ACland -- live it now

[latefordinner]

AFAIK, different interpretations of AC recognize different limits to contracts. For example, many ACers including Rothbard would not recognize a contract where one person signs themselves into permanent slavery (or their children).

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
AFAIK, different interpretations of AC recognize different limits to contracts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that the contract(s) outline in the hypothetical are of the type that wouldn't be recognized? If so, why is that? What is it about their character that would make them so objectionable.

[latefordinner]

well I'm not an ACer or an expert on market anarchist understanding of contracts but I would say yes, certainly I think some people could make the case that a contract that "runs with the land" and includes an "unable to secede" clause is unfairly restrictive in that it allows people to negotiate unbreakable contracts that future people will have no option to renegotiate or back out of.

as far as my vision of anarchist collectivities, any participation in any association must be voluntarily and able to be terminated at any time by any of the parties involved (with an appropriate loss of access to whatever the original perceived 'advantages' of that association were in the first place)

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
certainly I think some people could make the case that a contract that "runs with the land" and includes an "unable to secede" clause is unfairly restrictive in that it allows people to negotiate unbreakable contracts that future people will have no option to renegotiate or back out of.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but you acquire the property with full knowledge of those restrictions. It is still an entirely voluntary process. I can choose to purchase a piece of property that is part of an HOA/City/State or not. The price for that property will reflect its membership in such a group (higher or lower.) You can get out of the contract by selling your property.

[ QUOTE ]
as far as my vision of anarchist collectivities, any participation in any association must be voluntarily and able to be terminated at any time by any of the parties involved...


[/ QUOTE ]

That is quite a sever restriction on contract, in my opinion.

[Barcalounger]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
as far as my vision of anarchist collectivities, any participation in any association must be voluntarily and able to be terminated at any time by any of the parties involved...


[/ QUOTE ]

That is quite a sever restriction on contract, in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wish my 3 year gym membership had been in AC land... [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[latefordinner]

Not the same, in any version of AC asserted by people on this board (I think) you would be responsible for the 3 yr term of contract you signed (assuming that your original contract had penalty clauses for termination or whathaveyou). However, you possibly couldn't sign a contract that said that your children and your children's children in perpetuity had to be bound under the same contract with the same gym.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
However, you possibly couldn't sign a contract that said that your children and your children's children in perpetuity had to be bound under the same contract with the same gym.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody is binding children or children's children. The hypothetical is a bind on property. Think of it as akin to an easement. Imagine that the phone company purchases from you an easement on your property for $10,000. The easement allows them to run lines underground through your yard. Are you suggesting that you can back out of that arrangement or that successor owners of the same property should be able to back out of it? How about if you sell to your neighbor an easement to use part of your driveway (because absent your driveway they have no access to their house. You agree to sell that access for $5,000 and agree that successive owners of your neighbors property will have access to the easement (though you still own the land.) Should you (or your children or your children's children) be able to back out of that one as well???