brain, i derive ownership concepts from their indispensible role in formulating a coherent ethics. it so happens that I can then consider the bodies of embodied agents as being property of the minds of said agents and i call them self-owners when the context requires it. where do you derive ownership concepts from? and how do these concepts relate to individuals?
do contracts =equal= promises with no difference? are they are simply synonymous? is it a pure redundancy of the english language? or is there a relevant and profound difference.
A contract is a promise that requires another to promise something else. Anyone can say to someone, “I promise to give you a hundred dollars” and the other “I promise to repair this car”. Those are separate promises. It is when the word “if” comes into play that makes it contractual. “I promise to give you a hundred dollars IF you repair this car” and “I promise to repair this car IF you give me a hundred dollars” are contracts that one can agree or disagree to.
Also, as a clarification, I do not believe that “living on land recognised by most people as mine” is a justification for making someone follow a contract, as governments do. The person on the land has not agreed that it is the government’s, and the government has not agreed it is his. However, unless the person was directly threatening someone, a government in competition with other governments would most likely not forcefully remove the person, as this could be unfavorably viewed by other people who are in contract with the government for protection, who would protest or move to another government.
rothbard distinguishes between a contract and a promise by saying that a promise sets up an expectation that someone will do something, by its nature it is non-binding, failure to perform the promise will not invite legitimate aggression.
a proper contract involves transfer of title to property, so when someone fails to perform under their contracted obligation another person has been stolen from, as property that is theirs in title is not under their control.
if two people agree to trade ones car for the others money, either they both perform the agreed trade, neither perform it, or one performs it and the other does not.
when they both perform it title is transfered, easy.
when they both do not perform it, neither has lost property, neither is owed anything by the other.
if one gives the car but does not receive the money, then one has had the car stolen from him, and the other party will either give the money and complete the performance of the contract, or will not and will be a thief fraudstar who has stolen a car. in the latter case it would be legitimate to take the car from the thief and give it to the original car possessor.
can you construct the kind of social contract that you imagine as good and practical in light of this distinction between contract and mere promise?
“If you agree to not initiate coercion upon another’s life, liberty, or property as recognised by this defense agency, and pay n-dollars per month, we agree to defend you within our fullest extent from others coercing upon your life, liberty, or property as recognised by this defense agency.”
This is a perfectly valid contract. It can be broken if the individual coerces upon another, or if the defense agency does not defend within their fullest extent.
If the judgement of the defense agency in determining property and degree of defense has been shown to be advantageous to people who agree to the contract, then more will will agree to it. If not, it will fail under competetion like any other business. Competition between agencies ensures that they will constantly try to out-do one another in protecting life, liberty, and property for their customers.
but what you have described is an explicit protection serivce contract and not a generic social contract. are you moving the goalposts?
A social contract and contract are the same thing. I am putting the emphasis on large-scale contracts that involve behavior with other people and objects when I say social.
one minute its a large scale contract that everyone implicity has agreed to because your vision of human evolution says its better that way, and the next its a particular explicit contract between two definite parties, and the 3rd minute the first two are equated.
your hard to handle!
Sigh
A contract is always between two parties: the being that agrees to it, and everyone else involved. I have never stated anything contrary to this. If there are three people, an example contract would be “I won’t hurt you two if you don’t hurt me”. Person A’s contract is between him and the group of B&C. B’s contract is between him and the group of A&C. C’s is between him and the group of A&B.
under natural law, that contract is unnecessary, and properly not a contract since it does not involve transfer of title
without natural law, it is only some promises the people make to each other which is as good as the paper its written on. there is no sense that any party should avoid aggression, only the bare fact that they said that they would, and that there might be prticular consequences to them not. What was even the purpose of them telling each other that they would not, one may as well just have told the others unilateraly, dont hurt me and i wont hurt you, the other 2 need not make the same statements, they need not agree nor disagree, changes nothing.
Actually, I have made a mistake here. This is how it should read:
A contract is always between two parties: the being that agrees to it, and everyone else involved. I have never stated anything contrary to this. If there are three people, an example contract would be “I won’t hurt you if you don’t hurt me”. Person A would have two contracts. One between him and B, and the other between him and C. Likewise with B and C. The contract “I won’t hurt you two if you don’t hurt me” would allow A to attack B and B attack C in return, which they would most likely not agree upon.
in you contract theory presupposing that natural law is invalid, there is no sense of meaning to your word allow.
Since when do contracts require transfer of title? “I’ll stand on my head if you do a funny dance” is a perfectly valid contract that you may choose to take up or not.
For the argument you make, the sole fact that grouping with others can be advantageous to one’s own survival is enough to keep the contract. If someone decides to break a protective contract, they do so at their own risk.
I hope you’re not trying to be deceiving cause you said “your” social theory will lead to two law and order agencies. I mean I never really had a straight answer on most of this, but don’t try to deceive… hopefully I have just misunderstood your position. I hope so.
either its a mere promise that did not involve transfer of title, in whcih case, if one stands on his head and the other does not dance, the headstander has no grounds to forceably compell the dancer to perform the dance act. whereas if they transferred title,. i.e. the dancer is granted a property right in the performance of a headstand, and the headstander gets a property right over a dance performance of the dancer, then as soon as one performs the act the other can be compelled to and the compulsion is not aggression but restitution.so which is it?
what you describe is not a proper contract, and neither is it necessary if we have either only natural law, or only game theory.
i do admire your desire to strike out with your own independant theory but so far i dont think its going too well.
I was using “allow” in the sense that by initiating aggression, the others could retaliate without breaching the contract.
breaching the contract would mean that they owe something, but this was never possible. there is no owing things to people without natural law property rights.
I have no idea what is going on with this discussion any more. I am making an observant statement that people agree to contracts when they will be better off had they not agreed. I am then tracing out what will happen if they constantly make and keep them: the two protective agencies. I am NOT saying it is “right” or “wrong” to make, reject, keep, break contracts. For Pete’s sake I’m just a 19 year-old philosophy student!
People tend not to associate with people who constantly break agreements. This is how societies form. What is so hard to understand about this?