Lonesharking

[Demogorgon]

I think I have discussed this subject before with certain people, but inspired by this story I feel it is worth another discussion in light of what it mean for "freedom of contract"

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090805/tuk-uk-britain-loanshark-fa6b408.html

According to most Libertarians the sort of behaviour this individual was engaging in was perfectly acceptable. Indeed those paying extortionate interest were "initiating force" against him by failing to pay the agreed rate. Considering the misery caused by this behaviour though, can we really regard "freedom of contract" as a good thing? Surely this sort of behaviour should remain illegal.

[RGacky3]

Of coarse, as with most of Libertarians theory, the result ends up as essesncially slavery and tyranny, however since it falls into their concept of acceptable and liberty the outcome is irrelivant, the reason the outcome is always the same is because the libertarians concept of freedom is self-contradictory, as we can see by the actaul outcomes that they readily accept.

THe one question that has yet to be answered by (mainyl anarcho-capitalists), is why the general population would respect property laws beyond person possesion even though it limits their access, and may result in their having to hire themselves out. If there is no state to enforce property laws, why would people just simply respect it?

A king needs an army to defend his kingship, and Property Laws need a state to defend that.

[New Tet]

[...]
According to most Libertarians the sort of behaviour this individual was engaging in was perfectly acceptable. Indeed those paying extortionate interest were "initiating force" against him by failing to pay the agreed rate. Considering the misery caused by this behaviour though, can we really regard "freedom of contract" as a good thing? Surely this sort of behaviour should remain illegal.

This is where Daniel De Leon stood on the question of contracts: (http://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/works/1905/050710.htm)


What is a “contract"?
I am not going to give you any Socialist definition of the term.
The term has nothing to do with Socialism. It is a term the
meaning of which has grown up with the race’s experience.
The definition I shall give is the law book definition. It is the
definition accepted and acted upon in all the courts of equity.

A contract is an agreement entered into by two equal parties; a
contract is an agreement entered into between peers; a contract
is an agreement entered into by two freemen. Where the parties
to a thing called a contract fall within these categories, they are
said to be of contracting mind and power, and the document is
valid; where that which is called a contract lacks any of these
essential qualities, especially if it lacks them all, the thing is null,
void and of no effect; it is a badge of fraud of which he is guilty
who imposes the contract upon the other.

[JazzRemington]

It's not so much accepting the high interest rate as it is not being told about it until after you've taken the loan, which is the case a great deal of time.