B0ycey wrote:I don't know where you got you defintion from, but it isn't standard as people understand it. Here.
I linked where I got it, Merriam-Webster, its a standard and well-distributed dictionary.
Likewise, your definition, from "google" still requires you give answers to the questions I gave, which you are totally fucked on.
B0ycey wrote:Because they enforce their own agreements.
Bingo. Which means contracts do not, be definition, require a third party of mediation/enforcement. They just don't, or else no such agreements would be possible.
B0ycey wrote:And that could mean losing their own life in the process.
Correct.
B0ycey wrote:Under a legal system, things are more uniformed.
I didn't say they weren't, but that is besides the point.
The point is whether contracts can exist without a state, they do and they can and they have through most of history.
Such a definition is valid, if we assumed your narrower marxian one:
1. we would have a contradictory and circular issue regarding the social contract, as demonstrated. Thus destroying your whole position instantly.
2. we would not be able to explain most marriages in human history, which were not done via state mediation.
3. we would not be able to justify any free exchange, which arguably makes up most exchanges anyway.
4. we could not make sense of any "illegal" deals as deals at all, like buying pot or getting a cash loan from your grandma.
Its time you concede this matter and let it go.
B0ycey wrote:It still doesn't prevent the contract being invalid in such a scenario and that is how a liberal could get around this.
I didn't commit any fallacies (you would have to point those out), you did (and I did point them out).
Also, you are a liberal and you did try to get out of this, and we saw how well that worked.