[diggers350] Re: Contracts and free choice

[binty at lycosmail.com]

Gavin Parker wrote:

> It is fairly clear to me that no contract is 'freely' 
> entered into - there are always things like 'need' or 
> emotions' that influence us. Bearing this in mind 
> connect with the thoughts that I have suggested 
> regarding how land might best be regulated. 

To be legal, a contract must be freely entered into, 
otherwise the contract is void, as it is if you are 
drunk when you sign it, or being coerced.

Need and emotions are the motives of a free person 
making contracts in a free market, so wanting or 
needing to sign a contract does not make it void.

> Is it not also about regulating ourselves and others 
> to ensure that the basis for 'contracts' are fairer 
> and more equitable?

The fact that landowners never bothered to establish a 
legal right or contract, means they get their right to 
fence off land from some vague tradition. It is 
precisely because contracts must be free and equitable, 
that land ownership must be abolished.

I agree that land use must be better regulated. Though 
I joked about it before, I have long believed we need 
better democratic systems, with better software to 
allow citizens to engage.

But this issue is a big money issue, in which millions
are robbed by an abusive tradition which cannot be made
to stand up in court. Better land use is a separate but 
important problem which must be addressed, but there is
no need to hold up our right to demand rent from land
monopolists while we solve that one.


------------
Stephen Bint

I live in the narrow corridors between claimed land.

http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/senate/6036/stw.htm








-----------------------------------------------------
Get free personalized email at http://email.lycos.com