Speaking of "balancing rights" isn't the correct framing of this question; it's whether the right exists or does not exist.

Who decides what constitutes "harm"?

Ultimately, this all comes down to whether [purported right] is actually held to be a right, in which case any violations to it need to be negotiated in advance.

Nielsio might think he "owns himself" and so shouldn't be subject to "bodily harm". Others might take more expansive views of harm and argue that one has a "right" to not be assaulted, harassed, spied upon, etc.

As I have a high view of privacy, I would prefer a society which shares those views, in which case employers wishing to spy on their employees would (at a minimum) have to notify/obtain consent.

(DrModern's point about admissibility of contracts is the natural next question after the above is resolved in the favor of the right existing, regarding the legitimacy of those negotiations.)

In the facebook scenario, there appears to be fraud IMO.

I am sure that some here wouldn't consider the impersonation aspects alone to be problematic.

Do you have a problem with employees blocking tracking devices?

Yes if it's part of the contract they signed when they agreed to work for the company.

The freedoms that Americans pride themselves in give many options. Sure you can block the device, and they can terminate your employment. You were never told what to do, you voluntarily joined the firm.

How long is the average agreement to work contract in AC/Liber lala land. It seems to me it would be a full time ****ing job just reading the thing.

.......................

Absolutely true. Does law bind the lawgiver?

This problem is far from intractable, though. Anonymous litigation and closed courtrooms (for limited purposes, obviously) go a significant way toward limiting the disclosures of private information necessary to protect privacy rights. Attorneys and judges can also be bound by strict confidentiality rules, as they largely are in our society. I'm certain you've heard of Ms. Jane Roe.

Interestingly, even with a strong government, the arms race in privacy violations persists in modified form. Democratic processes tend to allow certain segments of the population to placate their desires to see other, unpopular segments of the population policed more heavily. The erosion of Fourth Amendment protections by stop and frisk procedures comes to mind. While the official story is that racial profiling is prohibited, the actual use of certain techniques deviates significantly from the official story. Overpolicing detects more crime; more crime begets more policing.

And what of lower standards of proof used for tortious conduct - such as assault or grossly negligent driving - that simultaneously qualifies as criminal conduct? I think social perceptions of the seriousness of the appropriate punishment play a more significant part in determining burden of proof than you're crediting here.

Well stated.

How long is the average employment contract in corporate America?

Hint: long

Not only for work but everything you do really. A massive system of rules that is incredibly less efficient than "the law" that already exists. ACland is a bureaucratic distopia truly beyond comprehension. At least there'd be a lot of jobs, going to need more lawyers.

Transaction costs wouldn't exist in ACland, duh.

This is baseless speculation.

Well if I was a wealthy boss type in LiberLand I'm waiting until there is a local labor surplus and offering a "write your own contract" job offering. Kinda like a reverse auction, the more desperate will write in less work place restrictions, less pay, etc. And how many workers are going to remember to put in all the "standard disclaimers" so vitally necessary in LiberLand not to gotcha yourself into indentured servitude. Or spied upon in the bathroom...

I think we can imagine workers forgetting to write out all the "standard disclaimers" when they know they are going to be hired by how short, how simple, and how disadvantageous to themselves they make the proposed contract. This should work every time there is a labor surplus, easy game in LiberLand.

The cool thing about LiborLand, for the bosses, is that no matter how lopsided the power positions of a negotiation, no matter what conditions exist in the real world to force one parties hand... heck even if one side in the negotiation has directly or indirectly caused the lopsided power positions in the real world which color and define any possible agreement... none of that matters. As long as any contract is arrived at, and as long as immediate and direct use or threat of violence is not used, it is by definition considered "voluntary", and then again by definition, the entire of society has a moral obligation to enforce that contract even to the point of using violence. In other words, any amount of coercion is otherwise fine and dandy in LiberLand, and all that coercion is "washed away" and redefined as "voluntary" as soon as any contract is reached.

Contracts shouldn't be signed carelessly. They serve an extremely important function. Obviously force is a necessary component of enforcing contracts.

Your talk of employees drafting their own contracts is just nonsense. It's possible that in ACland this may be a valuable skill for employees to have and maybe people will have a better understanding of contract law, but it's ludicrous to envision a scenario where this happens. It just wouldn't. Just as employers aren't going to trick employees into accepting lower wages by setting their wages as complex mathematical functions that employees don't understand. Oh the inanity.

It really is sad how convinced some of you are that our massive governments make the world go round.

Why does someone have to employ you if you're an alcoholic or you're gay? You said earlier that they did.

I said no such thing. I said that after they hire you, they shouldn't be allowed to break your employment contract and then fire you for what they find out after they did.

I don't disagree with any of what you said regarding those technolgies already being built into phones and such.

As for that employer, let's bring him to court for altering that employee's property. That situation can be dealt with fine. I would suspect that if these actions became widely known than that employer would pay a high cost for that act he took.

Yes in an imagined ACland they would serve an extremely important function, rationalization and legitimatize the use of violence to protect and enrich a ruling elite. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

Well what about "yellow dog" contracts? Religious based conduct clauses? Employment "reserve clauses" ala MLB before Curt Flood? As I mentioned the purpose of bringing up these "border conditions" of this absurd concept of "absolute contracts" is to show how it falls apart by applying common sense.

And you gave us the typical Kumbaya Happy-hippy answer... you don't explain why your concept still makes sense, you say....

why would they do that? that's absurd... in ACland the foxes just wouldn't eat the sheep... It just wouldn't happen. And you just missed the point, LOL. Or were you trying to change the subject...

Dude, nice knee jerk "talking point". Let me see =EITHER= you are with us ACists =OR= you are a brainwashed "statist". LOL, do you dudes really go through real live reasoning things out like this, LOL. Dude, check my other poasts here, I am an anarchist. You're "statist" name calling makes me laugh, LOL, you dudes crack me up, LOL, don't ever change!

I'd really like to know who these "ruling elite" are that people keep invoking into the equation in this hypothetical stateless society.

OK fair question. My understanding is that Libertarians (&etc) are pretty much anti-redistributionalist. So if there is no redistribution of power then the same people who have power now will... wait for it... still have power. In fact, under ACist imagined society they would have more power, in fact pretty much absolute power. In the words of the true gods of r&r...

meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Of course, you are free to argue that we don't have a "ruling elite" problem in real life now.

What do you think gives these "people that have power now" the power that they have?

Violence

But violence (or the capacity for violence) isn't limited to the so-called "ruling elite" by any means, so that cannot be it in of itself.

Sure, the market will fix it.