Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
2) Bob and I have no agreements. If I acknowledged his ownership of a tree, we had an agreement.
It clears up nothing. It's the exact same problem. In an employer/employee relationship, there is a contract. If someone wanders into a store and decides to take things, what happens? This random person has no contract with the store. Perhaps you could post someone at the door of the store with a gun. If you want to enter this store, you agree to pay an agreed price for any item before leaving. Of course a random person does not acknowledge that the store and its contents are the rightful property of the the person with the gun making the demands. It's no more wrong for him to kill the guard with a gun and take what he wants than it is for the guard with the gun to make these ridiculous and interfere with his right to take whatever he wants. In the absence of a contract, either side can do whatever side is free to do whatever they please as long as they are strong enough. Might makes absolute right. It might violate a vagina contract that possession is rightful ownership but that's simply a vagina contract. If you see a pretty girl and decide you want her and have no contract with her, it's not like you violated any of her rights when you decided to have her. No contract, no rights.
Man, you guys have a huge interest in contract law.
Is everyone in you anarchic society going to have to be contract lawyers? Or be unable to answer simple questions without deflecting to other questions? Seems impractical. Right now your utopia sounds like it would be paralyzed with legalism.
Is everyone in you anarchic society going to have to be contract lawyers? Or be unable to answer simple questions without deflecting to other questions? Seems impractical. Right now your utopia sounds like it would be paralyzed with legalism.
Anarchism and non statism doesn't work, and they understand this. The rest is just mental masturbation that comes from trying to defend an idea you actually understand to be totally unworkable.
2) Bob and I have no agreements. If I acknowledged his ownership of a tree, we had an agreement.
It clears up nothing. It's the exact same problem. In an employer/employee relationship, there is a contract. If someone wanders into a store and decides to take things, what happens? This random person has no contract with the store. Perhaps you could post someone at the door of the store with a gun. If you want to enter this store, you agree to pay an agreed price for any item before leaving. Of course a random person does not acknowledge that the store and its contents are the rightful property of the the person with the gun making the demands. It's no more wrong for him to kill the guard with a gun and take what he wants than it is for the guard with the gun to make these ridiculous and interfere with his right to take whatever he wants. In the absence of a contract, either side can do whatever side is free to do whatever they please as long as they are strong enough. Might makes absolute right. It might violate a vagina contract that possession is rightful ownership but that's simply a vagina contract. If you see a pretty girl and decide you want her and have no contract with her, it's not like you violated any of her rights when you decided to have her. No contract, no rights.
You acknowledged that it was Bob's land in post #393. I don't understand how you came to this conclusion without having a contract with Bob or through another measure I was hoping you could expand upon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
Sure.
I'm an outsider with no agreements with Bob or anyone Bob has agreements with. I wander into some land that your son Bob owns and cut down a tree for firewood. Bob tells me I have to give him my shoes. I refuse. Bob tells me I can either give him my shoes or he'll beat me up and take my shoes, my choice. I give him my shoes and run away. I come back the next day and sneak up on Bob and kill him and take my shoes back. Both events were witnessed by Cindy who is a credible and disinterested witness. Was my killing of Bob justifiable defense of my property?
Is everyone in you anarchic society going to have to be contract lawyers? Or be unable to answer simple questions without deflecting to other questions? Seems impractical. Right now your utopia sounds like it would be paralyzed with legalism.
No, just people like you who can't think on their own or that always do the "what if" game would be consumed and paralyzed with fear and doubt because you look to authority at every single turn.
This is why this conversation we're having is bizarre and insane to anyone else who understands this difference. You believe we are having a conversation on how things would work based on specific things in contractual law in hypothetical situations while I'm trying to have a conversation on the philosophy of free will and non-aggression as it functions via contractual law.
Watch this video again. It's 10 minutes and clears it up.
Asking me what I would do is so absurd and pointless because I'm not your ruler or master. What would you do is what is important. You and I aren't joined at the statist hip in a free society.
No, just people like you who can't think on their own or that always do the "what if" game would be consumed and paralyzed with fear and doubt because you look to authority at every single turn.
This is why this conversation we're having is bizarre and insane to anyone else who understands this difference. You believe we are having a conversation on how things would work based on specific things in contractual law in hypothetical situations while I'm trying to have a conversation on the philosophy of free will and non-aggression as it functions via contractual law.
Watch this video again. It's 10 minutes and clears it up.
Asking me what I would do is so absurd and pointless because I'm not your ruler or master. What would you do is what is important. You and I aren't joined at the statist hip in a free society.
Tell ya what. When you decide to answer my initial question instead of desperately trying to squirm your way around giving a straight answer, then I will watch your movie. None of my initial question was askin you what you would personally do so I am not sure where that canard came from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzzSnorlax
Sure. Contract spells out 10 guys as enforcers, Jim Bob signs contract for X and breaks it. Little do you know he has 50 family members on his side. The 10 guys try to enforce consequence Y (as spelled out in the contract) and get slaughtered. Now who enforces it?
This is EXACTLY the kind of situation that causes factions and states to arise in the first place.
Wanna point out where I asked what you personally would do? If your name is Jim Bob sorry for the coincidence.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 10-01-2017 at 06:41 PM..
Tell ya what. When you decide to answer my initial question instead of desperately trying to squirm your way around giving a straight answer, then I will watch your movie. None of my initial question was askin you what you would personally do so I am not sure where that canard came from.
Everything is personal in a free society because we are all individuals again and not wards of the State.
When you ask me a contractual question you're asking me what bullet points I have written down on my notepad on the morning I go to meet with someone who I am interested in doing business with.
If you'd watch the clip that's only 10 minutes you may understand.
But if you have a question for me (so so so bizarre) on contractual law hypotheticals go ahead and ask it again. It's the equivalent of asking me my recipe for a cake when each person can make their own cake whatever way they want.
Everything is personal in a free society because we are all individuals again and not wards of the State.
When you ask me a contractual question you're asking me what bullet points I have written down on my notepad on the morning I go to meet with someone who I am interested in doing business with.
If you'd watch the clip that's only 10 minutes you may understand.
But if you have a question for me (so so so bizarre) on contractual law hypotheticals go ahead and ask it again. It's the equivalent of asking me my recipe for a cake when each person can make their own cake whatever way they want.
But like I said, go ahead.
It's not about specifics. Read it again, enforcement is a key foundational component of contract law and you can't even answer who will enforce the contract when the person breaking it has more power than the person who honored it. That system would be defunct instantly.
It's not about specifics. Read it again, enforcement is a key foundational component of contract law and you can't even answer who will enforce the contract when the person breaking it has more power than the person who honored it. That system would be defunct instantly.
So the question is "who will enforce the contract when the person breaking it has more power than the person who honored it?"
Do I have this correct?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
