Is entering into contracts a human right?

[Fumesucker]

On one of the gay marriage threads another poster made the claim that there was no right to enter into contracts, that it is not a human right.

I disagree strongly with that and feel it is a very basic question which should be answered.

Without contracts there can be no business.

Even in a barter over craigslist there is a verbal or email contract.

[gollygee]

1. Entering into any contract you want isn't a human right

The simple fact that something can involve a contract doesn't make it any kind of right. I can't contract with someone to buy her baby. I can't contract with someone to kill someone else.

[Fumesucker]

4. How are you going to survive without contacts?

I'm absolutely serious, without contracts there is no way to sustain life.

[gollygee]

5. We have contracts because they allow our society to function

not because they are a human right.

[Fumesucker]

7. I asked a question, you failed to answer..

Without contracts how are you going to survive?

Is survival a human right?

[gollygee]

8. I never suggested our society doesn't need contracts

We have contracts because we need them, but not everything we need is a human right.

Our society needs some form of money but having money isn't a human right.

[Fumesucker]

10. Once again you fail to answer.

Is survival a human right?

Contracts are as necessary as water to human survival, can the government ban citizens from drinking any water at any time?

[gollygee]

12. I don't answer because it's a strawman argument

I never said contracts weren't necessary.

Having access to water is a human right. There is no human right to enter into any contract you want. The two are not related in any way.

[Fumesucker]

14. How is it a strawman?

There is a right to survive..

Contracts are as necessary to survival as water..

Why is one a right and the other not?

[gollygee]

19. It's a strawman because I never said we don't need contracts to survive

and I don't know about "contracts are as necessary to survive as water." They are necessary in our society because of how our society is set up, but that doesn't mean we'll die of thirst within a couple of days without them. That's a petty silly analogy.

[Fumesucker]

Without a contract you cannot buy or sell anything..

How long can you survive without buying or selling anything?

[gollygee]

Again, that's because of how our society is set up

and I did say we need contracts to survive. But the ability to enter into any contract you want is not any kind of right.

[Fumesucker]

33. In your view, can government make any and all contracts illegal.

For any reason at all?

[gollygee]

38. Not if the contract involves an underlying right

but only because of the underlying right - not because of the fact that there is a contract involved. So I have the right to sell physical property if I want because it is my property and I have a right to do with it what I want. So I have the right to contract to sell my property - because it's my property and it's my right to sell my property. But simply entering into any contract at all for anything is not a right, and the fact that it is possible to enter into a contract does not make something a right.

[Fumesucker]

49. In your view, then, the government can make any and all contracts illegal..

Yes or no..

I don't think you can answer the question.

[gollygee]

50. No, and I never said that

Yet another strawman.

[Fumesucker]

53. If something is not a right, the government can make it illegal?

Yes or no.

We desperately need a smiley for nailing jello to the wall.

[gollygee]

62. If it isn't a right and it's in the state's best interest

Our government is here in part to protect the state so if it's in the state's best interest then yes they can make something illegal, so long as people's rights are maintained. But then you have to decide issue by issue if the government SHOULD make something illegal, which involves having the right people in power (representative government) and voting on issues. But some issues - those that involve human rights - should not be up to vote. Like even if the government thought it was in the state's best interest to make slavery legal, and even if people wanted to vote to make slavery legal, that would violate people's human rights.

It's something that has to be looked as issue by issue. I know you don't like that but that's really how I see it and how it's worked in our government so far.

[Fumesucker]

64. Your right to free speech is not absolute either..

Fire, theater.

We have a right to free association, yet that right is curtailed by the courts some times.

[obiwan]

103. We live in a society that uses the Constitution as the basis for law.

It specifically says you have a right to free speech. It is in the First Amendment.

This is our way of being due to consensus.

[treestar]

17. But as to lawful contracts

Wouldn't it be a human right to enter into them, that is, all adults have the equal right to enter into any legitimate contract (with of course the exceptions for minors or the mentally disabled, who still can enter into contracts, but have to do it through guardians).

Marriage is a form of contract. It is also a fundamental right.

[gollygee]

20. Yes, if a contract is lawful then it is, but he's talking about something that is not legal

He said that the ability to enter into a contract in and of itself, regardless of the legalities involved, is a human right. Therefore polygamous marriages should be legal because it's possible to enter into a polygamous contract.

[Fumesucker]

27. Please show me where I mentioned polygamous marriage on this thread..

Quotes please.

[gollygee]

29. That's what started the whole discussion

You said it was about the other thread and that's what you were talking about there.

[Fumesucker]

36. But this is a different discussion..

Which is why I started a different thread.

Why won't you answer simple questions?

[gollygee]

39. A lot of your questions involve strawman arguments n/t

[obiwan]

104. Agreed. Let's agree to disagree,

because in the end it really doesn't matter.

[unpossibles]

18. that's not the point

the point is, states cannot grant unequal protection to some and not allow the same for others. "Contracts" are not a basic human right, but equal protection from the government is, per the 14th amendment.

[gollygee]

21. Yes that's excactly right

The ability to enter into a contract isn't what makes something a right. Equal protection from the government is. He's talking about polygamy, not same-sex marriage.

[Fumesucker]

23. I know that's not the question in the gay rights argument..

I'm asking the basic question about contracts.

Are you willing to answer that question?

[unpossibles]

75. sure. In my opinion we should have the ability to enter into a contract

I'd say that the right to enter into a contract is a basic right covered in the Declaration of Independence among other places.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness

or, as in the 5th amendment: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; "

I'm not a legal scholar by any means, but I would say that we have the right to enter into a contract.

[obiwan]

107. The Declaration Of Independence is not our governing document.

The Constitution is, and it does not stipulate that entering into a contract is a right. In reality, it is a conscious choice you make. Unfortunately, the government doesn't guarantee contract law as a right. That may not be right, but that's what IS.

If you don't like it, then amend the Constitution to reflect what you want. And then wait 28 years for the approval of 2/3 of the states.

Good Luck; there's a lot of unfair and plain wrong things out there.

[unpossibles]

110. "The Declaration Of Independence is not our governing document."

I did not say it is, and have no idea why you seem to be trying to take a certain tone with me either.

I was asked my opinion, and I gave it. I also said that the Constitution - which IS our governing document - seems to back me up, that we have the right to enter contracts. Maybe I am reading it wrong, but I don't really think so. Can you point out where we do not have the right to enter into a contract with someone else?

The 14th amendment explicitly says that states cannot pass laws which allow unequal protections:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. pb

Now, I assume you are trying to argue that it is constitutional to deny equal rights to gay people. Is this correct? Marriage, as a function of the state, allows many legal protections and privacy to some - for states to deny equal protections and privacy seems to go directly against the letter of that amendment.

[ROakes1019]

35. law school basics

No contract that involves illegal action is legal. So a person can enter a contract only for legal purposes and each party must offer something of value. It is a right only if legally protected.

[Fumesucker]

40. So the reason polygandrous marriage is not a right..

Is that it illegal?

If the government can make a given behavior illegal without a demonstrated, logical and valid reason for it being illegal, we basically really have no rights at all.

I don't believe government can make a demonstrated, logical and valid reason to make gay marriage or polyandrous marriage illegal.

[malaise]

108. If there is a state or federal law prohibiting one group of people from

entering into a variety of contracts then what? Isn't a place in a school or college a contract? If my child can't attend a school based on segregation laws then his/her human rights are being violated. Many contracts are enforced by state and federal laws. What if one partner of a gay couple is in hospital and the hospital refuses to let the other partner be at his/her bedside? In my world that's violating their human rights. Sorry, when laws prevent contracts they can violate human rights and not just gay rights.

I've been married for decades and I'd like to think that gay couples have the same human rights as we do. Why should there be laws preventing consenting adults from signing a marriage contract.

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. Not until you're 18 in the United States

[Fumesucker]

15. Other rights are also limited by age..

Speech, assembly, gun ownership.

[gollygee]

3. Also, that thead was about polygamy more than same-sex marriage n/t

[dkf]

6. You also need to be competent to sign a

contract.

I'd say the ability to enter into a contract probably isn't a human right.

[mondo joe]

9. Too vague. You can't legally enter a contract to do something illegal - like kill someone. NT

[Fumesucker]

13. So you think the government has the power to ban any and all citizens..

From entering into contracts?

[gollygee]

16. It depends on what the contract is for

If the contract is for something involving a human right, or involving something else our society has agreed upon is a right, then no but only because the underlying issue is something we have a right to do - not because there is a contract involved.

Otherwise, the government has a power to ban contracts for specific things. And they have - there are many things it's illegal to enter into a contract to do. Someone can't contract me to work for 10 cents a day. I can't contract with an unlicensed hairdresser. I can't contract to have someone killed. I can't contract to buy someone's kidney.

[mondo joe]

25. Again, *contracts* is too vague. Some contracts can be legally prohibited, such

as a contract to buy another human.

[Fumesucker]

30. So in your view, government can ban any and all contracts?

For any reason whatsoever?

[mondo joe]

32. No, it can ban some contracts. And the reasons must - in the US anyway - meet

Constitutional standards.

[gollygee]

34. Not if the underlying issue involves a right

but that's because of the underlying right, not the fact that it's a contract.

[mondo joe]

37. Well said. Well said. NT

[Fumesucker]

42. Should government have the power to stop you from doing something..

That does not violate the rights of another?

[gollygee]

44. It depends on why the state feels it has an interest

That question is vague. Like, I don't think the state should allow me to enter into a contract to work for 10 cents a day, even though no one else specifically would be hurt, because it would decrease the value of all work and therefore hurt society as a whole.

I should say that I would not be opposed to polygamy if the legalities can be sorted out to make sure everyone is equally protected. I'm not anti-polygamy. I just don't see it as being the same as same-sex marriage, because the contract issue isn't why I see same-sex marriage as being a right.

[Fumesucker]

51. So any behavior that might harm society as a whole...

May be made illegal?

You can enter into a contract to work for nothing, that's what you do when you volunteer.

[gollygee]

58. Our government is there in part to protect society

So yeah, that's the point of laws.

And volunteering is not looked at the same as paid work and shouldn't be. If companies could pay less than minimum wage, they would, and workers would have no protection from it.

[Fumesucker]

61. My wife used to get volunteer workers at her place of business..

They would work at her for profit corporation for free in exchange for product.

Should that be illegal?

[gollygee]

65. I volunteer at a few places. Why should that be illegal?

Volunteerism is being willing to work for nothing. That isn't the same as being willing to work for less than minimum wage but still get paid. If you don't want to work for nothing, there is no harm to you in saying no. If you don't want to work for less than minimum wage, though, and you desperately need to make some amount of money, then you might take it even if it's not in your best interest and not in society's best interest, out of hunger and desperation. THAT should be illegal. Two different issues.

[Fumesucker]

70. Still waiting for that nailing jello to the wall smiley :)

Should what my wife's company did be illegal?

[gollygee]

72. Personally

I think if someone is a paid employee of a company, that person should not also be able to volunteer, because that opens up a strong potential of abuse by employers. Like having them work 15 hours a week at minimum wage, and then making them volunteer another 15 hours a week in order to keep the paid 15 hours.

[Fumesucker]

77. That wasn't the case in this particular company..

It was mainly students in an upper crust area who wanted an expensive service and would put in a few hours a week to get it.. No money changed hands.

Most of them did more homework or texting than actual work..

[mondo joe]

66. Yes, actually, to ensure protection of ordinary workers from corporations.

There's a long history in this country of labor abuse by corporations when there are no restrictions on what they can do.

[Fumesucker]

71. Should corporations then not be allowed to engage in barter?

Any and all transactions should be in legal tender only.

[mondo joe]

76. Engaged with whom?

In terms of employment: my opinion is that corporations should only be able to pay in legal tender to protect labor from abuse, and to protect a living wage for all workers.

Corporations can engage in barter in other ways, if they wish.

[Fumesucker]

78. Stock options?

That really has no defined value..

[mondo joe]

80. No problem there, personally. NT

[Fumesucker]

84. Ah, so your ban is not absolute..

Why the exception?

At least if you trade for product you know exactly what you're getting..

A pig in a poke is better than a bird in the hand?

[mondo joe]

87. Because stock options is likely to have more value than a year's supply of Rice-a-roni.

If you want to disguise a "gotcha" game as a discussion, that's okay with me.

Or you could take me at my word: My preference is for as little governmental interference as possible between persons.

I think there is a legitimate governmental interest in creating and maintaining safeguards to protect workers from being abused by corporations.

[Bluenorthwest]

82. wrong

a volunteer is not legally obligated to fulfill any stated committment. Under a contract, if you do not show up as promised they can take you to court. All agrements are not contracts. Strawman deluxe.

[Fumesucker]

85. Thanks, I didn't know that.. n/t

[meegbear]

11. In a way it used to be ...

during the late 1800s and early 1900s, when industry took off, a business friendly Supreme Court struck down some of the early attempts by the labor movement for workers' rights by citing the 14th amendment. They used what was called the "Liberty of Contract". What this meant was:

Boss: You want to work for me?
Applicant: Yes.
Boss: You'll work 12-14 hours a day for a penny a day.
Applicant: OK.

If someone tried to enact higher pay, less work hours, etc., that person was trying to break the contract between the boss and applicant, which they would deem illegal.

Over time, they figured it was a crock of shit for an argument.

[Fumesucker]

74. I've lost money on more jobs than I really like to think about..

It comes with the territory of being self employed.

If you make it illegal to lose money on a job, you'll basically have to make self employment illegal.

[GodlessBiker]

22. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 17.

(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

[gollygee]

24. He isnt' talking about one specific contract involving something that is a right

he's talking about the act of having a contract at all. He said that it is a human right to enter into any contract at all.

[Fumesucker]

26. Does that imply the right to enter into contracts though?

In my mind it does, how can you transfer ownership without contracts?

[GodlessBiker]

46. I agree. And "property" can have a broad meaning. It doesn't say "real estate."

[Fumesucker]

54. Exactly.. n/t

[GodlessBiker]

60. Yet it remains a truism that one cannot contract to perform an illegal act. Or...

...contract to perform an act that so violates public policy as to be unconscionable. For example, to contract to perform a job for less than minimum wage.

[Fumesucker]

63. I can write a contract for any job for any price I wish....

Including free, as long as it's not by the hour..

[GodlessBiker]

73. It depends, I would think, if the intent were to avoid minimum wage laws. McDonald's cannot...

start writing up contracts with employees by using language that would have the effect of having those employees paid less than minimum wage.

[gollygee]

28. You must be a libertarian?

This is a libertarian argument.

[Fumesucker]

41. Have you taken the Political Compass Quiz?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I fall right on top of the Dali Lama politically.

Take the quiz and see where you stand.

[gollygee]

43. I've taken it before

I fall more Nelson Mandela-ish. So you are more libertarian than I am, which perfectly explains why we don't agree here.

[Fumesucker]

47. I think the statistical average of DUers

Is closer to me than to you..

[gollygee]

48. No idea. n/t

[Fumesucker]

59. I'm sure if it weren't, someone would have dropped by to tell us by now..

That's the nice thing about DU, screw up and someone can be assured to gently correct you.. :)

[gollygee]

67. The two aren't that far away from each other

so maybe it isn't enough of a difference for people to notice or care.

[prayin4rain]

88. I just took it and that is where I fell too... it might be a gimmick?? n/t

[dkf]

31. My uncle has Alzheimer's which is apparent if you talk to him long

enough. He was trying to sell some real estate and buy a car, but nobody would transact with him because they understood that he is impaired.

Selling the real estate actually made a lot of sense and he is at a disadvantage because he wasn't able to execute this sale at the time.

Have his rights been violated?

[Fumesucker]

45. There is a right to refuse to enter into a contract also.,..

Having the right to enter into contracts does not imply compulsion.

[shadowknows69]

52. Our society has legislated the concept into a human right in a way

Dawn of time? I suppose every action (IE, I give you meat, you give me berries. Or, I give you meat, you promise not to club me?) is a social contract of some kind. It's been a while since I took an anthropology course so I don't know where you find the genesis, to use an unfortunate biblical term, of where monogamus relationships became part of the social structure.

[Fumesucker]

56. That's my point.. I think..

Contracts are the very basis of society in a way, without contracts we cannot survive.

Are there any cultures at all where there are no contracts? Where people do not bargain and agree or disagree on the exchange?

[Guaranteed]

55. No- contracts are a human invention.

We're not endowed by our Creator with the "right" to enter into "contracts," if that's what you're wondering.

[Fumesucker]

57. God is a human invention...

In some people's view.

[shadowknows69]

68. There may or may not be a God without our invention of it/him/her

But we certainly invented God as far as any human understanding of it/her/him because anything else is beyond us and that's why all our Gods have nice familiar faces and forms be they human or animal.

[shadowknows69]

69. It's also why most theistic mythology is wrought with flawed heroes and deities

And despite some Christians portrayal of the God of Abraham being all loving and all forgiving, the Old Testament doesn't exactly back that theory up. We can only create religions as flawed as we are or we would have attained a world religion or at least a universal understanding of the real "Great Mystery". Garbage in, garbage out in other words.

[Fumesucker]

81. Yep, if you start at the beginning, God doesn't seem like such a great guy..

I read the Bible twice before I was confirmed and all the Old Testament managed to do is scare the crap out of me. :evilgrin:

[mmonk]

79. I guess someone views a marriage as a business contract?

[shadowknows69]

83. The state does, it is a legal contract in today's society, whatever else it is too.

[mmonk]

94. You get a license from the state to marry. It doesn't however,

seem to contain the elements of a business contract determining duty, performance, satisfaction, breach and remedy.

[yardwork]

96. Yes, it does. As soon as a person gets married - religious ceremony or not - the law kicks in.

The law governs all kinds of issues, including "duty, performance, satisfaction, breach and remedy" and a whole lot of other things. Marriage is a legal contract in the United States. Individuals can choose to have their marriage sanctified in a religious ceremony if they choose, but that religious ceremony has zero legal meaning.

[mmonk]

98. Contracts have to be specific. Unless its a prenuptial agreement,

it falls under a body of laws settled through the courts through legal actions after the fact or by state statutes.

[yardwork]

100. Exactly. Every state has their own set of statutes related to marriage.

My point is that the government views marriage as a legal contract. The religious aspect is purely voluntary and the government doesn't care about it one way or the other. You can get married by a justice of the peace without a word about God in your marriage ceremony, or you can get married at a Catholic High Mass, or you can get married in a Pagan ritual, or you can get married in a Jewish ceremony, or a Buddhist ceremony, or down at the white clapboard Presbyterian church in your home town, and it's all the same to the state in which you married. The state doesn't care whether you had a religious ceremony or not. All that matters is that legal contract called marriage.

[mmonk]

101. Yes, a contract granted by legal right. I was just being picky over the

business contract example which I view as different. The marriage contract is bound by the body of law governing marriage while a business contract is performance specific to the contract itself.:P

[yardwork]

102. Yes, a marriage contract is different from a business contract.

I was just making the point that marriage is a legally binding contract that automatically carries with it a lot of rights and responsibilities determined by the government.

We keep hearing here on DU that "marriage is a religous ceremony" but that is not the legal meaning of the term.

[mmonk]

105. Yes and the problem arises when religious leaders try

and assert their definition of marriage and ceremonial dictates on public law.

[yardwork]

106. That is the problem, in a nutshell. Some people believe that their religion should be the law.

The U.S. Constitution was written by people who had seen first-hand the effect of people fighting for their own particular religion to control government. That's why we have the separation of church and state.

[Fumesucker]

86. I guess someone doesn't get the point..

I've only mentioned marriage in this thread in reply to someone else's red herring.

[Bluenorthwest]

90. Except that you mention marriage in your opening line

And not just marriage, but 'gay marriage'. So you in fact began this thread by mentioning marriage. The entire frame of your thread is about marriage. Some red herring, that.

[mmonk]

93. So what duties are owed by the prinicipals, what are the enforcement

mechanisms and how does the court determine breach and remedies as well as what determines the contract being satisfied in full?

[yardwork]

97. The law in each state determines the thousands of legal obligations contained within marriage.

The religious ceremony means nothing in a court of law. Your marriage, whether sanctified in a church or not, contains thousands of legal ramifications.

Lots of people don't realize this until they decide to get divorced. That's when a lot of people discover just how legally binding their little ol' church wedding really is. And those legal responsibilities and contracts exist whether you got married by a justice of the peace or down at the church house. The law doesn't care about the religious ceremony.

[Bluenorthwest]

89. All people should have the same rights to enter contracts

as other people have. That is not the same as declaring the right to make any contract, as contracts are void for many reasons. No contract can be for an illegal action. So it is not anyone's right to make any contract they can draw up and also expect it to be enforced by law. That is the real issue. You can 'make' any paper you want. It is the enforcement that matters, and it is not you, but others who will enforce it. The courts. If they don't acknowlege the legality, they will not enforce it. And that is the crux of the equality issue. They acknowlege some folk's contract to be a legal couple but not others.
Those that wish to alter marriage law beyond two people have much work to do, if that is an actual honest goal. There will be need for tons of law, new language, new contracts, lots of fresh and brand new stuff. I say they need to be ready to show how it will actually work, prepared with organized political actions, and strong arguments in the form of example contracts that would cover the specific differences between couple parnterships and multiples. Large differences. And those are things the people who have this goal need to be ready to clarify. If I have a kid with someone, and we marry someone else who also has a kid, who has custody, and how do you propose dealing with those folks who have a prior marriage, of any number. Is custody of children going to be shared by an infinite number of people? Will any or all of them have legal obligation to care for that child? If a member of one of these marriages wishes to have another child, but another member does not, what then?
So. Your ex-wife is getting married to two women and three men, all of whom already have kids, and new kids are on the way. Are your parent's rights equal to or greater than or less than the three wives and three other husbands involved? Do you retain legal obligations to the child, and if so, can you make demands on the household arrangments?
There are just tons of questions that apply to multiples that simply do not apply to couples. And such issues need to be explainable, and clear for the law. Making those arrangements and arguments will be up to those that want such relationships. Let them build a case, a movement, and let them seek what they want.
I just see it as very seperate from denial of marriage to couples based on gender. Any current marriage contract covers me and my partner, but there is not one that will cover any additions to that family. It will have to be written, and I say let me know when you have a draft to read...until then, this is strawman time, talking about a group of people that have no public face and may not even exist. If they have a goal, let them seek it in public like the rest of us have done. Those not in multiple marriages wanting to argue for it have some suspect objectives in my view.

[LanternWaste]

91. I don't see how it can be...

I personally don't see how it can be a human right, any more than talking, or walking, or breathing is a human right. But I'm ready to listen attentively to read precisely how, when, where, and why contracts are a human right...

(Unless of course you overly-broaden the term contract to mean anything and everything you want it to, or if you're using 22 of the 23 valid definitions as listed in F&W... in which case, the term would be so broad as to be unavoidable, even in the example of a person dreaming at night...)

[Chan790]

92. Not a human right, but a right implicit to the social contract.

Anybody whose ever read even the cliff notes versions of Hobbes, Locke or Rousseau should know the difference easily.

The right to enter into contract does not exist prior to the formation of society, but society is based upon social contracts. The right to enter into contract and the freedom to form society are contemporaneous and inseparable.

External to society, one has unlimited freedoms and no enforceable rights; within society one has enforcement of one's right at the cost of checks against one's freedoms.

In brief, entry into the social contract is the price of society. The creation of society grants a great number of rights (based in an even greater number of restrictions and limitations upon one's freedoms in order to protect the other members of the social contract) and can be seen in foundational documents of human society: Magna Carta, US Constitution, The Code of the Bushido and even The Torah and The New Testament (among some other 1,000,000+ documents).

One created right goes unspoken and presupposes all of these social contracts:

The right as free individuals to enter into the social contract only through which all other rights can be enforced.

By arguing against the right to enter into contracts, one is not merely arguing against the basis of society. One is arguing for the surrender of any right which might be taken from you by brute force. A major function and created right of the social contract is "law", the means of enforcement of the social contract. Within the social contract, one has an absolute right to enter into any contract...and society has the power (which you've ceded to it) in the form of law to both enforce that contract (and the social contract) and to enforce society's will upon you for entering into contracts contrary to the social contract and society.

[yardwork]

95. In any case, it's unconstitutional to deny a right to just one group of people.

As long as we have marriage contracts, it's not right to deny them only to gay people.

[quispismanna]

99. I approach it from the standpoint of whether it is beneficial (and romantic)

which is why I have never entered into that particular contract with my hetero partner. No point and not romantic. The antithesis of romance, in fact, but I don't have kids or any mutual property, so perhaps my situation is slightly different.

[rucky]

109. Then there should be no right to prevent people from entering contracts.

Yet the Yes on H8-ers have made that a right.