Sabri Oncu wrote: >After all, every human relation is based on some sort >of a contract whether it is our relationship with our >lovers, children, parents, siblings, friends and the >like. > >Just that most these (unsigned) contracts are >enforceable not by law but by love and we can always >opt out provided that we choose to give up on love.
Joanna: Why not simply say that human relationships are bound by love. After all, contracts are always conditional, whereas love is not. me: I think that Sabri goes much too far. All contracts -- including unsigned ones -- are based on trust, not love. (This may be good, since love can be an intense emotion that can morph into hate.) Since it's extremely hard to find a contract that's totally self-enforcing (i.e., ensures that someone [A] does _exactly_ what the other party [B] thinks he or she agreed to do) there has to be some good will (or fellow-feeling) to reinforce the written contract (getting A to do what A thinks he or she agreed to do without being monitored all the time) and some good will on the part of B to allow some lee-way, allowing for the fact that even honest people have differences in interpretation (the differences between A's and B's interpretation of the contract). Once this trust is there, the mutually beneficial results of the contract can be realized (though may not be realized all the time). One of the problems with a capitalist society (or, more generally, a commodity-producing one) is that market competition encourages rampant individualism and instrumentalism, undermining the needed fellow-feeling and trust. This makes contracts harder and encourages an over-use of monitoring (hierarchy) and the like, along with constant law-suits. This keeps the lawyers in business. Jim D.
