Victoribus Spolia wrote:All irrelevant. Please provide evidence that ancient marriages don't constitute contracts between groups of people.
I did show how ancient marriages do not fit the current definition of contract, and you dismissed it as irrelevant.
Again: the parties involved in the marriage are not the same people who made the deal. With contracts, the people who sign the deal are also the ones involved in the deal.
The actual discussion was about legalistic frameworks. Please note that the ancinet Judaic legal system provides said framework.
What makes you think that under anarcho-captialism there can be no legal trials?
No Ancap believes this, the era of the judges is described in scripture as not having a state, but being confederated among tribes/family-clans.
If you consider the community executing justice among their own after a religious leader made a ruling statism, then you either don't understand anarcho-capitalism that you are presuming to critique, or you have an excessively broad understanding of statism.
Family claims executing judgment on their own lands against perpetrators of an accepted moral code in those lands, after the ruling of an accepted religious authority, is definitive of AnCap thought. There is not third-party overriding the ability of justice to be reckoned on their own lands in this system, thus it does not qualify as a "third party monopolist of coercion" as Ancap's define those terms.
If I own 1,000 acres of land, and on my land I have peasants working my farms and living in their homes, they are under my authority as the owner of the property (proprietorship) and thus I have the authority to set the terms of their staying on my lands. These can include, and usually do, laws and covenants etc.
If someone violates this law, and as a term of living on the land, agreed to obey it even given its potential consequences, I can enforce their punishment on my land. That does not make me a state according to AnCap thought. Likewise, If I had a local bishop come and determine that the person was guilty via a trial, that is not a violation of Ancap thought either.
If the church said that "they should be the ones to carry out the execution", and I let them based on a covenant I have with the church, that is not a violation of Ancap thought either.
You are just mistaken on this and are trying to change the definitions now to save face on your clear embarrassment.
I have bigger fish to fry, I don't have time to deal with the silliness that you post weeks after I give a response.
I was done with this talk awhile ago.
I am not discussing your an-crap. You seem to have trouble following the conversation.
My point was that marriage is not an example of a contract that requires no legal framework or state. Even in ancient Biblical times, this was the case.
And so, we now get back to your desert island example and we can see tha5 while deals made on that island may be considered agreements, they are not contracts.
There is a crack in everything,
That's how the light gets in...