Political Theory

Re: Implicit Contracts

hayekianxyz — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:00:28 GMT

JCFolsom:

nhaag:
Stealing the meatball, and it was theft, regardless whether he was aware of it or not, is a crime. Where is the issue? A second question is what a proper compensation for this crime might be. Again, this quesion has nothing to do with law of the land, but with what has to be done to compensate the victim.

For something to be a crime, you must violate another's rights either negligently or with intent. If an exploding transformer blows me onto your lawn, I have not tresspassed because it was not my action which caused me to be on your lawn. Likewise, if I have your meatball because you put it in my hand, I have not stolen it. You stole from yourself, as it were, by assuming I'd know about and agree to your nonsensical "implied" contract. If there is any theft here, it comes from your negligence, not mine.

Hardly, there was an implicit contract that in exchange for the meatball you give me money. Now, as you said, you rejected this. In which case you must reject the contract entirely. If he is still offering you the meatball, he has the subjective intention of exchanging that for money, clearly not giving it to you for free. You can assume otherwise or reject the contract. If you assume otherwise and turn out mistaken, ignorance is no excuse and you must pay him compensation for accepting a contract in which you had no intention of holding up your side of the deal. It is fraud, regardless of whether or not you intended it to be so.

Re: Implicit Contracts

hayekianxyz — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:57:30 GMT

nhaag:
Either a contract is a consensual agreement to exchange or it is any form of human interaction.

What is the issue with the first definition, which I agree with? You and I may have a consensual agreement that you are allowed on to my property, need I list every action you are forbidden to do? Hardly.

nhaag:
In short, a contract is a spefic form of human interaction that aims on the exchange of goods, hence change in property in some way or another. Tresspassing is not a violation of a contract but rather a violation of property rights.

What is the issue? If you come on to my property, I am giving you the good of being on my property. Clearly, I own it and I am letting you use it. It is an exchange on goods, only, you are not giving me a good hence it is more similar to a gift, regardless, it is a contract.

nhaag:

An implicit contract is like non frozen icecream.

How so? A good example is dealing with corporations, in dealing with corporation I implicit agree not to go after the shareholders should I wish to sue the corporation.

Re: Implicit Contracts

hayekianxyz — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:29:53 GMT

BP, you're making baseless assertions now. What is the prolem with implicit contracts? As for the social contract my point was that one does not need to reject implicit contracts in order to be able to refute implicit contracts. Rather one can refute it because it rejects the notion of self ownership that would be required to sign any contract. Moreover, it begs the very point in contention. Being implicit has nothing to do with it. In any case, I've not ever claimed that legitimacy in ownership allows the owner to do what they wish. I believe if I invite you on to my property I have no right to stab you then and there. However it could well be an implict agreement that you have no right to use certain language or to use drugs on my property, despite this agreement not being explicit. The nature of what can be said to be agreed implicitely would be decided by private courts and local customs, and need not come into contradiction with the NAP. No my attempt does not fail, implicit contracts are everywhere. If I lend you my car in return for $50 I needn't tell you that you can't crash in the meantime. The problem with the SC has nothing to do with the fact that it is allegedly implicit.

Re: Implicit Contracts

Brainpolice — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 12:25:13 GMT

Hat tip to Juan and JC for pointing out that arbitrary local authoritarianism isn't consistant with the NAP, that custom cannot be placed above NAP because that functionally annialiates its meaning and justifies total open-endedness.

Re: Implicit Contracts

scineram — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 03:04:00 GMT

A 5 year old cannot be a prostitute.

Re: Implicit Contracts

jimmy — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 02:07:49 GMT

nibbler491:
I hereby declare, from my position as supreme overlord of you lesser beings, that you, a <insert your age here> year-old, are fit to manage yourself to some degree, but are not yet fit to make a decision of this sort soley on your own.

OK so here's a trickier one. Imagine that you have the apparent consent of, say, a 5 year old girl to work in your brothel in Sydney (where prostitution is legal). In fact prostitution is not legal for 4 year olds in Sydney but do you agree or disagree that it should be (in view of the fact that it's legal for 18 year old girls)?

Do you think a 5 year old girl is sufficiently mature to make a decision about whether or not she wants to be a prostitute or not? Do you think that it is reasonable to allow a 5 year old girl to enter into such contractual arrangements, providing both she and the other parties are cool with it?

A question like that should force you to check how far you're willing to go with your argument... Is someone able to enter into contractual arrangements on anything and everything as soon as they're able to give their apparent verbal or written consent? Or should we reserve the right to enter into contracts until people are somewhat less naive and, if so, on what grounds?

Re: Implicit Contracts

nibbler491 — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 23:33:39 GMT

Marko:

JCFolsom:

Marko:
No, you need consents of both.

Why?

Because a 14 year old is fit to manage himself to some degree, but is not jet fit to make a decision of this sort solely on his own.

That was the position of most societies through most of the history and it was actually you who brought up historical precedant so don`t blame me.

BTW, I didn`t poo-poo dissidents. I was being amused by Juan`s hypocrisy and double standards. He cares deeply about "dissidents" in ethical communities, but is ever silent on "dissidents" (and worse victims from my point of view) in decadent communities. In fact he fails to acknowledge there even can be such a phenomenon.

I'm sorry, but who the fuck are you to make this sort of statement.

I hereby declare, from my position as supreme overlord of you lesser beings, that you, a <insert your age here> year-old, are fit to manage yourself to some degree, but are not yet fit to make a decision of this sort soley on your own. So, from now on, I have arbitrarily decided that you are not allowed to have sex, nor partake in certain substances which I have again, arbitrarily decided. Furthermore, if you "get out of line" I hold the power to ration out beatings at my arbitrary discretion. You, obviously, have no recourse because I am your master and you are my slave.

You're some kind of anarchist.

Re: Implicit Contracts

Juan — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 20:24:47 GMT

Yes -- he says he's not a moral relativist, but it seems that for him the NAP can be anything, depending on how the locals happen to interpret it. He probably thinks that this :

Marko:
Here is another implicit contract for you. If you have no intention of obeying local custom, do not come to town. Do not feel yourself welcome. You will be expelled or lynched. Rightfully so.

is libertarianism at work...

Re: Implicit Contracts

JCFolsom — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 20:05:50 GMT

Juan:
"ethical communities" ? Such as ?

"decadent communities" ? For instance ?

Yeah, don't you get the impression that for Marko, "ethical communities" are those which accept the use of force against those who are "decadent" in their behavior, even if they aggress against nobody, and "decadent communities" are those that *gasp* don't try to hurt people for pleasure-seeking?

Re: Implicit Contracts

Juan — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 19:54:30 GMT

Marko:
I made fun of Juan`s hypocrisy and double standards.

Marko, you haven't got a clue.

He cares deeply about "dissidents" in ethical communities,

"ethical communities" ? Such as ?

but is ever silent on "dissidents" (and worse victims from my point of view) in decadent communities

"decadent communities" ? For instance ?

Re: Implicit Contracts

JCFolsom — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 19:27:59 GMT

Marko:
Because a 14 year old is fit to manage himself to some degree, but is not jet fit to make a decision of this sort solely on his own.

That was the position of most societies through most of the history and it was actually you who brought up historical precedant so don`t blame me.

I cannot blame you for the origins, but I can for your subscription to that view. I should also point out that it was the position of most societies that women were inferior and sort of semi-property at least, and that moderate beatings of your wife were expected and healthy. Just because a view is old doesn't mean it's worth a hill of beans. We have to look at each one and see if it's justifiable through a logical approach to ethics.

If I am in a club, and a woman looks like a woman, all secondary sex characteristics definitely in place, then she is a woman, and I am not obligated to check her ID for whether she's of whatever arbitrary age you set for adulthood before we get bizaaaah! Ages are just numbers, man. I've not yet come up with a reason why the NAP should not apply just as much to children as anyone else. Not everyone was hit as a kid, and not all the people who weren't turned out to be useless. You don't own your kids, so you have no power over what agreements I make with them. You have only the economic consequences you can rightfully impose on your kids.

Re: Implicit Contracts

Marko — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:59:15 GMT

JCFolsom:

Marko:
No, you need consents of both.

Why?

Because a 14 year old is fit to manage himself to some degree, but is not jet fit to make a decision of this sort solely on his own.

That was the position of most societies through most of the history and it was actually you who brought up historical precedant so don`t blame me.

BTW, I didn`t poo-poo dissidents. I was being amused by Juan`s hypocrisy and double standards. He cares deeply about "dissidents" in ethical communities, but is ever silent on "dissidents" (and worse victims from my point of view) in decadent communities. In fact he fails to acknowledge there even can be such a phenomenon.

Re: Implicit Contracts

JCFolsom — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:40:00 GMT

Marko:
No, you need consents of both.

Why?

Re: Implicit Contracts

Marko — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:25:35 GMT

JCFolsom:

How is it not moral relativism to say that the NAP is only valid as interpreted by local custom?

I did not say that. You put that into my mouth.

There is only one NAP. And there is only one valid interpretation. = Moral Absolutism. I could not agree more with this.

But I find my interpretation to be that one which is only valid just as you find your own interpretation to be that one which is only valid.

I do not feel less intentely about my understanding. I just recognise the fact that people who disagree with me do not feel less intentely about theirs either.

JCFolsom:

Why? The parents don't own their offspring. You need the 14-year-old's consent, not the parents

No, you need consents of both.

JCFolsom:

You are just puritanical because you have a daughter and you don't like the fact that guys are gonna wanna plow her.

Actually I don`t. It`s a rhetorical device.

Re: Implicit Contracts

JCFolsom — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:03:56 GMT

Marko:
With the consent of the parents.

Why? The parents don't own their offspring. You need the 14-year-old's consent, not the parents. You are just puritanical because you have a daughter and you don't like the fact that guys are gonna wanna plow her.

Marko:
Moral relativism my arse.

How is it not moral relativism to say that the NAP is only valid as interpreted by local custom?