My question, Is there anything which may not be included in an agreement?, was put on hold as being too broad.
This question is intended as a political theory (philosophy) question. I limited the scope of the question by specifying certain theories that I am interested in. To me, it seems that the question is not too broad because a good answer would be required to reference those theories explicitly, and because we could judge what a good answer is by how well it summarizes, compares, or contrasts those theories.
Some of the comments suggested that the question could be improved and possibly re-opened. What changes could be made to improve the question?
what are the moral limits to agreements?
with something likewhat have notable libertarian thinkers written about the moral limits of agreements?
. Right now it comes off a little bit like an invitation for discussion rather than a question to clarify a particular philosophy/worldview. There are a few other words/sentences that could be tweaked in a similar fashion.