To clarify your position, consider the following: One day Jane says, "I'm tired of this, let's do something else," and Kevin says, "No, this is what I'm into today, keep it up," and Jane says "I refuse! I hereby abrogate this Contract! Sue me!"
And then either: (1) Kevin gets out the manacles and holds Jane steady in position for his activities until it's time to go watch the new episode of House, OR (2) Kevin threatens, "I will kill you if you don't keep your end of the bargain," and Jane says, "I'm outa here," and Kevin cuts out her heart in accordance with the Non-Performance Clause that Jane agreed to. Now, as I understand it, your position is that (1) is an Initiation Of Force, but (2) is not an Initiation Of Force (since you did say, "Cut away"). NOW have I got that right? --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Gary F. York" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Zack Bass wrote: > > --- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Gary F. York" > > <gfyork@> wrote: > > > >> Zack Bass wrote: > >> > >> > >>> How about if there is a Clause in the Contract > >>> that Kevin may, if Jane is in substantial default > >>> for any reason, excise one pound of flesh > >>> from any part of her body he chooses? > >>> > >> > >> Already covered. Cut away. > >> > >> G. > >> > >> > > > > Now I am quite sure that I have misunderstood something along the way. > > > > To clarify your position, consider the following: > > > > One day Jane says, "I'm tired of this, let's do something else," and > > Kevin says, "No, this is what I'm into today, keep it up," and Jane > > says "I refuse! I hereby abrogate this Contract! Sue me!" > > > > And then either: > > (1) Kevin gets out the manacles and holds Jane steady in position for > > his activities until it's time to go watch the new episode of House, > > OR > > (2) Kevin threatens, "I will kill you if you don't keep your end of > > the bargain," and Jane says, "I'm outa here," and Kevin cuts out her > > heart in accordance with the Non-Performance Clause that Jane agreed to. > > > > Now, as I understand it, your position is that (1) is unacceptable, > > but (2) is acceptable. Have I got that right? > > > Not quite; the issue is: "acceptable to whom?" I'm not in your society, > as you envision it; I'm not helping you enforce your definition of > contract, and I'm certainly not urging anyone else to join it. Do what > you like; if your neighbors are cool with it, you're golden. I just > don't think you'll get very many who seek the darkness. > > "Seek the darkness." Sorry; that was probably a little over the top. > > But I seek to construct and or join a society without built in horrors. > I don't want neighbors who think it's ok to kill or torture someone to > collect a debt; not my kind of people. > > Consider a two party contract where one party defaults. Both parties > made a mistake: an error in judgment. The party who defaulted erred in > believing they'd remain able and willing to perform; the other party > erred in trusting the first. (I am _not_ suggesting the two errors > cancel one another.) Any group of individuals, or society if you want, > stands to benefit if people tend to make and honor contracts. (And I am > here ignoring the separate issue of fraud.) > > One way to proceed, of course, is to make the consequences of a default > so horrible that default is a bit less likely. That might make more > people trustworthy. > > The underlying issue is, "Who can I trust?" (And "how much" and "with > what"?) The "web of trust" concept seeks to help there. (Anyone recall > who came up with the idea?) > > G. >
