1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaOf course they do, in the everyday conduct of life. But to say that this means that "The concept of contracts exists independent of the concept of government" is clearly nothing more than your gut feeling and a leap of logic. A system of government precedes a system of laws, and therefore the concept of property ownership, a monetary system, and thus the concept of contracts. I realize your stance is that government does nothing for you, you don't need government etc. But what you refuse to concede is that a system of laws creates the structure within which people can set about owning things and selling things and whatever else they want to do. I think it should be perfectly possible for you to argue your 'small government' dream without going to the extreme of undermining it with what appears to be your 'no government' hypothesis. In your own way, you come across a little bit like an ungrateful and self-absorbed dole recipient, railing against the system that supports his whole way of life. Of course, I am not saying you are a parasite of any kind. I have every reason to believe that you a productive economic actor and law-abiding citizen. But for you to claim you can be this 'all on your own' is not even something right-wing philosophers purport.
Guvamint might be called upon to enforce a contract occasionally. But most run there course with no guvamint intervention.
Originally posted by FMFThe concept of contracts does not require guvamint, nor does the concept of property rights. Or money, there are currencies out there that exist independant of guvamint, they've been developed entirely for that reason.
Of course they do, in the everyday conduct of life. But to say that this means that "The concept of contracts exists independent of the concept of government" is clearly nothing more than your gut feeling and a leap of logic. A system of government precedes the concept of property ownership, a system of laws, a monetary system, and thus the concept of contracts. ...[text shortened]... ou can be this 'all on your own' is not even something right-wing philosophers purport.
There's no leap of logic.
Then onto the extravagant claims about what I supposedly think, yes we do need guvamint.
Originally posted by WajomaOwnership is not a natural relationship between a person and a thing. It is a social convention, and in societies with a legal system, it is defined by the law. These laws cannot exist without a system of government. If you wanted to produce, say, cars - you wouldn't be able to do it without a legal system that protects mining rights, private ownership of land, an accepted currency, systems of transport, the production and sale of energy, the existence of an educated labour force, the protection of patents and the prevention of monopolies, judicial resolution of disputes, national defence and the protection of trading routes. A system of government is conceptually prior to property rights. This strikes me as self-evident, and neither is it a left wing thing or a right wing thing. The idea that the concept of property rights "does not require government" strikes me as a utopian fantasy that has no relevance in the real world.
The concept of contracts does not require guvamint, nor does the concept of property rights.
Originally posted by no1marauderI think that transactions can take place in the absence of government, sure, why not? But a contract is, by definition, an agreement enforceable by law. That's where 'government' comes in, like it or loathe it.
Contracts can theorectically be made in the absence of governments. Contracts can exist even if not legally enforceable by the government.
Originally posted by FMFAre you claiming that people didn't own things before there were governments?
Ownership is not a natural relationship between a person and a thing. It is a social convention, and in societies with a legal system, it is defined by the law. These laws cannot exist without a system of government. If you wanted to produce, say, cars - you wouldn't be able to do it without a legal system that protects mining rights, private ownership of land, ...[text shortened]... require government" strikes me as a utopian fantasy that has no relevance in the real world.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFThat's A definition, not THE definition.
I think that transactions can take place in the absence of government, sure, why not? But a contract is, by definition, an agreement enforceable by law. That's where 'government' comes in, like it or loathe it.
Merriam Webster says:
a: a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties; especially : one legally enforceable
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contract
Originally posted by no1marauderThat's exactly right. People used things but other people could take them away. People occupied land but other people could evict them and use the land instead. People had no claim on anything. They couldn't appeal to any entity to assert 'ownership'. Things changed hands. Violence was, I imagine, the standard recourse. Whatever. There was not the concept of ownership that we have now.
Are you claiming that people didn't own things before there were governments?
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFYou are incorrect and need to review anthropological evidence regarding primitive hunter gatherer societies.
That's exactly right. People used things but other people could take them away. People occupied land but other people could evict them and use the land instead. People had no claim on anything. They couldn't appeal to any entity to assert 'ownership'. Things changed hands. Violence was, I imagine, the standard recourse. Whatever. There was not the concept of ownership that we have now.
EDIT: This might help:
Respect for property is a trait that has been identified in "all vertebrates, and very clearly in primates" (Radnitzky 1990, p. 161). Without respect for property, the idea of "harming others" has no meaning. To that extent, property rights must have existed contemporaneously with the emergence of early cultural forms. The voluntary exchange of material goods is primarily a human characteristic, for which mutual recognition of ownership is a prerequisite: "in humans, sharing and gift-giving are the most important bonding devices, and they themselves presuppose ownership" (Radnitzky 1990, p. 161).
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_5_63/ai_n8642231/pg_19
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, if - for you - a definition of 'contract' that says "a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties; especially one [that is] legally enforceable"... makes a nonsense of everything I have been saying, well then that's just fine.
That's A definition, not THE definition.
Originally posted by FMFNon sequitur.
Well, if - for you - a definition of 'contract' that says "a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties; especially one [that is] legally enforceable"... makes a nonsense of everything I have been saying, well then that's just fine.
The definition does implies that contracts can be considered binding without necessarily being legally enforceable.