Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amdcad!decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!wallace
From: wallace@ucbvax.ARPA (David E. Wallace)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Questions for Libertarians
Message-ID: <4897@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 19-Feb-85 02:44:35 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.4897
Posted: Tue Feb 19 02:44:35 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 18-Feb-85 22:42:54 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 89


	I have some questions for those on the net who consider themselves
libertarians.  Suppose that a government has been established in accordance
with your favorite libertarian principles.  Now suppose the following
situation arises:

	Joe and Bob are two hikers who independently decide to go
backpacking in a remote wilderness, away from any naturally occurring
sources of food or water.  Joe encounters a band of thugs who beat him
up, take all his equipment (including all his food and water), and leave
him badly injured and unable to get help unassisted.  Bob subsequently
comes along and finds Joe lying by the side of the trail.  Bob has 
enough food, water, and medical supplies in his pack to treat Joe and
allow both of them to return safely to civilization.  Both men realize
that if Bob does not help Joe, it is extremely unlikely that anyone else
will come that way before Joe dies from a combination of hunger, thirst,
and the effects of his injuries.

	Bob offers to help Joe, but only if Joe will sign a contract with
him first.  The major provisions of this contract are:

	A. Bob will treat Joe's injuries and assist him in returning to
	   civilization,
	B. Bob agrees to supply Joe with at least a minimal amount of
	   food, clothing, and shelter (enough for survival) for the rest
	   of Joe's life.
	In exchange for these, Joe agrees:
	C. To give Bob all property that he currently owns (presumably he
	   had some property that he left behind when setting out on this
	   trip), and
	D. To work for Bob without further compensation (beyond that
	   specified in (A) and (B) above) at any tasks Bob may require,
	   up to 16 hours per day, 7 days per week, for the rest of
	   his (Joe's) life.
	Finally,
	E. Bob may transfer his rights and obligations under this contract
	   to anyone he chooses, either temporarily or permanently, for
	   any consideration whatever.

	In addition, there are whatever standard enforcement and
arbitration provisions are typical for legal contracts in this society.

	Joe, after considering his alternatives (most likely a rather
unpleasant death), signs this contract, and Bob treats his wounds
and helps him return to civilization.  After recovering from his
injuries, however, Joe decides that he has gotten a rather raw deal
and appeals to an arbitrator, asking to be released from this contract
(particularly provision (D) above).

	Now for the questions:

	1. If you were the arbitrator, presumably ruling in accordance with
	   whatever principles of libertarian society you value most, how
	   would you resolve this dispute, and why?
	
	2. If the contract were to be upheld, do you think that Joe's status
	   under it would be significantly different from a slave in
	   pre-Civil War times (other than that his status would not
	   automatically be transferred to his children, if any)?
	   If so, what do you think the significant differences are?
	   If not (I don't see much difference), is such a status acceptable
	   in a society that values human freedom?
	
	3. If you felt the contract should be struck down (in whole or in
	   part), what do you think should be the limits of governmental
	   interference with individual's rights to contract with one
	   another?  Is there a difference between a claim on Joe's
	   future labor (provision D) and a claim on the results of
	   his past labor (provision C)?  Would it make a difference if
	   the period covered by the contract was a fixed period rather
	   than Joe's lifetime (say, seven years?  What about if it was for
	   one day?).  Does it make any difference if the labor required
	   of Joe endangers his life (such as service in Bob's private army)?
	
	4. Suppose the contract were upheld, and Joe subsequently runs away.
	   Has Joe thereby initiated the use of force against Bob's property
	   (Bob's interest in Joe's future labor)?  Is Bob therefore justified
	   in using force against Joe to reclaim his property rights?
	   Is this situation any different from that of a burglar who comes
	   on to Bob's property, takes something belonging to Bob, and then
	   leaves?  Why or why not?

	5. Regardless of whether or not you felt the conditions Bob imposed
	   on providing aid should be legal, do you think he was right
	   (i.e., morally justified) in doing so?  (I trust the distinction
	   is clear).

Dave Wallace  (...!ucbvax!wallace, wallace@Berkeley)
(Not a libertarian, but interested in responses from those who are.)