But that is not a correct analogy. I believe Rothbard contrasts this “empty promise” with a conditional transfer of title (performance bond): “I hereby transfer title to $1000 to you on condition that I do not act in your movie.” Now, this is enforceable. It’s not just a promise to act in the movie, it’s a transfer of title to the performance money which is conditional upon failure to act in the movie. A performance bond is transfer of title conditional upon performance of the action in question. The same could be done for marriage or anything you might want.
Not exactly. There has to be two goods. Where I decide to contract to give you $10, the contract cannot be enforced because I have not frauded you out of a good (in contrast to if you gave me $5 in exhange for a title to $10 a year from now and I didn’t pay). That was my point.
You’re equivocating on “transfer” versus “exchange.” Either one can be contractual. Transfer is unilateral, exchange is bilateral. I see no defining distinction.
1) “I hereby promise to pay you $10 one second after you hand give me that apple”
Congratulations! You finally get the simple point! If we (you and I) make a contract so that I must give you $10 in exchange for an apple, and I don’t give you $10, then that can indeed be enforced. Because I have implicitly stolen from you.
Now, if I made a contract like this:
“I will buy the apple from you for $10. If I choose not to, then I will still owe you $10”
Then I could not be forced, within the Non-Aggression Axiom, to pay you $10 if I choose not to buy the apple. Even though the flipping contract says so.
You’re equivocating on “transfer” versus “exchange.” Either one can be contractual. Transfer is unilateral, exchange is bilateral. I see no defining distinction.
That’s why I don’t think contracts can necessarily be enforced? The reason this is important is because I have not frauded the person with whom I made the contract to give $50 tomorrow. For what have I stolen? See Rothbard below on the example of the movie actor:
44This is true even if the actor had previously agreed in a contract that he would pay damages. For this is still merely a promise; he has not implicitly seized someone else’s property. The object of an enforcing agency in a free society is not to uphold promise-keeping by force, but to redress any invasions of person and property.
Now, if I agreed to pay you $50 in exchange for a good, and I took the good but didn’t give you the $50, then that would be implicit theft.
Be careful of claiming someone else is equivocating when you are doing so yourself!
The functional word is my use of “hereby”. Go back and read the very first Rothbard quote I gave in this thread. “I promise to pay you $1000 on condition that I fail to act in your movie” is not enforceable because it’s a promise to transfer a title in the future. It is not a present transfer of title. But “I hereby transfer title to $1000 to you on condition that I fail to act in your movie” is enforceable because it is a transfer of title in the present. Rothbard specifically says that this kind of “semantics” is not idle hair-splitting and is crucially important. Promises are not enforceable because making promises enforceable is tantamount to legalizing slavery. A conditional transfer of title, on the other hand, is enforceable because, at the time when the holder of the title goes to enforce his property claim, transfer of title has already occurred. In the first case of promising to pay $1000, the movie producer would be claiming “You have to transfer title to me because you promised you would” but in the second case the producer is claiming “You have transferred title to $1000 to me by virtue of not acting in my movie and I am now attempting to recover my property.”
^Rothbard’s saying that the movie actor cannot be forced to pay even if it says so in a formal contract to which he agreed. So Rothbard is entirely supporting my argument.
I’m not equivocating and I’m quite sure you have not yet comprehended Rothbard’s views on this. I’m more than willing to help you see what he’s saying; I wasn’t saying you’re equivocating as any kind of jab toward you. I just think you’re chasing a rabbit-trail with getting hung up on the exchange. The exchange is not what Rothbard is getting at here… what he’s getting at is why mere promises are not enforceable. This doesn’t mean you can’t construct an enforceable, conditional transfer of title. Please, go back and re-read the first quote I put in this thread from Rothbard.
Yes, if the contract merely contains a promise to pay. If, however, the contract summarily transfers title on condition of failure to act, then it is just a performance bond and Rothbard definitely views performance bonds as enforceable. I don’t have time or inclination to chase up quotes, but I would suggest you google “rothbard performance bond site:mises.org” and do some digging around.
“I promise to pay you $1000 on condition that I fail to act in your movie” is not enforceable because it’s a promise to transfer a title in the future.
A title is a present promise to pay money in the future, in either case. So no, I don’t see the distinction. If the actor says “I hereby transfer title to $1000 to you on condition that I fail to act in your movie,” then that is just as unenforceable as the “empty promise.” The actor has not frauded his employer out of anything.
What Rothbard is saying here is that a person’s labor is not something that can be treated as property because this is tantamount to slavery. Hence, I am not able to make a legally enforceable contract that transfers title to someone to a certain amount of my labor in the future. Only titles to actual property can be exchanged or transferred. However, this doesn’t prevent me from making a contract that transfers title to actual property (for example, money) to an employer upon my refusal to perform a certain task or a certain amount of labor.
OK, honestly, I just need an answer to the following question:
Let’s say X gives a “title to $100” to Y, that is to be payed on January 1. If X opts out of paying this “title to $100,” then what has he stolen from Y?
To elaborate on this point, imagine I own a company that produces widgets. I sign a contract with you promising to deilver 1,000,000 widgets on January 1, 2012. January 1 comes and I have not produced any widgets. Now, the contract that I made with you cannot possibly be a transfer of title to 1,000,000 widgets since the widgets simply do not exist. There is no such thing as title to non-existent or hypothetical property (except fiat money :-P). Hence, a contract promising to deliver widgets requries a penalty clause that specifies a title transfer to actual property.
The title has already been transferred. If X refuses to transfer the property for which title has already been transferred, X is engaging in theft. Let’s change the example to make this clearer. I own a car but it’s in another state. I put the car up for sale and you call me. We meet and you agree to buy the car sight-unseen and I hand you the title and keys to the car. The car itself (not just the title) is now yours because you hold the title. If the car is stored on my property, then I must either bring the car to you or permit you to enter my property to recover the car because the car is your property. If I refuse to allow you on my property to get the car, then I am engaging in theft. You hold the title so the car is yours. Refusal to turn over the physical property to which the title refers is theft.
The title has already been transferred. If X refuses to transfer the property for which title has already been transferred, X is engaging in theft. Let’s change the example to make this clearer. I own a car but it’s in another state. I put the car up for sale and you call me. We meet and you agree to buy the car sight-unseen and I hand you the title and keys to the car. The car itself (not just the title) is now yours because you hold the title. If the car is stored on my property, then I must either bring the car to you or permit you to enter my property to recover the car because the car is your property. If I refuse to allow you on my property to get the car, then I am engaging in theft. You hold the title so the car is yours. Refusal to turn over the physical property to which the title refers is theft.
So if the penalty clause states that “I owe them title to $100,000” for not delivering the widgets, then that can be enforced? Really? What have I implicitly stolen from them, hmm? (I think you are misreading Rothbard’s concept that there has to be an act of theft for a contract to be enforced).
Congratulations! You finally get the simple point! If we (you and I) make a contract so that I must give you $10 in exchange for an apple, and I don’t give you $10, then that can indeed be enforced. Because I have implicitly stolen from you.
Alright, now imagine a slightly different scenario:
1) “I hereby promise to pay you $10 one second after you provide me with service Q”
Enforceable?
If yes, the final scenario:
1) “I hereby promise to pay you $10 one second after you provide me with service Q, which is you breathing for one second”
There ya go. A good in exchange for a trivial service. Enforceable?
The title has already been transferred. If X refuses to transfer the property for which title has already been transferred, X is engaging in theft. Let’s change the example to make this clearer. I own a car but it’s in another state. I put the car up for sale and you call me. We meet and you agree to buy the car sight-unseen and I hand you the title and keys to the car. The car itself (not just the title) is now yours because you hold the title. If the car is stored on my property, then I must either bring the car to you or permit you to enter my property to recover the car because the car is your property. If I refuse to allow you on my property to get the car, then I am engaging in theft. You hold the title so the car is yours. Refusal to turn over the physical property to which the title refers is theft.
The theft was where he stole (frauded) the buyer’s money…If he had simply given title to the car (let’s say as a gift), without stealing the money, then the title to the car could not be enforced. Because he hasn’t stolen anything.
I think it will help if you imagine the title as a physical piece of paper, possession of which indicates ownership of the property to which the title refers. If I’m holding the title, I own the thing the title refers to. If I hand you the title, then you own it (even if I just gave the title to you for nothing in return).
Now, let’s say I have a $100 bill and a title (piece of paper) that refers to that $100 by serial number. If I give you the title, the $100 bill is now yours, even if I am still holding the $100 bill. Whenever you choose to demand that I give up the $100 bill out of my possession, I must comply or else I am stealing from you. In this case I’m not stealing by wrestling the property out of your possession. Rather, I’m stealing by refusing to turn over the property that is already in my possession to you. It’s a passive form of theft.
Also, the penalty clause does not say “I owe you title” or “I promise to give you title” rather, it IS a title, it says “This clause is title to $100,000 on condition the 1,000,000 widgets are not delivered on Jan. 1”