rules they want among themselves, even if they do consent. So, you're talking in circles.

You've said they could make whatever rules they want, if they all consent. But, now you say they can't make a "no vagabond" rule even if they consent.

Right. Because they cannot decide for the vagabond where he chooses to go. If the vagabond signs the contract that applies to the community, then it can be enforced against him, but the 9000 can neither force him to sign the contract nor act to exclude him from the community because he refuses to sign the contract.

Contracts are not one-sided agreements. The 9000 cannot say "if you enter here you agree to the contract" they have to get actual agreement to the terms of the contract for it to be valid.

But they can make any rules they like among themselves which means among those who have voluntarily consented to have those rules applied to and enforced against themselves.

Of course they can decide where the vagabond goes. He can't be in their town. You have to consent to the rules in order to be in the town - they own the town.

Why can't they "exclude him from the community?" Don't they have freedom of association? Don't the 9000 have a right to not associate with people who won't agree?

As for the "if you enter here, you agree to the contract" -- why can't they do that? That's not one sided - that's just a manner of manifesting assent. It's like a shrinkwrap license on software - by opening it up and installing it on your computer, you agree to the terms of the license. Period. You don't have to sign - and you don't have to "actually" agree (nobody can read your mind and know you really agree) - it says that if you use the software, you agree. Why can't the 9,000 do that with their community? If you enter past the toll which is required to enter the city of the 9000, then you agree to abide by its rules.

You keep saying that they can make rules "among themselves." Doesn't that include rules about property? I mean - if the town is created by the 9,000, and the town has "town limits" where the town begins and ends, or if the 9000 bought up 1,000 acres and built a town on it - why can't they prescribe the rules applicable to anyone who enters the town?

[Coito ergo sum]

This thread made me look UK discrimination laws and sensible its non discrimination based on religion OR belief, i.e there is no legal difference in whether you believe in jesus, mohammed, Margaret Thatcher or Lenin when it comes to employment laws

Interesting. Do you have a citation? Does this mean that the Jewish ex-concentration camp survivor running a butcher shop in London is compelled to hire six Neo-Nazis with shaved heads and swastikas tattooed on their heads, or can he "discriminate" against them based on political belief?

Edit: After a brief review, "belief" includes "religious or philosophical belief" which arguably extends to literally any belief, including that Jews should be shoved into ovens, so yes, in the UK, a Jewish Holocaust survivor can be compelled to hire a Neo-Nazi against his will.

What a bunch of fuckwits the Brits are...

It does seem like that yes, there is an ethic here that professionalism, outside politics and journalism, means businesses should be ideologically neutral places. The holocaust survivor would not reasonably be expected to hire them, but if it could be proven that he refused to hire therm solely on the grounds of their politics, then they might have a case. Frankly I don't think the opposite is much better to be honest, especially during a time of paranoid propaganda bombardments, it can lead to and has led to witch-hunts, blacklists and worse, extermination.

It's much ado about nothing. There is no problem to be solved. People aren't rampantly being denied jobs because of their politics. Democrats are routinely hired by Republicans and vice versa. Libertarians are not being shunned. Nobody even really asks or cares. It's not deemed really all that polite around the US to discuss much politics at work.

Now, if reports start arising of folks refusing to hire people because they don't belong to the same political party or because they hold a political belief, then maybe something ought to be done about it. But, just because something distasteful hasn't been made illegal doesn't mean that the distasteful thing is commonly done.

In the US, the principles of equality and non-irrational-discrimination is in constant tension with freedom of association. I run a small business - there are only four of us working in a small building. If some vocal Marxist comes through my door, or some neofascist, do I need to allow them to work for me, since I'm a fairly classically liberal small-r Jeffersonian republican? I mean - really? God damn right I want to be able to discriminate against them. I have a sleepy little office where I get to run my life more or less as I see fit, and I'd like to keep it that way. I don't need to get sued by some radical who thinks I ought to be forced to give him a paycheck.

But, alas, some invidious discrimination is historically rampant, and can be viewed as a public policy concern. Race discrimination - sex discrimination - etc. These are things that are of a much different character and degree than deciding to hire someone who you think you might enjoy hanging around with 8 hours a day rather than someone you think will sound like a know-it-all hippie douche, or a race-baiting Nazi dirt bag.

I mean - you want a rule where some guy who belongs to the KKK can claim "discrimination" if you don't hire him? Give me a break.

[Coito ergo sum]

There are also laws on inciting hatred so someone who had tattoo's saying gas the Jews on the forehead isnt going to get as far as a job interview at a synagogue. But if they have fascist but legal tendencies in their spare time I don't see why they could be turned down for a job.

Maybe there is a difference in the number of small businesses where you are than where I am. I can tell you why I would want the right to turn down the guy with fascist tendencies in their spare time. Because I think someone with fascist tendencies in their spare time is a douchebag, and I don't want to hang around with that douchebag 8+ hours a day and have to deal with him. I don't like him, that's why. And, I also don't want to enter into a known risk like that, where suddenly my business is on his Facebook page as his "employer" alongside some racist or totalitarian rant he makes. Then friends of mine might ask me why the hell I associate with fascist douchebags.

I guess I could say, "well, the guy is a fascist, but his resume showed he was a qualified secretary, so the fact that I hate his douchey fascist guts, and want nothing to do with him shouldn't be any reason why I'm not saddled with spending 8 or more hours a day with the guy. It's only fair that my life be miserable, because he has a right to foist his fascist views on me and I have no right to disassociate myself with him. Oh, and let's not forget 'harassment.' Let me tell you - if I tell him that I think fascists are douchebags, then he'll report me to the EEOC for harassment based on his political beliefs."

[Seth]

Of course they can decide where the vagabond goes. He can't be in their town. You have to consent to the rules in order to be in the town - they own the town.

Depends on whether the town is entirely private property, in which case you're correct. But if the town is open to any outside visitors, then it is open to all outside visitors who don't initiate force or fraud. Just like a private condo village can close its gates to all but members, so can a community that owns the property, which is private. But where there is not common ownership of all of the property, and there is no universal agreement about allowing or disallowing visitors of any kind, in other words where "public" property exists that's open to all, it's open to all.

Why can't they "exclude him from the community?" Don't they have freedom of association? Don't the 9000 have a right to not associate with people who won't agree?

They have freedom of association, and disassociation, but they do not have freedom to obstruct the movements of another except on their private property because the vagabond ALSO has the right of freedom of association, disassociation, and travel...over public or unowned property. The 9000 can not associate with the vagabond by ignoring him, refusing to trade with him, refusing to serve him, and refusing him access to their private property, but they cannot control his movements unless in those movements he is initiating force or fraud.

As for the "if you enter here, you agree to the contract" -- why can't they do that? That's not one sided - that's just a manner of manifesting assent. It's like a shrinkwrap license on software - by opening it up and installing it on your computer, you agree to the terms of the license. Period. You don't have to sign - and you don't have to "actually" agree (nobody can read your mind and know you really agree) - it says that if you use the software, you agree. Why can't the 9,000 do that with their community? If you enter past the toll which is required to enter the city of the 9000, then you agree to abide by its rules.

In order for a contract to be valid, every person party to it has to agree to the provisions of the contract voluntarily. If a person does not agree with some or all of the provisions, he is not bound by the contract and cannot be forced to accept provisions of a contract that he does not find acceptable. Because the default is liberty of movement across public property, the 9000 cannot make such an implied contract that deals with other than force or fraud, because visitors have the right to move freely on public property so long as they do not initiate force or fraud. An implied "shrink wrap" contract would not be valid in a Libertarian society because it's up to the vendor of the software to obtain prior voluntary agreement to each and every provision of the contract prior to transferring possession of the software to the buyer. In a Libertarian society, when you transfer possession of an item, you transfer title to the item along with it, and if you expect conditions to be observed it's incumbent on you, the vendor, to obtain a valid, signed contractual agreement from each and every person you transfer title to. Absent such a verifiable written contract voluntarily signed by the customer, the item is the absolute property of the buyer, to do with as he pleases. All he needs to do is say, "I didn't agree to provisions A, C and D of the shrink-wrap agreement, so they are not valid and binding upon me because the vendor accepted my rejection of those terms by selling me the software without obtaining an express contractual agreement.

You keep saying that they can make rules "among themselves." Doesn't that include rules about property? I mean - if the town is created by the 9,000, and the town has "town limits" where the town begins and ends, or if the 9000 bought up 1,000 acres and built a town on it - why can't they prescribe the rules applicable to anyone who enters the town?

They can, if they as a group own all 1000 acres. It's in effect private property and they can dictate who enters in or remains in or upon that property. But the social result of doing so may be that neighbors, and neighboring communities reject that closed status and those rules and refuse to trade with the 9000, which might induce the 9000 to change the rules so that the streets, sidewalks and parks become "public" spaces that are by rule open to all visitors without restriction, in order to persuade their neighbors to traded with them. In such a case, the 9000 then give up their right to exclusive control over the entire town because it's no longer strictly "private" but it's partly "public." If areas are open to the public, that means anyone, and interfering with the vagabond would be an initiation of force against him.

So yes, a town could be a "private town" and could restrict absolutely who comes and goes and under what conditions, but such a community would not likely last very long or be very successful in trade and commerce because no one else would want to trade with or visit them. If that's what they want, fine. But if they want to be part of the larger society and engage in trade and travel themselves (remember, their neighbors can refuse them use of THEIR roads if they are too controlling inside their own town) and have intercourse with others.

You're positing an extreme condition that is the equivalent today of a private "compound" full of racists in some back-woods backwater where nobody but members goes, or wants to go. The difference would be that the surrounding communities and neighbors would have a legal right to demonstrate their displeasure at such antisocial antics by refusing to trade with or associate with such persons, which would effectively bar that group from being able to buy anything, get a meal, purchase fuel or anything else. Right now, because of "antidiscrimination" laws, people who might choose to refuse to trade with members of some radical religious sect are prohibited from doing so, which emboldens and spreads antisocial behavior rather than levying a large and intolerable social cost on being a radical outcast, which is the appropriate way for society to marginalize and eliminate undesirables.

[Coito ergo sum]

Of course they can decide where the vagabond goes. He can't be in their town. You have to consent to the rules in order to be in the town - they own the town.

Depends on whether the town is entirely private property, in which case you're correct. But if the town is open to any outside visitors, then it is open to all outside visitors who don't initiate force or fraud. Just like a private condo village can close its gates to all but members, so can a community that owns the property, which is private. But where there is not common ownership of all of the property, and there is no universal agreement about allowing or disallowing visitors of any kind, in other words where "public" property exists that's open to all, it's open to all.

LOL!

I told you specifically in my example that the town was ONLY open to visitors who agreed to the no vagabond rule, and the no selling postcards on the corner rule. I don't know why you're so evasive about this. Just address the example I gave.

The point my example illustrates is that your world would soon descend into that - for security, people would have to join together into towns which would exclude those who don't help pay for it - they'll erect tollbooths on the outskirts, and surround them with men with guns. All you're talking about is what life was like 5000 years ago, Seth. People walking around the planet that had no nation states, and they would be free actors except if they entered a town - if they entered the town, they had to follow the town's rules. That's it. If they were in the countryside, it was basically every person for himself.

Why can't they "exclude him from the community?" Don't they have freedom of association? Don't the 9000 have a right to not associate with people who won't agree?

They have freedom of association, and disassociation, but they do not have freedom to obstruct the movements of another except on their private property because the vagabond ALSO has the right of freedom of association, disassociation, and travel...over public or unowned property. The 9000 can not associate with the vagabond by ignoring him, refusing to trade with him, refusing to serve him, and refusing him access to their private property, but they cannot control his movements unless in those movements he is initiating force or fraud.

So, the can form a town on property the 9,000 own and make any rules they want, including that anyone entering the town must perform oral sex on the town leader, if the leader is so inclined at the time, as a condition of entry? Yes?

As for the "if you enter here, you agree to the contract" -- why can't they do that? That's not one sided - that's just a manner of manifesting assent. It's like a shrinkwrap license on software - by opening it up and installing it on your computer, you agree to the terms of the license. Period. You don't have to sign - and you don't have to "actually" agree (nobody can read your mind and know you really agree) - it says that if you use the software, you agree. Why can't the 9,000 do that with their community? If you enter past the toll which is required to enter the city of the 9000, then you agree to abide by its rules.

In order for a contract to be valid, every person party to it has to agree to the provisions of the contract voluntarily. If a person does not agree with some or all of the provisions, he is not bound by the contract and cannot be forced to accept provisions of a contract that he does not find acceptable. Because the default is liberty of movement across public property, the 9000 cannot make such an implied contract that deals with other than force or fraud, because visitors have the right to move freely on public property so long as they do not initiate force or fraud.

I am not sure if you're saying that's what contract law would be like in your libertarian wonderland, or if you're saying that is what contract law is now. It most certainly isn't contract law now. Now, you don't have to agree to the provisions of contracts voluntarily. You open software and use it, you agree to the license agreement. You visit a website, you agree to the terms and conditions of use. You sign up for an insurance policy, nobody gives a flying fuck whether you even read it, and hardly anyone has ever read it. Same with a credit card agreement - you don't have to "voluntarily consent." The offer is take it or leave it. Do what we say, and we can change our terms anytime we want, or don't get the card. Same thing.

In order to restrict that, you'd have to make a society LESS libertarian, by having some restriction on freedom of contract that would deny people the right to create big giant contracts that people have to take or leave if they want to enter a town or use a road.

An implied "shrink wrap" contract would not be valid in a Libertarian society because it's up to the vendor of the software to obtain prior voluntary agreement to each and every provision of the contract prior to transferring possession of the software to the buyer.

How is that done? Even by signing a contract, we don't know if the person agreed to every single provision. Do they have to initial each word? Sentence?

Your society is dumb, and that would significantly complicate matters, destroy business and industry, etc. Amish society can function like that, but not anything like what we have now.

In a Libertarian society, when you transfer possession of an item, you transfer title to the item along with it, and if you expect conditions to be observed it's incumbent on you, the vendor, to obtain a valid, signed contractual agreement from each and every person you transfer title to. Absent such a verifiable written contract voluntarily signed by the customer, the item is the absolute property of the buyer, to do with as he pleases. All he needs to do is say, "I didn't agree to provisions A, C and D of the shrink-wrap agreement, so they are not valid and binding upon me because the vendor accepted my rejection of those terms by selling me the software without obtaining an express contractual agreement.

What if he clicks a box saying "yes" when he first installs the software, and he's not given an opportunity to click "no" and still use the software? And, the "yes" means - "you agree to our standard 40 page license agreement, every word of it, and agree to fellate us whenever we want?"

You keep saying that they can make rules "among themselves." Doesn't that include rules about property? I mean - if the town is created by the 9,000, and the town has "town limits" where the town begins and ends, or if the 9000 bought up 1,000 acres and built a town on it - why can't they prescribe the rules applicable to anyone who enters the town?

They can, if they as a group own all 1000 acres. It's in effect private property and they can dictate who enters in or remains in or upon that property. But the social result of doing so may be that neighbors, and neighboring communities reject that closed status and those rules and refuse to trade with the 9000, which might induce the 9000 to change the rules so that the streets, sidewalks and parks become "public" spaces that are by rule open to all visitors without restriction, in order to persuade their neighbors to traded with them. In such a case, the 9000 then give up their right to exclusive control over the entire town because it's no longer strictly "private" but it's partly "public." If areas are open to the public, that means anyone, and interfering with the vagabond would be an initiation of force against him.

Sounds like a borderline retarded idea, no offense.

So yes, a town could be a "private town"

Could be? It it seems that as a practical matter that would be all there would be.

[MrJonno]

Maybe there is a difference in the number of small businesses where you are than where I am. I can tell you why I would want the right to turn down the guy with fascist tendencies in their spare time. Because I think someone with fascist tendencies in their spare time is a douchebag, and I don't want to hang around with that douchebag 8+ hours a day and have to deal with him. I don't like him, that's why. And, I also don't want to enter into a known risk like that, where suddenly my business is on his Facebook page as his "employer" alongside some racist or totalitarian rant he makes. Then friends of mine might ask me why the hell I associate with fascist douchebags.

I guess I could say, "well, the guy is a fascist, but his resume showed he was a qualified secretary, so the fact that I hate his douchey fascist guts, and want nothing to do with him shouldn't be any reason why I'm not saddled with spending 8 or more hours a day with the guy. It's only fair that my life be miserable, because he has a right to foist his fascist views on me and I have no right to disassociate myself with him. Oh, and let's not forget 'harassment.' Let me tell you - if I tell him that I think fascists are douchebags, then he'll report me to the EEOC for harassment based on his political beliefs."

Well an employee and to some extent employers lose a lot of free speech once they enter work. It's quite reasonable for an employer to say to an employee to say don't discuss politics at work. There are some interesting European laws about a 'right to a private life' which do apply to work but I doubt this means a right to run political activites from your office just to ring home and sort out child care etc. Regarding Facebook I work for a company that supplies many government services and in my contract it very explicitely says that if I mention my employer I must be political neutral in private. I can do whatever I want politically but If I stick on Facebook I work for 'XXX' and say I believe party Y is evil I have to put a disclaimer saying this is my private opinion not my employer. The reality of course is I don't say who I work for on any public media bar my CV (resume),

So as for hiring a fascist/communist/libertarian I don't think you should be legally able to discriminate against hiring them but I think its quite reasonable to say concentrate on your job while in the workplace.

My boss is a devout Muslim he's an alright guy and he knows I'm an atheist. He doesnt go around saying I will burn in hell (not sure he actually believe that through )and I don't go around saying his religion is full of shit. Don't see why can't apply to politics as well

[Seth]

Of course they can decide where the vagabond goes. He can't be in their town. You have to consent to the rules in order to be in the town - they own the town.

Depends on whether the town is entirely private property, in which case you're correct. But if the town is open to any outside visitors, then it is open to all outside visitors who don't initiate force or fraud. Just like a private condo village can close its gates to all but members, so can a community that owns the property, which is private. But where there is not common ownership of all of the property, and there is no universal agreement about allowing or disallowing visitors of any kind, in other words where "public" property exists that's open to all, it's open to all.

LOL!

I told you specifically in my example that the town was ONLY open to visitors who agreed to the no vagabond rule, and the no selling postcards on the corner rule. I don't know why you're so evasive about this. Just address the example I gave.

Other Libertarians (including vagabonds) are not necessarily obliged to recognize or obey that rule, that's the point. Unless a visitor is initiating force or fraud by entering the community, a "no vagabonds" rule can be ignored. Or, people may decide not to visit in protest.

The point my example illustrates is that your world would soon descend into that - for security, people would have to join together into towns which would exclude those who don't help pay for it - they'll erect tollbooths on the outskirts, and surround them with men with guns.

So? People already do this. It's called a "gated community with armed security guards." They exist today, but they are not widespread or ubiquitous. The people who live in them have decided to live under those rules and they like being left alone. That's their right.

The vast majority of people, however, prefer to live in an open society where people are free to move about and trade and have social intercourse with others because they are rational actors who act with rational self-interest, compassion, altruism and charity, so they create communities with amenities that they leave open to all to use, understanding that their ability to enjoy freedom when in other communities depends on voluntary cooperation and tolerance for visitors to their own communities.

You are holding up the rare exception as the rule. Libertarians don't have a problem with insular communities because they understand the natural pressures of wider social interaction and how the need for trade and the desire for social intercourse will moderate antisocial behavior both at the individual and community levels. If some group wants to created a gated community surrounded by armed guards to keep out vagabonds and unwanted visitors, that's their right, and how they go about it will determine if they are accepted in the larger social community.

To each his own.

All you're talking about is what life was like 5000 years ago, Seth. People walking around the planet that had no nation states, and they would be free actors except if they entered a town - if they entered the town, they had to follow the town's rules. That's it. If they were in the countryside, it was basically every person for himself.

Which was a factor of the inability of small, scattered populations to police the wilds. People were indeed on their own to protect themselves, just as they are today in rural areas, at least until help can be summoned. So what?

The rule of law does not vanish outside the town boundaries, and the same "NF/F" rule applies everywhere, regardless of what some community may decide it wants for additional voluntary regulations.

Why can't they "exclude him from the community?" Don't they have freedom of association? Don't the 9000 have a right to not associate with people who won't agree?

They have freedom of association, and disassociation, but they do not have freedom to obstruct the movements of another except on their private property because the vagabond ALSO has the right of freedom of association, disassociation, and travel...over public or unowned property. The 9000 can not associate with the vagabond by ignoring him, refusing to trade with him, refusing to serve him, and refusing him access to their private property, but they cannot control his movements unless in those movements he is initiating force or fraud.

So, the can form a town on property the 9,000 own and make any rules they want, including that anyone entering the town must perform oral sex on the town leader, if the leader is so inclined at the time, as a condition of entry? Yes?

They can ask, but they can't force anyone to do anything. They can at best exclude visitors from private property and refuse to trade or associate with them. And neighboring communities can bar inhabitants of that community from their private property in protest of the unreasonable demands they make upon visitors. In the end, the rational actors in the area come to voluntary agreements about common rules of behavior and deal with the small number of extraordinary situations on a case-by-case basis, while adhering to Libertarian principles.

As for the "if you enter here, you agree to the contract" -- why can't they do that? That's not one sided - that's just a manner of manifesting assent. It's like a shrinkwrap license on software - by opening it up and installing it on your computer, you agree to the terms of the license. Period. You don't have to sign - and you don't have to "actually" agree (nobody can read your mind and know you really agree) - it says that if you use the software, you agree. Why can't the 9,000 do that with their community? If you enter past the toll which is required to enter the city of the 9000, then you agree to abide by its rules.

In order for a contract to be valid, every person party to it has to agree to the provisions of the contract voluntarily. If a person does not agree with some or all of the provisions, he is not bound by the contract and cannot be forced to accept provisions of a contract that he does not find acceptable. Because the default is liberty of movement across public property, the 9000 cannot make such an implied contract that deals with other than force or fraud, because visitors have the right to move freely on public property so long as they do not initiate force or fraud.

I am not sure if you're saying that's what contract law would be like in your libertarian wonderland, or if you're saying that is what contract law is now. It most certainly isn't contract law now. Now, you don't have to agree to the provisions of contracts voluntarily. You open software and use it, you agree to the license agreement. You visit a website, you agree to the terms and conditions of use. You sign up for an insurance policy, nobody gives a flying fuck whether you even read it, and hardly anyone has ever read it. Same with a credit card agreement - you don't have to "voluntarily consent." The offer is take it or leave it. Do what we say, and we can change our terms anytime we want, or don't get the card. Same thing.

We're discussing Libertarian philosophy and a theoretical Libertarian society.

In order to restrict that, you'd have to make a society LESS libertarian, by having some restriction on freedom of contract that would deny people the right to create big giant contracts that people have to take or leave if they want to enter a town or use a road.

Contracts are agreements between individuals, and therefore they require the consent of all individuals who are party to the contract to all provisions of the contract. Whether a "take it or leave it" contract is valid depends in part on the circumstances of the contract. If you present me with a shrink-wrap "contract" attached to an item I'm seeking to purchase, you have to obtain my actual consent to the contract for it to be valid and binding, before you transfer ownership and possession of the item to me. If you don't obtain my express (and verifiable...usually in writing) consent to each and every provision prior to selling me the item, I'm free to repudiate any provision, or the entire contract by simply saying "I did not agree to that provision, and you have no proof that I did." Contracts are two-sided, and are not valid unless ratified by both parties. By transferring the item to me without my express written agreement to all the provisions of the contract, you have forfeited your right to enforce the contract, and the property is mine free and clear of all obligations.

Yes, there are restrictions on the freedom of contract insofar as in order for a contract to be valid, both parties must reach a true meeting of the minds about each and every provision of the contract and must actively and actually ratify that agreement. Implied contracts are not permitted in Libertarian society. You are only obliged to do that which you have expressly agreed to do (or not do) voluntarily.

An implied "shrink wrap" contract would not be valid in a Libertarian society because it's up to the vendor of the software to obtain prior voluntary agreement to each and every provision of the contract prior to transferring possession of the software to the buyer.

How is that done? Even by signing a contract, we don't know if the person agreed to every single provision. Do they have to initial each word? Sentence?

Signing a contract is implicitly agreeing to all the provisions. What's not permitted is a "take it or leave it" implied contract that does not include some proof that both parties to the transaction have read and agreed to the terms. If you don't have proof that I read and agreed to the contract, you cannot enforce that contract. Merely handing me a product with a piece of paper on it that purports to be a contract doesn't form an enforceable contract because you have no proof I've even read the paper.

Your society is dumb, and that would significantly complicate matters, destroy business and industry, etc. Amish society can function like that, but not anything like what we have now.

Sure we can. Just because it's inconvenient for businesses to have you sign a contract doesn't mean it's impossible to do so. If Microsoft wants to enforce a contract against me regarding their software, then they need to present me with the contract and gain my voluntary assent to it and obtain my signature on the contract BEFORE they transfer their software to me. If they don't get that consent, then they are transferring that item to me free of any obligations on my part to respect their wishes. That it's inconvenient or costly for Microsoft to do so is not a justification for using the law to benefit Microsoft by allowing it to use shrink-wrap "agreements" to the detriment of my right to obtain a product free of unwanted obligation.

If your product is so important to you that you need a contract before transferring it to a customer, then you'd damned well better take the time to have a negotiation about the contract and obtain verifiable assent to it.

What would satisfy Libertarian philosophy in re Microsoft software (for example) is for Microsoft to simply direct its retailers that they must obtain verifiable identification and a signature on the contract BEFORE the sale is rung up and the software transferred. Alternatively, Microsoft can secure its software so that it cannot be duplicated without permission. That's within its rights.

This is not substantially more difficult than an implied shrink-wrap agreement.

In a Libertarian society, when you transfer possession of an item, you transfer title to the item along with it, and if you expect conditions to be observed it's incumbent on you, the vendor, to obtain a valid, signed contractual agreement from each and every person you transfer title to. Absent such a verifiable written contract voluntarily signed by the customer, the item is the absolute property of the buyer, to do with as he pleases. All he needs to do is say, "I didn't agree to provisions A, C and D of the shrink-wrap agreement, so they are not valid and binding upon me because the vendor accepted my rejection of those terms by selling me the software without obtaining an express contractual agreement.

What if he clicks a box saying "yes" when he first installs the software, and he's not given an opportunity to click "no" and still use the software? And, the "yes" means - "you agree to our standard 40 page license agreement, every word of it, and agree to fellate us whenever we want?"

No. Any attempt to impose contract conditions AFTER the purchase of the product is an initiation of fraud against the buyer. If I buy a cheeseburger, I am taking absolute title to that product and the manager of Wendy's cannot stop me from eating it by telling me that I have to agree to some other provision after I've paid for the burger. Computer software is no different. If you have conditions on the sale of a product, they must be revealed and ratified before you transfer ownership of the product to the customer. Ex post facto contracts are not enforceable.

You keep saying that they can make rules "among themselves." Doesn't that include rules about property? I mean - if the town is created by the 9,000, and the town has "town limits" where the town begins and ends, or if the 9000 bought up 1,000 acres and built a town on it - why can't they prescribe the rules applicable to anyone who enters the town?

They can, if they as a group own all 1000 acres. It's in effect private property and they can dictate who enters in or remains in or upon that property. But the social result of doing so may be that neighbors, and neighboring communities reject that closed status and those rules and refuse to trade with the 9000, which might induce the 9000 to change the rules so that the streets, sidewalks and parks become "public" spaces that are by rule open to all visitors without restriction, in order to persuade their neighbors to traded with them. In such a case, the 9000 then give up their right to exclusive control over the entire town because it's no longer strictly "private" but it's partly "public." If areas are open to the public, that means anyone, and interfering with the vagabond would be an initiation of force against him.

Sounds like a borderline retarded idea, no offense.

Why? Such communities already exist, and things still proceed quite nicely. Most people don't want to live under those restrictions, but why should those that do be prevented from doing so? If I want to live in a gated community with armed guards that keep out the riff-raff and vagabonds, why shouldn't I be allowed to do so?

So yes, a town could be a "private town"

Could be? It it seems that as a practical matter that would be all there would be.

Nonsense. Since it's already perfectly legal to create such a community, and there are any number of them in existence right now, it sounds borderline retarded to suggest that every community is going to constitute itself as a closed, gated community with highly restrictive rules. If it was going to happen, it would have already happened. The fact is that most people like to live in an open society, so they tolerate others quite nicely and are rational actors who are smart enough to act in their own rational self-interest and extend openness, charity, altruism and competent, reasonable adult personality behavior towards others.

If a fringe groups wants to create a closed compound, then let them? What business is it of yours if that's how they want to live? Why should the larger society impose force upon them to demand that they not "discriminate?" They have a right to discriminate and hold themselves apart from the rest of society, and that right exceeds the right of anyone who wants to be a member of the community against the wishes of the other members of the community. Go find your own community and let other people alone to associate with whom they will, and will not.

What's so difficult or horrible about that?

[MrJonno]

If a fringe group want to form their own compound and want it to be of no concern to anyone else they can go and find their own country. Even then they may well find its in their interest to sign up to international laws.

However we are already all part of a society the country we live in which generally gives us a lot of benefits and costs. If you want nothing to do with that society I fully support (the non-natural) right to leave it via the nearest sea or border

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If a fringe group want to form their own compound and want it to be of no concern to anyone else they can go and find their own country. Even then they may well find its in their interest to sign up to international laws.

However we are already all part of a society the country we live in which generally gives us a lot of benefits and costs. If you want nothing to do with that society I fully support (the non-natural) right to leave it via the nearest sea or border

You ever notice that those groups still use the highways?

[MrJonno]

If a fringe group want to form their own compound and want it to be of no concern to anyone else they can go and find their own country. Even then they may well find its in their interest to sign up to international laws.

However we are already all part of a society the country we live in which generally gives us a lot of benefits and costs. If you want nothing to do with that society I fully support (the non-natural) right to leave it via the nearest sea or border

You ever notice that those groups still use the highways?

I'm quite happy to have tax payers money allow them to use it for free as long as its oneway

[Seth]

If a fringe group want to form their own compound and want it to be of no concern to anyone else they can go and find their own country. Even then they may well find its in their interest to sign up to international laws.

However we are already all part of a society the country we live in which generally gives us a lot of benefits and costs. If you want nothing to do with that society I fully support (the non-natural) right to leave it via the nearest sea or border

Yes, we all know that you prefer the tyranny of the majority and that you are dependent on the largess of government for your support, but that doesn't make your dependency the metric by which everyone must live.

[MrJonno]

Yes, we all know that you prefer the tyranny of the majority and that you are dependent on the largess of government for your support, but that doesn't make your dependency the metric by which everyone must live.

Those of us who are lucky live by the 'tyranny' of the majority those less fortunate just live under the real tryanny of the minority

[Seth]

Yes, we all know that you prefer the tyranny of the majority and that you are dependent on the largess of government for your support, but that doesn't make your dependency the metric by which everyone must live.

Those of us who are lucky live by the 'tyranny' of the majority those less fortunate just live under the real tryanny of the minority

It's all about balancing respect for individual rights with one another in a society of ordered liberty, something you clearly don't understand. You think just because the majority thinks it's a good idea, and just because it benefits you personally, it's inherently right and just. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just ask the Jews of Weimar Germany.

[MrJonno]

Yes, we all know that you prefer the tyranny of the majority and that you are dependent on the largess of government for your support, but that doesn't make your dependency the metric by which everyone must live.

Those of us who are lucky live by the 'tyranny' of the majority those less fortunate just live under the real tryanny of the minority

It's all about balancing respect for individual rights with one another in a society of ordered liberty, something you clearly don't understand. You think just because the majority thinks it's a good idea, and just because it benefits you personally, it's inherently right and just. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just ask the Jews of Weimar Germany.

That would be the tyranny of the minority , ie a dictator. If the majority want you dead its time to find somewhere new to live regardless of governmental system