There is a difference between real time self defense, and preemptive violence in the name of self defense (justification for all wars or imprisonment)

Also contracts that attempt to compel a certain behavior may not be valid as this is akin to selling yourself into slavery.

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/nineteen.asp

THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY implies the right to make contracts about that property: to give it away or to exchange titles of ownership for the property of another person. Unfortunately, many libertarians, devoted to the right to make contracts, hold the contract itself to be an absolute, and therefore maintain that any voluntary contract whatever must be legally enforceable in the free society. Their error is a failure to realize that the right to contract is strictly derivable from the right of private property, and therefore that the only enforceable contracts (i.e., those backed by the sanction of legal coercion) should be those where the failure of one party to abide by the contract implies thetheft of property from the other party. In short, a contract should only be enforceable when the failure to fulfill it is an implicit theft of property. But this can only be true if we hold that validly enforceable contracts only exist where title to property has already been transferred, and therefore where the failure to abide by the contract means that the other party’s property is retained by the delinquent party, without the consent of the former (implicit theft). Hence, this proper libertarian theory of enforceable contracts has been termed the “title-transfer” theory of contracts.1
……...

Let us examine, on the other hand, the implications of the now prevalent “promise” or “expectations” theory of contracts. Suppose that A promises to marry B; B proceeds to make wedding plans, incurring costs of preparing for the wedding. At the last minute, A changes his or her mind, thereby violating this alleged “contract.” What should be the role of a legal enforcing agency in the libertarian society? Logically, the strict believer in the “promise” theory of contracts would have to reason as follows: A voluntarily promised B that he or she would marry the other, this set up the expectation of marriage in the other’s mind; therefore this contract must be enforced. A must beforced to marry B.

………

Let us pursue more deeply our argument that mere promises or expectations should not be enforceable. The basic reason is that the only valid transfer of title of ownership in the free society is the case where the property is, in fact and in the nature of man, alienable by man. All physical property owned by a person is alienable, i.e., in natural fact it can be given or transferred to the ownership and control of another party. I can give away or sell to another person my shoes, my house, my car, my money, etc. But there are certain vital things which, in natural fact and in the nature of man, are inalienable, i.e., they cannot in fact be alienated, even voluntarily. Specifically, a person cannot alienate his will, more particularly his control over his own mind and body. Each man has control over his own mind and body. Each man has control over his own will and person, and he is, if you wish, “stuck” with that inherent and inalienable ownership. Since his will and control over his own person are inalienable, then so also are his rights to control that person and will. That is the ground for the famous position of the Declaration of Independence that man’s natural rights are inalienable; that is, they cannot be surrendered, even if the person wishes to do so.





On Jan 1, 2014, at 7:38 AM, Bedeho Mender <bedeho.mender@???> wrote:

> -Clearly it would depend entirely on the context, but it seems that
> in a whole range of plausible circumstances that a contract exists.
>
> example: I stand on the street corner selling my own software in exchange for
> money, and part of the states sales agreement is that you cannot violate GPL
> terms of my software.
>
> In this scenario there is clearly a contract, and use of force seems no less
> legitimate than in other contract violation cases.
>
>
> On 31 December 2013 19:35, Mike Gogulski <mike@???> wrote:
>
> On 12/14/2013 11:49 AM, Bedeho Mender wrote:
> > To my knowledge, anarchism does not require abandoning use of violence
> > under all circumstances.
> >
>
> Surely not. Anarchism != pacifism, though some combine the two or choose
> to derive one from the other. I don't.
>
> > If one interprets the GPL violator as breaching contract with the creator
> > of the software, then use of violence to prohibit continued breach seems
> > like an act many anarchists would find acceptable.
>
> The "violator" has no contract with the creator under any reasonable
> interpretation.
>
> http://www.nostate.com/2323/intellectual-property-does-not-exist/
>
> and see particularly:
>
> http://www.nostate.com/514/and-you-agree/
>
> Peace,
> Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem