[The Old Hoosier]

I welcome comments from any Libertarians who believe that the government should have the power to prevent me from signing this contract, and would like to explain why:

I, the undersigned, in exchange for $50,000, hereby promise, under penalty of corporal punishment to be administered by the payer (master), to perform all menial tasks he asks me to perform, every day for the remainder of my life. I permanently surrender my right to leave and work for anyone else, unless the payer chooses to dissolve this contract. I understand that this contract cannot be dissolved by me, the undersigned.

[William Terrell]

Every sale iplies a price, a quid pro quo, an equivalent given to the seller in lieu of what he transfers to the buyer; but what equivalent can be given for life and liberty, both of which, in absolute slavery, are held to be in the master's disposal? His property also, the very price he seems to receive, devolves ipso facto to his master the instant he becomes his slave. In this case the buyer gives nothing, and the seller receives nothing. Of what validity, then, can a sale be which desteroys the very principles upon which all sales are founded?

Blackstone

[Eagle Eye]

I guess I missed the question. Oh well.

Why should the government decide if you should sell yourself into slavery or not? It shouldn't. (Some of us would call that an enlistment contract!)

However, don't you think that $50k is a little cheap for a lifetime?

[Johassen]

There's no problem according to contract theory with voluntarily entering the contract, voluntarily following it, or, get this, voluntarily breaking it. That's right. Contract theory is not punitive and promotes efficiency, so the question is, if you decide, voluntarily again, to breach your contract, what is the damage to the other side? And with the court and government enforce it? It sounds to me like in your example you might well owe fifty-thousand plus interest back, but not necessarily more.