>>8774446civil rights are basicly a mutual agreement of the members of a trading group to secure non-coerciveness and have a written down accout for this. the matters classicaly mentioned in the civil rights are a usefull basis for the anti- coercive principles.
for example slavery:
someone born into slavery has no abillity to freely act in the market. this lowers the possible effectivity of the market. selling yourself into slavery removes your abillity to take further free market actions and therefore also reduces the efficiency of the market, as someone has no a monopoly on someone elses abilities and therefore an unjust market advantage.
slaves are also less efficient workers than workers with the same living condition but in freedom.
owning slaves may seem no different than owning cattle or tools, but slaves as human beings have the capability for trade. slaves may give the slave owner an imediate edge in production, but it greatly reduces the ability to inovate because of the lacking engagement of the slaves and greatly hampers the ability to further their production, because the removal of free actor in the market reduces the flow of wealth and therefore the production of better means of production.
the slave owner may have a greater security in its production abilities and a lower risk for competitors to arise at the moment, but the amount of potential customers and inovators is reduced, slowing the economy unnecessarily.
this makes it a societal interest to ban slavery, as noone wants to suffer the negative effects on buisness by having others own slaves, and most people prefer the higher efficiency of free workers over the security of an owned slave.
this make civil rights a very usefull, if not necessary, part of a free market.
