I was very committed to legislation to limit land disposal and protect tenants. The employment contract does not say that workers have the role of non-persons, so the argument is that indelicate employers could „treat“ workers as things? No, there is no controversy about how workers are treated, worked or paid. But how can a person be treated as a non-person in a contract if the person can move away from the contract? This question implicitly comes from the framework of consent or coercion – as if coercion were the only way to treat a person as a non-person. But, as with the voluntary contract for slavery and other historical examples of alienation treaties (see below), the question arises as to what is the structure of rights or its absence in the contract that the person voluntarily enters into and maintains. In employment services, is this structure much the same, as if workers had rented tools rather than themselves to the employer? To see that employees have the legal role of non-responsible entities, you have to use some analysis to take the mind where the mind does not want to go. A common type of disposal clause, found in many fiduciary offences, is the following from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission: Our starting point is the current debate about corporate governance, which is desperately becoming a „property“ debate, not employment. Having reclaimed the contractual basis of the corresponding historical debates on governance, we delve into the dark side of contractual thinking to recover these arguments in favour of autocracy and slavery on the basis of explicit or implicit treaties (for example. B, a voluntary contract for slavery or a pactum subjectionis). Then we turn to the counter-argument, the theory of inalienable rights, which is largely descended from the Reformation and the Scottish Enlightenment. The „problem“ is that once one understands, the inalienable criticism of the rights relating to disposal contracts also applies to the current employment contract.

With „American Selfie,“ she presents a mixed summary of alienation, the wounded psyche and the belief systems isolated by the media that she has documented for two decades. The concept of an alienation clause refers to a provision often found in many financial or insurance contracts, particularly in mortgage transactions and non-life insurance contracts. As a general rule, the clause only authorizes the transfer or sale of a particular asset if the principal party meets its financial obligation. In the past, if you thought that political governance was based on land ownership, and now it is not the only one, what about the link between corporate ownership and employment governance? What is the legal basis for the rights of the government or administration, not on the country, the buildings or the machines of the company, but on all the people who work in a company? There are remarkably confusing answers to this simple question. The most common answer comes from the theory that „reign“ is part of ownership. Shareholders are the owners of the company and their governance rights are even considered to be part of the ownership of the financial assets. This vision of „capital rights“ seems to be a point of convergence between Marx and the defenders of the current system. Mortgage disposal clauses prevent the creation of immutable mortgage contracts.