http://mises.org/Community/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2009/02/13/inalienability.aspxThere recently has been a lot of discussion and debate among libertarians online about self-ownership, rights, responsibility, voluntary slavery and inalienability. I think that this has helped reveal some significant flaws in the way that certain libertariansenCommunityServer 2008.5 SP2 (Build: 40407.4157)http://mises.org/Community/blogs/brainpolice/archive/2009/02/13/inalienability.aspx#91381Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:35:32 GMT944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:91381zefreak<p>Other than the inalienability of self-determination, why would exit clauses in a contract that involve physical force be unjustified in a free society? </p> <p>The way I see it, the illegitimacy of the Social Contract stems from the fact that no contract was or is ever made. The notion of an &quot;implicit&quot; contract is the problem regarding the social contract, not the fact that there is no way to get out of it.</p> <p>If you are to formulate a consistent, systematic theory of inalienability, you will have to derive a non-arbitrary limit to breach of contract clauses. </p> <p>I maintain that any clause freely agreed upon by both parties is binding, and both parties are justified in fulfilling the contracts to the letter, and I do not think you provided a cogent refutation of this.</p> <p>Your tangential philosophizing on &quot;voluntary slavery&quot; (a contradiction I admit, but still mere semantics) and dualism are to my mind accurate but irrelevant. </p> <div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://mises.org/Community/aggbug.aspx?PostID=91381" width="1" height="1">