But risk of death is present at all times on this planet, anyways, right? What right does any one single human being claim to be suffering more than the rest of the population, but most especially without anything to show for his efforts? In other words, one could say that as a natural herd, any individual that breaks from the norm of society is perfectly "allowed" to do so under his own presumption of the "risk" of suffering more
simply from breaking away. Some will fail in whatever endeavors they chose, and others will help pave the way for the herd in the future. In all cases, though, barring that a hermit simply walks off and detaches himself permanently, it is an individual's efforts toward steering the pack that will ultimately decide his fate.
Contractual duress could only be considered if and when one party intentionally uses it to take advantage of the other. Contracts are, by definition, agreements rather than competitions, and so "fairness" and good faith are the concepts that establish them in the first place. And so, then, without the herd, the hermit is, in and of himself, an instance of a stand-alone herd. Unless he was a criminal of some sort, it should be presumed he left the herd on his own volition rather than that society all voted on the matter to oust him.
Leasing clothes? The idea of "ownership" being anything more than a lease, in the first place, is something to be proven. It's solely a matter of control. All clothing is "leased" on this planet unless you can point out somebody that has raised their own flax to create the fabric and sewed their own shirt thread by thread. What gave that person the "right" to enslave all of those flax plants? Did he create the life in their seeds of their parents? Did he previously "own" all of the minerals used to feed them before he shoved those seeds into the land? And when a superior army comes along, i.e. another herd, to take his farm away, to whom should he say it was "wrong"? Who was he paying a rent on those minerals and the "right" to interrupt a chain of natural events in some other natural species such as the flax? What gives HIM any right to control the land MORE than some other individual in the herd, or versus a different herd or species? What makes it "right" for him to presume control?
Who was originally entitled to own a farm simply by walking onto some previously empty parcel with high-technology "living seeds" in his pocket to begin the crop for his clothes? And by whom was that title authored to be bestowed? And so then, ownership, can only ever be considered a matter of "whomever is in control" of whatever resource unless one can somehow show a previous title from some "superior being" that had created the land in the first place. And even then, the idea would be that "it is my stuff" because if you attempt to arrest control over my stuff, the "superior being" will protect my "right" to be in control over it; i.e. as a threat.
And there is the rub then. A shopkeeper chases a thief away from attempting to "arrest control" of some bread he was selling in his shop. A policeman has been hired by the "agreed upon peaceful herd" of that locality to protect the bread just the same. By what right does the shopkeeper have to claim that the thief has committed a crime?
The thief is in the "right" unless the farmer can show entitled authority over the land in the first place. In other words, the miller, the baker, and the shopkeeper are all accessories to the original theft of the farmer of the land unless the farmer can show some "Lord" to which he is paying his own "lease" for the both the lands and the seeds.
Without a "god", business law is on shaky grounds. ( grins )
And what gives any government the "right" to say that some farmer can be on the land? It's again, a matter that they control it, by military means or whatever the case may be.