This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Ellerman, D. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Translatio versus Concessio

Retrieving the Debate about Contracts of Alienation with an Application to Today’s Employment Contract

Economics Department of the University of California, Riverside, david{at}ellerman.org

Liberalism is based on the juxtaposition of consent to coercion. Autocracy and slavery were based on coercion whereas today’s political democracy and economic "employment system" are based on consent to voluntary contracts. This article retrieves an almost forgotten dark side of contractarian thought that based autocracy and slavery on explicit or implicit voluntary contracts. The democratic and antislavery movements forged arguments not simply in favor of consent but arguments that voluntary contracts to alienate (translatio) aspects of personhood were invalid—which made the underlying rights inalienable. Once understood, those arguments apply as well to today’s self-rental contract, the employer-employee contract.

Key Words: liberalism • consent • coercion • alienation contracts • inalienable rights • employment contract

Politics & Society, Vol. 33, No. 3, 449-480 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0032329205278463


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?