Where's the difference? And please don't tell me what the courts have said. Big deal.>>
That's like saying "please don't tell me what the Constitution has said. Big deal." Our freedom are retained by the Constitution AND the Common Law, both together. Take away the Common Law--law made by judges since the year 1189--and that's like removing the bottom row of bricks from your house. The whole thing will collapse.
Can you "contract away your freedom"? Absolutely, and by definition: that's what a contract IS--and agreement to exchange your abandonment of freedom (i.e., you make a promise) in exchange for the other guy abandoning his freedom (making a promise). You clearly have no understanding of what a contract *IS*.
Contracts are promises. Promises are the bricks in the wall that keep chaos and evil at bay. Remove enforceable promises, and the next thing you know you'll be starring in your own private production of Escape from New York, with yourself in the Patrick Swayze role.
law made by judges since the year 1189Here's where we part company. Judges who 'make' law violate their own role. They are to judge, not legislate. But we have a de facto legislature because of the preeminence of legal precedent.
The anti-federalist papers speak of this. In fact, many of the Founders had a problem with the existence of a Supreme Court in the first place. They followed the logic and saw the future. Unfortunately, they didn't prevail.
Please understand, I'm not doubting the structure of the system as it exists, as if I'm trying to find a loophole or a point of protest, I'm just pushing the envelope of what we accept. Trying to get you to think.
Yes, contracts are good, I know. I'm not talking about ALL contracts. But the larger point is the tendency for some people to so easily accept the erosion of their basic, fundamental rights by contracting restrictions upon themselves to the point of a slave status.