Does unprovoked murder previously consented to by contract violate the non-aggression principle? - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14936733
Oxymandias wrote:Why not call yourself an Apoligian? It is derived from the italian word for stateless and family.


That does sound nice. is the "g" a hard "g"?

Like the g in "get" or the "g" like in george?
#14936813
Victoribus Spolia wrote:How do you know this?

Often times marriages were contracted between clans while those to be married were still in infancy.


If people are arranging marriages for children, then the children (who would be flogged or killed for violating the binds of matrimony) are responsible for the obligations even though they were never consulted about the “contract” or gave their consent.

This is qualitatively different from our current understanding of contracts. Ancient marriage was not a contract in the sense the word is now used.

Thus, it is not an example of a contract that works without a state.

If the people getting married are not children, then people are making contracts obligating other adults without their consent or consultation.

Either way, the critique is irrelevant because a contract was agreed to by someone, even if it was between families and not individuals. Its a contract nonetheless.


No.

If I sign a contract that says that you (VS) have to pay Joe ten bucks or lose your land, and I never consulted you or asked you about this, this would not be considered an actual contract.

Jewish nonsense.

The whole congregation took the offender out to be stoned: (Numbers 15:36)

I don't accept rabbinical lies regarding Scripture. The OT is quite clear as to what happened, the elders of tribes carried on justice through religious advisement from a clerical judiciary after the Death of Moses until the institution of the Monarchy.

Please demonstrate your claim to the contrary.


https://scholarlycommons.law.northweste ... ntext=jclc

    Flogging became the most common form of punishment. It was inflicted on various grounds, for violating the Dietary and Sabbath laws, for incest with distantly related persons, for the marriage of a Priest with a divorcee, etc. Maimonides thus counted more than 200 commandments, the infraction of which incurred this penalty. The instrument used was made of calf-skin and had two knots tied at its end. The offender was chained to a pole and re- ceived the lashes on his back and shoulders. The flogging was administered by a committee of four persons who divided their duties as follows: the beadle of the Synagogue did the flogging, while of the three attending judges, the first read Biblical verses dealing with repentance and atonement, the second counted the lashes; while the third watched to de- termine whether the offender was able to receive all the lashes. Although the maximum was forty lashes, but thirty- nine were administered, in order to avoid an error in counting.

    ...

    That purity of morals in ancient Israel was maintained on a high level is
    shown by the type of crimes which were punishable by death,17 such as the mistreatment of parents, incest with very near relatives, the seduction of a betrothed woman, etc. In the case of the latter, the woman was likewise put to death. There was a distinction drawn between a married man and woman who committed adultery; the latter was at once put to death, while the former, having legal right to a concubine, was only liable to punish- ment for seduction. For we find in the Bible that Sarah urged Abraham and
    that Rachel caused Jacob to marry con- cubines.'8 The reason for such a prac- tice is self-evident, since it led to increase in population.

Your weird anti-Semitism aside, please note that Judaic law and legal history is long standing and easy to verify.

It does not make sense to assume your Bible is a definitive source of Judaic law.

I don't know what you are talking about here.


I assumed you were discussing the common law system used in the UK and in British colonies. This is one of many legal systems that are used to provide a leegalistic framework for contracts. The Napoleonic Code, also known as the Civil Code, is another.

Are you aware of the difference between a contract signed in Maine as opposed to one signed in Louisiana? The same difference exists between a contract signed in Ontario and one signed in Quebec.

Thats not true, two people can acknowledge each others laws and rights without a state, because such do not derive from a state. The contrary claim is marxian propoganda.

Easily refuted.


Yes, you keep repeating this claim, but you have yet to support it.

Here comes the fake-news argument. :roll:

This is why no one takes you seriously.


If you wish to believe that the Webster definition is the definitive, comprehensive, and universal defintion of contracts, go ahead.

Please note that the many texts discussing all the different and unique aspects of contract law that have been written in different places and times would then be completely useless and irrelevant, because everyone could simply refer to your favourite dictionary.

Since this is obviously ludicrous, it makes sense to assume that contracts can be accurately defined well enough by that definition.

I never disagreed with this claim; in fact, I defended such in this thread.

Will do.

Your opinion is irrelevant.


Since you were asked to provide an example of a contract without a state and you have been unable to do so, it would be incorrect to claim that contracts are not based on state protection and acknowledgement.
#14936841
Pants-of-dog wrote:Thus, it is not an example of a contract that works without a state.



Actually it is. Even if its not a contract as "we would typically engage in today" its still a binding agreement between two parties (whether on behalf of others or not is irrelevant), and is enforced.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No.

If I sign a contract that says that you (VS) have to pay Joe ten bucks or lose your land, and I never consulted you or asked you about this, this would not be considered an actual contract.


If you were regarded as being legally and morally responsible for me, yes you would. Prisions have used prisoners for labor in contracts with companies and states under this very premises, and legal guardians do this for children and other dependents all the time. I already addressed this.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Your weird anti-Semitism aside, please note that Judaic law and legal history is long standing and easy to verify.

It does not make sense to assume your Bible is a definitive source of Judaic law.


I am not a Jew, I am a Christian, and I do not regard the Old Testament people of God to be Jews as Jews today are Jews. Christianity is the continuation of the Covenant of Grace and the Gospel administration. The Jews are apostates who made up shit via extra-biblical additions to the texts. Old Testament practices are spelled out quite plainly on this and I do not view Jewish speculations as authoritative, the rabbinical corpus was written long after the era of the Judges once the Monarchy had been established, and so they wrote in the context of a state and then reversed extrapolated their notions back onto their interpretations of previous practices.

We are not talking about Judaic law and I am not defending Judaic law. I am defending biblical law and the events as recorded in those texts, on a people that did not rely on the state to execute justice, it was done by family clans and the congregation of Israel.

Nothing you have provided is admissible to the question under consideration.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I assumed you were discussing the common law system


NO. That is not what I was arguing, I was arguing laws shared in common, a common moral system as existing independent of state imposition.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, you keep repeating this claim, but you have yet to support it.


Which claim is that?

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you wish to believe that the Webster definition is the definitive, comprehensive, and universal defintion of contracts, go ahead.

Please note that the many texts discussing all the different and unique aspects of contract law that have been written in different places and times would then be completely useless and irrelevant, because everyone could simply refer to your favourite dictionary.

Since this is obviously ludicrous, it makes sense to assume that contracts can be accurately defined well enough by that definition.


Well, if you choose to accept a definition that fits your position alone, then why are we even having this conversation?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since you were asked to provide an example of a contract without a state and you have been unable to do so, it would be incorrect to claim that contracts are not based on state protection and acknowledgement.


Actually I have provided that example from the most prominent institution in human history. You are attempt to get around this has been to dismiss such as contracts at all because they "ancient" :lol: and to assume your position in your definition (begging the question).

So no, you have been satisfactorily answered, refusing to acknowledge the legit examples I have provided is not an argument.

You have been amply refuted, please take your toys and go home before you humiliate yourself further.
#14936871
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Actually it is. Even if its not a contract as "we would typically engage in today" its still a binding agreement between two parties (whether on behalf of others or not is irrelevant), and is enforced.


I have already explained more than once how marriage agreements back then were not signed “on behalf of others”, but I can explain it a third time if you wish to ignore it yet again.

If not, I will assume that you have no intelligent rebuttal of this and are ignoring it because it disproves your claim.

Also, please note that it is enforced by the state. The fact that the state is different back then does not change this.

If you were regarded as being legally and morally responsible for me, yes you would. Prisions have used prisoners for labor in contracts with companies and states under this very premises, and legal guardians do this for children and other dependents all the time. I already addressed this.


Again, you have ignored the salient points.

Since you are not my prisoner or my child, I cannot sign contracts that obligate you to do things. Even if you were my child, I still could not sign a contract where you paid the oenalties for breach of contract, since contract law regarding children requires that the adult is the one who pays penalties when the kids breach the terms of contract.

This is basic contract law and you seem unaware of it.

Your prisoner example is even more hilarious since you are trying to argue that contracts can exist without a state, but your orison example requires a state

I am not a Jew, I am a Christian, and I do not regard the Old Testament people of God to be Jews as Jews today are Jews. Christianity is the continuation of the Covenant of Grace and the Gospel administration. The Jews are apostates who made up shit via extra-biblical additions to the texts. Old Testament practices are spelled out quite plainly on this and I do not view Jewish speculations as authoritative, the rabbinical corpus was written long after the era of the Judges once the Monarchy had been established, and so they wrote in the context of a state and then reversed extrapolated their notions back onto their interpretations of previous practices.

We are not talking about Judaic law and I am not defending Judaic law. I am defending biblical law and the events as recorded in those texts, on a people that did not rely on the state to execute justice, it was done by family clans and the congregation of Israel.

Nothing you have provided is admissible to the question under consideration.


Your personal beliefs are irrelevant when discussing the nature of marriage in ancient Biblical times.

And since I have already provided evidence, your emotional rejection of these facts is also irrelevant.

NO. That is not what I was arguing, I was arguing laws shared in common, a common moral system as existing independent of state imposition.


Wait. Are you now arguing that this common law system that is necessary for contracts needs to be independent of state imposition?

Because if so, that is plainly incorrect. All contracts so far have been implemented in law systems that are dependent on state imposition.

The main reason why I asked you if you were aware if the differences between the common law system and, for example, the civil code, is because many real an-caps see these as two very different systems because of how the laws are generated. Would you like me to exaplin the an-cap philosophy begind this?

Which claim is that?


If you are not even aware of what claim you are trying to support in this thread, then perhaps you should reread our discussion.

Well, if you choose to accept a definition that fits your position alone, then why are we even having this conversation?


Since I am not choosing to accept a definition that fits my position alone, this criticism can be dismissed.

I am simply pointing out that the defintion you provided is not definitive, comprehensive, or universal. This criticism of mine is supported by the fact that different legal systems and different eras all had different definitions as to what exactly a contract is.

Actually I have provided that example from the most prominent institution in human history. You are attempt to get around this has been to dismiss such as contracts at all because they "ancient" :lol: and to assume your position in your definition (begging the question).

So no, you have been satisfactorily answered, refusing to acknowledge the legit examples I have provided is not an argument.

You have been amply refuted, please take your toys and go home before you humiliate yourself further.


Since I have provided a link and a quote from a source that shows that marriage arrangements in ancient Biblical times were enforced (or more correctly, breaches were punished) by a Rabbinical court, and this same source shows that violence enacted by private individuals was also punished, I have already shown that these “contracts” were enforced by the state.

The fact that I have also shown that these contracts are not contracts according to many definitions of that word also refutes your claim.
#14936873
SolarCross wrote:@Pants-of-dog
How do you define "the state"? Possibly a lot of arguments hang on the semantics of that word.


In this thread, the state has already been defined as a group that can make and enforce laws and has a monopoly on coercion and violence.

I have been using that definition, i.e. the commonly accepted one.
#14936874
Pants-of-dog wrote:In this thread, the state has already been defined as a group that can make and enforce laws and has a monopoly on coercion and violence.

I have been using that definition, i.e. the commonly accepted one.

Ok, though that is a theoretical construct because in reality the monopoly on violence is notional not actual and it is rare outside of the totalitarianism of the 20th century for the notional "state" to be the only group making and enforcing laws.

VS is using a narrower understanding of state than you I guess. If Robinson Crusoe and Man Friday agree to help each other out, VS says "see contracts don't need the state" but to you Robinson Crusoe and Man Friday are the State or two different states making an alliance.
#14936875
Pants-of-dog wrote:Also, please note that it is enforced by the state. The fact that the state is different back then does not change this.


For the third time, they were not states in the modern sense of the term, but this makes me wonder, if you are going to dismiss that the contract during these times were "contracts" because of their ancient character, why do you not dismiss that the force of coercion during this time was not a state on the same basis that its not like "states today"

The claim is patently absurd.

Pants-of-dog wrote:but I can explain it a third time if you wish to ignore it yet again.


Yes this is the third time you have stated an erroneous notion.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, you have ignored the salient points.

Since you are not my prisoner or my child, I cannot sign contracts that obligate you to do things. Even if you were my child, I still could not sign a contract where you paid the oenalties for breach of contract, since contract law regarding children requires that the adult is the one who pays penalties when the kids breach the terms of contract.


Those points are not salient at all, because contracts done on behalf of children when they are still minors can have affects into adulthood when they could consent. Likewise, it was exceedingly rare in near eastern arranged marriages for the marriage to continue if one of engaged individuals were radically opposed. We are not talking about 0% or 100% consent here, its not that simple anyway.

Pants-of-dog wrote:but your orison example requires a state


That is irrelevant as the purpose of the example was only to demonstrate that contracts are done and can be done on behalf of others.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Your personal beliefs are irrelevant when discussing the nature of marriage in ancient Biblical times.

And since I have already provided evidence, your emotional rejection of these facts is also irrelevant.


Your evidence is rejected because its irrelevant.

And since we are discussing marriage in biblical times, the biblical data is the most relevant information, Jewish commentators who wrotes hundreds of years later are not applicable. The plain text is clear and it does not support your position at all.

Likewise, you never answered my questions regarding nomadic and bedouin marriages that I asked before. How can such marriage contracts exist in such stateless societies if, according to you, there can be no marriage-contracts without state mediation?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Wait. Are you now arguing that this common law system that is necessary for contracts needs to be independent of state imposition?


No.

I am saying that for contracts to work between disparate groups, there must be a common moral understanding under-girding the contract to make it work.

The nation-state emerged in the enlightenment to enforce contracts because this common moral understanding was eroded by the protestant reformation. Before this time, contracts were upheld independent of a centralized state because of a common connection to the Latin church.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Because if so, that is plainly incorrect. All contracts so far have been implemented in law systems that are dependent on state imposition.


Begging the question, please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The main reason why I asked you if you were aware if the differences between the common law system and, for example, the civil code, is because many real an-caps see these as two very different systems because of how the laws are generated. Would you like me to exaplin the an-cap philosophy begind this?


Please explain further, I am still not entirely sure what you mean. Are you asking for an explanation of how laws can exist independent of a state?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Since I have provided a link and a quote from a source that shows that marriage arrangements in ancient Biblical times were enforced (or more correctly, breaches were punished) by a Rabbinical court, and this same source shows that violence enacted by private individuals was also punished, I have already shown that these “contracts” were enforced by the state.


Rabbinical courts are not the same as the state, besides, I have already shown from the Biblical texts themselves that third-party moral mediation is not the same as a third party monopolist of coercion. The church was the arbiter of morality in feudal times, but moral crimes were dealt with by the landed class over their own peasantry. This is the exact system that prevailed from the time of Moses until the institution of the monarchy under King Saul.

During this time, justice was rendered privately by the elders of Israel (tribal rulers over their own lands), and were mediated by the clergy (the priests and judges).

The evidence is overwhelming on this.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The fact that I have also shown that these contracts are not contracts according to many definitions of that word also refutes your claim.


The fact that I have shown these contracts to be contracts according the main elements of what makes a contract a contract also refutes your claim.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I am simply pointing out that the defintion you provided is not definitive, comprehensive, or universal.


A contract (according to Ancap thought) is a binding agreement between at least two parties that has terms of enforcement that may or may not appeal to a third party for both the mediation and enforcement of said agreement.

The argument made by Ancaps is that contracts do not require the existence of state necessarily. This is the only claim made, and so long as there can exist only one single example of a contract being enforced independent of a state (as a third-party monopolist of coercion); that definition is sufficient.

Indeed, that not ALL official definitions of a contract require the state in the definition, and since multiple examples of contracts without a state have been shown to exist, there is no reason to take your position seriously.

If you wish to define a state as "any power of enforcement" then Ancaps are actually statists, or if you wish to define a contract as "something requiring a state" then Ancaps don't believe in contracts by definition, just enforceable agreements (which most people regards as contracts in colloquial terms). :lol:

Pants-of-dog wrote:This criticism of mine is supported by the fact that different legal systems and different eras all had different definitions as to what exactly a contract is.


So what? If the common thread in all said definitions are "agreement between at least two parties" and "enforceable" then that is all that is needed to vindicate the claim; though, legal definitions are suspect because they assume enforcement by the state in default (and thus beg the question).
#14936876
SolarCross wrote:Ok, though that is a theoretical construct because in reality the monopoly on violence is notional not actual and it is rare outside of the totalitarianism of the 20th century for the notional "state" to be the only group making and enforcing laws.

VS is using a narrower understanding of state than you I guess. If Robinson Crusoe and Man Friday agree to help each other out, VS says "see contracts don't need the state" but to you Robinson Crusoe and Man Friday are the State or two different states making an alliance.


Correct.

EDIT:

I would not consider the Lord of The Manor shooting his peasants for stealing apples to be an act of state as the peasants, the apples, and the town are owned by the Lord.

HOWEVER, I would see a King telling all the Lords within a region that they are not permitted to shoot the said peasants without permission of the king (and after paying taxes to boot) to be an act of state.

I also would not consider the actions of hired mercenaries or security by land-lords to be an act of state, as the terms of their coercion were contractual, or in the case of a religious institution, covenantal.

The association is still voluntarist in those cases, as the Lord has bound himself to religious group to enforce justice by voluntary association, which is essentially the relationship that independent duchies and manors in the 13th century had with the Papacy and its Inquisition.

My relationship to the U.S. government, its military, and its police, are not voluntarist. I cannot simply say "i'd done with this shit, I'll enforce my own laws."

Thus the U.S. is a state, but this isn't the case with rabbinical courts, the medieval papacy, etc. (though the latter was desperately trying to become one, and may have been one in a very limited sense but only over the "papal states" in Italy. Its authority over France or Germany could not be called statism. If it were a tyranny, it was a spiritual one and a peer-pressure one.
#14936879
Victoribus Spolia wrote:My relationship to the U.S. government, its military, and its police, are not voluntarist. I cannot simply say "i'd done with this shit, I'll enforce my own laws."

The US government for all its flaws is not communist, you actually can say you are "done with this shit", you can renounce your citizenship. Citizenship is a property you inherited but isn't one you have to keep.
#14936882
SolarCross wrote:The US government for all its flaws is not communist, you actually can say you are "done with this shit", you can renounce your citizenship. Citizenship is a property you inherited but isn't one you have to keep.


Thats a legal fiction though, renouncing my citizenship does not free me of the U.S.'s monopoly on coercion, so in a sense, that is even worse.

I would renounce my participation in the social contract while still being a victim of its tyranny. :lol:
#14936884
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Thats a legal fiction though, renouncing my citizenship does not free me of the U.S.'s monopoly on coercion, so in a sense, that is even worse.

I would renounce my participation in the social contract while still being a victim of its tyranny. :lol:

It's club membership. Your problem is that the club owns the ground under your feet. He who owns the ground makes the rules, and what ancap could admonish that?

--------

You might be interested in this post I made way back when I was in full blown ancap mode.

viewtopic.php?p=14297452#p14297452
#14936885
SolarCross wrote:It's club membership. Your problem is that the club owns the ground under your feet. He who owns the ground makes the rules, and what ancap could admonish that?


Its not voluntarist. I never agreed to this arrangement and public-ownership is an oxymoron, which is why Hoppe calls democracy a soft-variant of communism.

SolarCross wrote:You might be interested in this post I made way back when I was in full blown ancap mode.


i'll check it out.
#14938151
SolarCross wrote:Ok, though that is a theoretical construct because in reality the monopoly on violence is notional not actual and it is rare outside of the totalitarianism of the 20th century for the notional "state" to be the only group making and enforcing laws.


Sure, but since this is not relevant to the discussion, I will move on.

VS is using a narrower understanding of state than you I guess. If Robinson Crusoe and Man Friday agree to help each other out, VS says "see contracts don't need the state" but to you Robinson Crusoe and Man Friday are the State or two different states making an alliance.


No, you have misunderstood my position.

———————————

Victoribus Spolia wrote:For the third time, they were not states in the modern sense of the term, but this makes me wonder, if you are going to dismiss that the contract during these times were "contracts" because of their ancient character, why do you not dismiss that the force of coercion during this time was not a state on the same basis that its not like "states today"

The claim is patently absurd.

Yes this is the third time you have stated an erroneous notion.

Those points are not salient at all, because contracts done on behalf of children when they are still minors can have affects into adulthood when they could consent. Likewise, it was exceedingly rare in near eastern arranged marriages for the marriage to continue if one of engaged individuals were radically opposed. We are not talking about 0% or 100% consent here, its not that simple anyway.


Yes, they were not states in the modern sense. Thank you for agreeing with one of my points. Please note that this does not change the fact that the governing bodies of ancient Judaic society fit the accepted definition of “state”.

On the other hand, you are arguing that the arranged marriages of those times fit the definition of a contract. The modern definition is a binding agreement wherein the signing parties consent to mutual obligations. The ancient marriage agreements you brought up instead obligate people who never consented to the agreement. To put it in an-cap terms, the accepted definition of a contract does not violate the NAP, while your example of ancient marriage does violate this principle.

You may see this is irrelevant, but it is a significant qualitative difference, especially to a real an-cap.

That is irrelevant as the purpose of the example was only to demonstrate that contracts are done and can be done on behalf of others.


This is not a contract, as there is no consensual agreement between the people who are obligated to act.

Punishing prisoners is not the same as having a contract with them.

Your definition of contract is very stretchy.

Your evidence is rejected because its irrelevant.

And since we are discussing marriage in biblical times, the biblical data is the most relevant information, Jewish commentators who wrotes hundreds of years later are not applicable. The plain text is clear and it does not support your position at all.

Likewise, you never answered my questions regarding nomadic and bedouin marriages that I asked before. How can such marriage contracts exist in such stateless societies if, according to you, there can be no marriage-contracts without state mediation?


We were discussing marriage arrangements and their legalistic frameworks in ancient Biblical times.

I posted an academic study of legal practices of that society at the time, specifically quoting the penalties for adultery.

It showed how the Rabbinical courts acted as a state creating and enforcing this legal framework.

You did not refute it nor did you provide evidence that contradicted the claim.

Also, you never asked me anything about the Bedouin.

No.

I am saying that for contracts to work between disparate groups, there must be a common moral understanding under-girding the contract to make it work.

The nation-state emerged in the enlightenment to enforce contracts because this common moral understanding was eroded by the protestant reformation. Before this time, contracts were upheld independent of a centralized state because of a common connection to the Latin church.


Please provide evidence for the bolded claim.

Begging the question, please provide evidence for this claim. Thanks.


Since there never has been a legal framework for contracts that existed independently of a state, to my knowledge, it is logical to assume that all the contracts implemented in these frameworks were dependent on those states.

While there are examples of nations that are stateless, such as indigenous communities, this is due to things like colonialism wherein the indigenous communities had their systems of government deliberately destroyed. They did not have legal systems that were designed to operate independently from government.

Please explain further, I am still not entirely sure what you mean. Are you asking for an explanation of how laws can exist independent of a state?


I think you have misunderstood.

I was simply commenting on your use of a specific term (i.e. common law) in such a way that the term is divorced from its usual meaning.

Rabbinical courts are not the same as the state, besides, I have already shown from the Biblical texts themselves that third-party moral mediation is not the same as a third party monopolist of coercion. The church was the arbiter of morality in feudal times, but moral crimes were dealt with by the landed class over their own peasantry. This is the exact system that prevailed from the time of Moses until the institution of the monarchy under King Saul.

During this time, justice was rendered privately by the elders of Israel (tribal rulers over their own lands), and were mediated by the clergy (the priests and judges).

The evidence is overwhelming on this.


Please provide evidence for the claim that ancient Rabbinical courts do not fit the defintion of state that we have been using.

Please note that the evidence already provided shows that they made laws, they judged cases, and they meted out punishment, all while holding a monopoly on violence.

The fact that I have shown these contracts to be contracts according the main elements of what makes a contract a contract also refutes your claim.


No, you have not shown that these arrangements fit the defintion of a contract. I have shown that they have not.

Again, I have shown that the parties obligated by these arrangements are not the signing parties and did not consent to the arrangement, and this is qualitatively different from a contract, which requires he consent of the obligated parties.

VS wrote:A contract (according to Ancap thought) is a binding agreement between at least two parties that has terms of enforcement that may or may not appeal to a third party for both the mediation and enforcement of said agreement.

The argument made by Ancaps is that contracts do not require the existence of state necessarily. This is the only claim made, and so long as there can exist only one single example of a contract being enforced independent of a state (as a third-party monopolist of coercion); that definition is sufficient.

Indeed, that not ALL official definitions of a contract require the state in the definition, and since multiple examples of contracts without a state have been shown to exist, there is no reason to take your position seriously.

If you wish to define a state as "any power of enforcement" then Ancaps are actually statists, or if you wish to define a contract as "something requiring a state" then Ancaps don't believe in contracts by definition, just enforceable agreements (which most people regards as contracts in colloquial terms). :lol:


Again, you claimed that a deal made between two people on a desert island is a contract. It is not. There is no legal framework to make it binding if one party does not fulfill their obligations.

You also seem to be abandoning your Webster definition for this new definition that an-caps supposedly believe. Even though such a definition does not discuss consent, which is actually a big deal for real an-caps.

Please note that you have not provided “one single example of a contract being enforced independent of a state”.

Finally, since those are not the defintions I am using for “state” or “contract”, I will dismiss that criticism as a strawman. The definition for state already used in thus thread (which I did not originally provide) included a monopoly on coercion. The definition of contract includes a system wherein the parties can be held accountable if they do not hold up their end of the bargain, or if they want to nullify the contract, or otherwise require a legal contrxt to describe how contracts are treated and judged.

VS wrote:So what? If the common thread in all said definitions are "agreement between at least two parties" and "enforceable" then that is all that is needed to vindicate the claim; though, legal definitions are suspect because they assume enforcement by the state in default (and thus beg the question).


Please note that if we include “enforceable” in the defintion, which was not in your Webster definition, then the agreemwnt made between two people on a desert island is not a contract.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

In the Twilight films, is Carlisle Cullen a force […]

Which is a vote for trump. So you're responsibl[…]

@Godstud , Yes, if that's what people call it. L[…]

Obese America

@Godstud , I never claimed that there was only on[…]