Can you contractually give up your Rights? (freedom of speech etc..)

They're not really yours to give up. They just exist. You can agree not to exercise them, you can be forced not to exercise them, and you can face consequences for exercising them, but you still have them. Legally, you can agree to accept the force and punishment if you choose to exercise you rights but you can't really give them up.

This is an interesting question.

First, let's go over something. The founding fathers were against "Standing Armies". Obviously defense of a nation is necessary, so what is a standing army?

"a permanent army of paid soldiers maintained by a nation in times of both peace and war"

But how shall a country defend itself without a standing army?

A militia, in contrary to a military, consists of independent citizens who are not paid nor party of the state. It will only activate in times of an attack or a national emergency.

Most soldiers in the revolutionary war were militias, "minutemen" they were called.

My favorite current example of a militia is a Swiss Militia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_army

"The Swiss Armed Forces perform the roles of Switzerland's militia and regular army. Under the country's militia system, professional soldiers constitute only about 5 percent of military personnel; the rest are conscript citizens 20 to 34 (in some cases up to 50) years old. Because of a long history of neutrality, the army does not take part in armed conflicts in other countries, but is part of several peacekeeping missions around the world.

The structure of the Swiss militia system stipulates that the soldiers keep their own personal equipment, including all personal weapons, at home. Compulsory military service concerns all male Swiss citizens, with women serving voluntarily."

Here, is said the following
http://www.swissworld.org/en/politics/general_information/th...

"Switzerland has a firmly anchored tradition of service to the community, under which citizens take on public office which they perform alongside their normal jobs. This is referred to by the Swiss as the militia system. Its best known manifestation is the army, which is largely non-professional, even as far as most of its officers are concerned.

The Swiss regard their politicians as part of the same militia system. Members of the federal parliament do not give up their former jobs when they take their seats. "

So first, the militia men are not controlled by the federal government. They are citizens with regular lives and jobs who live at home, and who keep their equipment at home and voluntarily organize solely for the purpose of defense of their country. Even the generals have regular lives, meeting only part time so the cooperation is maintained. Even their politicians are considered part of this system.

On the other hand, we do have universal conscription, which would seem to be anti-liberty. I will argue it is not, and that both universal service, and the militia/politician system tell us reflect profound philosophical truths regarding freedom. First, a quote

"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state. "

In John Locke's system, minarchism, we organize into a state for the purpose of giving it a monopoly on force and the application of justice, because we are bad judges in our own case, and the state is to be neutral. The state is to only fight other states for self defense. It is to only jail/fine those who have committed force against others.

But look where every citizen is a soldier, and politicians are normal citizens first, politicians second. What if we were to do the same thing with police? Judges? Bureaucrats?

Militia, Judges, Police, Politicians.

Then, none of them are "professional", none of them a permanent tool of the state. "The government", then literally, is not separate from the people. Thus, most forms of tyranny, are impossible.

In a way, true anarchy is achieved. There is no state distinctly separate from the people.

While universal conscription may seem to be un-free, it can also be seen as a duty that every private citizen be capable of "force" so that the "government" has no monopoly on it, every citizen being a soldier.

It's no coincidence Switzerland has a history of neutrality.

By the way, because everyone is a soldier, they can summon the second largest army per capita in the world (after the Israeli militia)

Don't mess with them.

Military services is slavery to the state, but except in the case of the draft, one where your rights are given up voluntarily through contract.

you signed over to be under the jurisdiction of the U.C.M.J. Uniform code of military justice .you are now under their rules..As you swore an oath to that system, knowingly or unknowingly ? Whether this signs away from justice under the Constitution I do not know ..Ask you judge advocate ..

you can get out of a contract by using the following defenses:
duress (the other guy was holding a gun to your head)
economic duress (the other guy was holding money to your head)
fraud (the other guy didn't give you all the facts, or lied to you)
undue influence (The other guy is your father)
mistake (you made a mistake regarding a material part of the contract -- but only if the other guy knew about your mistake and deliberately didn't correct it. This defense is not available in all states)
unconscionability (the contract is so one-sided as to "shock the conscience of the court." )
Impossibility of performance (It just can't be done)
Each of these defenses to a contract may make the contract either void or voidable.
From:
http://www.publishlawyer.com/contract.htm

Bottom line you must rely onthe judicial branch to protect you, so you know what that means.

Yes in a Capitalist / Corporatist Society
---Because there are force-agents to make you adhere to contracts
---Owing to the non-voluntary nature of these societies

No in a Free-Market-Society
---Voluntarism cannot be over-turned
---No Mandatory Courts
---No Authority to over-turn Voluntarism
---Contracts can be abandoned in a Free-Society as freely as they are entered if it is truly Voluntary

No in my Consumer-Minarchist Transitionary Model
---Zero Rights for Owners and Zero Rights for Workers
----->Given that, who would hold you to a contract other than workers or owners?

The concept of "owner" and "worker" are defiined by rights/laws/taxation.

There are no Force-Agents in a Free-Society

This is why Anarcho-Capitalism can never work -- logically. You cannot be a Propertarian-Anarchist.

The only really "anarchist" is a Consumer-Individualist and we can't get into that without first transitioning through Consumer-Minarchism.

In a free or voluntary society how do you get me to appear in "your" court of choice (since they are all private)? You can't is the answer. If you hire men to take my possessions I'd hire men to protect them.

Voluntarism means we both must agree to the court mediator and just so you know -- I'd never agree to any court you chose.

Possessions are to be protected by "self-defense" which is a "market" and all free-market "markets" must not have any gov't monopolies or coercions (regulations, licensure, or authority) -- they must have zero barriers to entry.

Therefore there can be no force-agents or mandatory courts.

So, there cannot be an abdication of self-rule (a transference of self-defense).

consent. It is individual choice. "Lawful" and "legal" are merely tools to leverage consent within the greater society. "Natural Law" is applied to the individual and is the basis of freedom, men's rules for themselves as a society cannot abrogate individual sovereignty, nor individual responsibility. But, the individual can choose not to activate or defend their own rights such that they become servant to another, and in discord with their own potential sovereignty. Yet, one individual standing for their rights in a society that defiles those very individual rights may have only personal satisfaction as the result of their fight, and they may be crushed under the obtuse hand of the general society, but at that point one must ask the question, "Who am I living for? Myself, or to appease the mindset of others?"