So, we libertarians pretty much accept the fact that tacit contracts do exist (or at least it seems that way from my reading of Kinsella's Against Intellectual Property and some Walter Block lectures). Yet, on the flip side, there are some we agree are entirely illegitimate (the social contract, for example).
The question I'm bringing up for discussion is, then:
What are the limits of tacit/implied contracts? What criteria do we use to determine if they are just or unjust?
And, if you wish, tackle associated problems like how would they be handled in a free society, etc. etc.
Citation for the implicit contracts?
The problem with the social contract is not its "tacitness", it is the fact that there is no counter-party. If I walk into "Joe's Eats", sit down, order food, eat it, and then proceed to walk out without paying, claiming "I never signed no contract stating I would pay Joe upon eating the food, so Joe has no claim against me" is obviously flawed precisely because there is, in fact, a tacit contract between me and Joe.
But if the King says "You must pay taxes because you have a tacit contract with Society" my question is, "Where is this Society? Can I meet him/her? Can we sit down and try to work things out, maybe come to a bargained settlement? How does Mr. Society come to have rights on a par with a human being? Since Mr. Society cannot speak for himself, who speaks for these rights and by what right does that individual speak for Mr. Society?" The problem with admitting disembodied entities to the plaintiff's seat is that they are invariably the hand-puppet of some other, real flesh-and-blood human being or group of human beings.
For example, in the Inquisition, the accused was tried for offenses against God. But no matter whether God exists or not, he does not sit in the plaintiff's seat himself, some human must speak on his behalf. I want to know by what right that human lodges a complaint against me on behalf of God who supposedly has many more rights than the individual speaking on his behalf. Perhaps the Holy Office does not have the right to not hear blasphemy but God does have the right not to hear blasphemy. But in registering their complaint against me on God's behalf, is not the Holy Office really just engaging in a word trick? Are they not really just trying me for violation of bullshit dogma they're enforcing in order to regiment society and make it more amenable to subjugation, taxation, serfdom and the "giving" of tithes and using "God" as a verbal blind to cover this blatantly self-interested behavior?
How is the King's appeal to a social contract any different? You can say, "well, we don't have Kings nowadays, we have politicians selected by Society itself." But the same question still applies with equal force, just to multiple individuals instead of one. Aren't the lobbyists (and politicians) who are directly benefitting from their supposed advocacy on behalf of the mythical "Society" really using this non-existent entity as a verbal blind to cover their blatantly self-interested behavior? Even assuming "Society" existed and assuming that it has rights far exceeding the individual human being and assuming that it has appointed politicians to be its spokespersons, why can't I object to the transparently corrupt behavior of its supposed advocates?
We pay taxes so those who receive taxes - directly or indirectly - can live at our expense. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.
Read this.
Clayton -
A contract is an agreement. A tacit contract is an agreement that was never explicitly stated, but the terms are understood by both parties and consented to. The limit you speak of is simply a determination of whether or not there was an agreement.
The criteria for determining their justness would be the same for an explicitly stated and signed contract. As Kinsella points out, a signed contract is not necessarily proof, merely evidence of an agreement. If one of the parties later claims there was no agreement, both sides must present their evidence and the arbiter must make as fair and rational a decision as he can.
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken
Balances of probabilities whether a contract exists... Surrounding circumstances, extrinsic evidence. It is an essential aspect of a contract for there to have been real agreement between the parties, and to be able to identify these parties precisely, which is where the "social contract" fails right off the bat.
A written contract is just a record and very strong piece of evidence that a contract exists... It's not the agreement itself, which exists abstractly.
Some browsers have issues posting on this site. Try using Chrome.
I am not convinced that implicit contracts are enforceable. Of course, in a reasonable society I'd expect them to essentially be enforceable through some consciousness of the individuals that if they do not follow through on implicit contracts they will be marginalized.
Thanks, James.
Wheylous:I am not convinced that implicit contracts are enforceable.
Why would they not be enforceable?
First off this is my first post and I just wanted to start out by saying hello to everyone and I look forward to becoming an active member of the community. I love the question. It is a very interesting gray area and everyone's responses have been equally facinating. Personally I think choice is necessary for a tacit contract. If the person is of age and his/her decision is not forced and they had full knowledge of all the aspects, then I really can't think of a limitation unless it promotes physical harm. Like the agreement between the restaurant owner and the patron, if the patron chooses what he wants on the menu, then this seems like a reasonalbe tacit contract.
When it comes to the government it gets a little more tricky, since we don't actually make choices, our representives do. There seems like there should be a tacit contract between politicians and voters, but then who is going to enforce it and also politicians are not omnipotent, so there could be a very legitamate reasons they couldn't deliver their promises. I think the same rule applies though, that a contract is valid unless it promotes harm. The draft seems illegitamte unless a country is under direct attack and may be facing the possibility of defeat. Unfortunately the government may make wrong decisions, but I guess that is the necessary evil of having a government and to change things a citizen must weather the storm and/or organize until it is time for election. Also any law that impedes choice seems illegitamate, as the citizen no longer has a connection to the contract.
If anyone is interested I just started a youtube channel, that attempts to explain Austrian Economics in a humorous manner.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYlgoJcL5M0]
I meant that they shouldn't be enforceable.
Wheylous:I meant that they shouldn't be enforceable.
OK. Why?
Because they're arbitrary and not defined. Of course, there is strong tradition for me to pay after visiting a restaurant, but really, has anyone told me that this must be so and had me agree?
Once you make one implicit contract valid, that opens up a gigantic slippery slope for all implicit contracts.