Originally posted by AThousandYoungTo say, as you did, something like: All private contracts are recognized by the US government, unless they're illegal for some reason is just a rather silly truism posing as insight. 'Contracts' do not simply somehow exist and then get recognized by government. It is the existence of government that makes the concept of contracts possible.
"without government"?
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI'm, glad you recognize the truth behind what I say 😉
To say, as you did, something like: [b]All private contracts are recognized by the US government, unless they're illegal for some reason is just a rather silly truism posing as insight. 'Contracts' do not simply somehow exist and then get recognized by government. It is the existence of government that makes the concept of contracts possible.[/b]
Originally posted by AThousandYoungExactly. Truisms contribute nothing.
You just told me I "said a truism".
"Children should be a legal responsibility to both parents whether or not there is marriage" ... was another one.
"Even a tribal chief is "government" ... was yet another one.
Originally posted by FMFGuvamint might be called upon to enforce a contract occasionally. But most run there course with no guvamint intervention. Whether is a matter of a persons word and a shake of hands, or more formal multi million dollar contracts. Which sometimes run into trouble but even these can be reconciled through a mutually agreed upon independant, non-gummint-bureaurat arbitrator.
It is the existence of government that makes the concept of contracts possible.
The concept of contract exists independant of the concept of guvamint.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFSo...I spoke the truth.
Exactly. Truisms contribute nothing.
"Children should be a legal responsibility to both parents whether or not there is marriage" ... was another one.
"Even a tribal chief is "government" ... was yet another one.
Now, if even a tribal chief is government, then the statement
It is the existence of government that makes the concept of contracts possible.
Is pointless, since there's always government, even at the tribal level.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou are an interesting guy to discuss things with sometimes. But when you're in this kind of mood, you are a plonker.
So...I spoke the truth.
Now, if even a tribal chief is government, then the statement
[b] It is the existence of government that makes the concept of contracts possible.
Is pointless, since there's always government, even at the tribal level.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYou seem to switch from respect for me to contempt, but either way, you're an arrogant and bitter person without the flexibility to try to understand anything but what you already are convinced of.
You are an interesting guy to discuss things with sometimes. But when you're in this kind of mood, you are a plonker.
You're so often condescending that I don't even try with you; I just try to remember the arrogant, condescending stuff you write, and then mimic it in mockery.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOh the irony of those words, AThousandYoung!
you're [a] person without the flexibility to try to understand anything but what you already are convinced of.
Anyway. I'll leave you with the last word. See if you can say something devastating with your parting shot...
Originally posted by FMFWrong.
Wrong.
Contracts depend on there being a system of laws. And there is no system of laws without a government.
Most contracts are fulfilled regardless of guvamint meddling. Contracts are normally mutually beneficial, people hold up their end of the bargain for two reasons, that they might be trusted enough to deal with again and believe it or not some hold prinicples based on trust and honesty.