Does unprovoked murder previously consented to by contract violate the non-aggression principle? - Page 4 - 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.
#14934388
Nothing more attractive than a man who brings about a clear and decisive victory so quickly. ;)

See ya when you get home @Victoribus Spolia,
#14934406
Victoribus Spolia wrote:That is all my position requires.


Your position where you pretebd to be an an-cap, or your position that all deals ever made anywhere are contracts?

If the latter, then no. The idea that you could theoretically construct a legal system without a state doea not magically mean that all deals are contracts.

Marriage.


Is this supposed to be an example of a non-legal contract? Because marriage is a legal contract.

Is it supposed to be an example of a stateless contract? If so, then please explain which stateless legal framework makes this contract binding.

That doesn't mean it can't be enforced, but since you already stated this earlier, there is no disagreement.


Yes, it does mean that it cannot be legally enforced, and therefore it is not a contract.
#14934408
Pants-of-dog wrote:Your position where you pretebd to be an an-cap, or your position that all deals ever made anywhere are contracts?


The former, but it depends on what you mean by "deal" in the latter, if you mean "binding agreement" then that would fulfill the Webster dictionary definition of a contract that I provided in a sufficient manner.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Is it supposed to be an example of a stateless contract? If so, then please explain which stateless legal framework makes this contract binding.


Family, society, religious-bodies.

Most marriages were regarded as binding contracts enforced independent of a state for most of human history and in most places of the world.

In the U.S. marriage was not even recognized in Law until 1913.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage#History

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... ted_States

Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognised union between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between those spouses, as well as between them and any resulting biological or adopted children and affinity (in-laws and other family through marriage).[1] The definition of marriage varies around the world not only between cultures and between religions, but also throughout the history of any given culture and religion, evolving to both expand and constrict in who and what is encompassed, but typically it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually sexual, are acknowledged or sanctioned. In some cultures, marriage is recommended or considered to be compulsory before pursuing any sexual activity. When defined broadly, marriage is considered a cultural universal. A marriage ceremony is known as a wedding.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
#14934640
Think of someone's property as their own nation, that helps. Pagan nations do all kinds of evil shit, that doesn't mean we just arbitrarily invade them.


The ignorance that Prods have about the history of Christianity never ceases to amaze me. :lol:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Crusades
#14934765
Victoribus Spolia wrote:The former, but it depends on what you mean by "deal" in the latter, if you mean "binding agreement" then that would fulfill the Webster dictionary definition of a contract that I provided in a sufficient manner.


I am not going to address your weird belief that you are an an-cap. It is irrelevant.

Since not all deals are binding agreements, and since not all binding agreements are contracts (or vice-versa), then we can see that your desert island example is a deal or agreement and not a contract.

Family, society, religious-bodies.


As far as I can tell, none of these groups forced any obligations.

At best, they simply ostracised people who were seen as bad spouses.

I am not even sure that marriages can be considered contracts until there was a legal framework that was enforced by the state.

It would make more sense to see it as a covenant rather than a contract.

Most marriages were regarded as binding contracts enforced independent of a state for most of human history and in most places of the world.


Thank you for repeating your claim.

I assume this next part is supposed to support your claim:

In the U.S. marriage was not even recognized in Law until 1913.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_marriage#History

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... ted_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage


As far as I can tell, this discusses how marriage evolved from an institution inti a cintract wuth the rise of civil law and contracts based on said law. It does not show that most people around the world considered marriage a contract or treated it like one.
#14934840
Pants-of-dog wrote:As far as I can tell, none of these groups forced any obligations.

At best, they simply ostracised people who were seen as bad spouses.

I am not even sure that marriages can be considered contracts until there was a legal framework that was enforced by the state.

It would make more sense to see it as a covenant rather than a contract.


Under Old Testament law, various infractions of marital law were punishable by death and this law was enforced by family-clans during the period of the Judges even before the existence of a state (the Monarchy, in this case).

This is the case in many cultures, many groups throughout the world, including the Bedouin among others, enforced marriage laws without a third-party monopolist of coercion.

NOTE: Ostracization is also a means of enforcement.

Pants-of-dog wrote:As far as I can tell, this discusses how marriage evolved from an institution inti a cintract wuth the rise of civil law and contracts based on said law. It does not show that most people around the world considered marriage a contract or treated it like one.


They viewed it as a binding agreement that was enforced by society, family, or religious institutions prior to the state. The sources confirm that state mingling in marriage institutions is a relatively new phenomena in the Christian-west, in spite of the fact that marriage-infractions were punished more severely in times-past before the state began regulating the institution directly.
#14934848
ingliz wrote:A contract is an enforceable agreement.

That isn't what what I asked him. I asked what does he get from pretending. I guess to be more clear I should have asked why does he worship a legal fiction like "the state" and ascribe to it magical powers, like it was a pagan god.

It's debatable whether "enforceability" is a necessary component of a contract or an agreement, the legal opinion such as is available on line doesn't mention it alongside the more usual components (offer, acceptance etc). Regardless of that however no matter what magical powers one superstitiously invests into a fiction "the state" enforceability may be done outside of "the state", by those who are not agents of the state or even aligned with it. So what is with the obsession with "the state" here?
Last edited by SolarCross on 23 Jul 2018 14:53, edited 1 time in total.
#14934875
SolarCross wrote:a legal fiction like "the state"

Why do you worship a state by proxy ie. An association through which you can exercise power?

The state is an institution through which individuals and groups seek to exercise power.... Though a state may be a political community, it need not be. Yet it must always be an association: a collectivity with a structure of authority and a capacity for agency.

Chandran Kukathas, A Definition of the State Department of Government, London School of Economics


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 23 Jul 2018 14:54, edited 3 times in total.
#14934880
ingliz wrote:Why do you worship a state by proxy?

What do you mean?
ingliz wrote:The state is an institution through which individuals and groups seek to exercise power.... Though a state may be a political community, it need not be. Yet it must always be an association: a collectivity with a structure of authority and a capacity for agency.

Chandran Kukathas, A Definition of the State Department of Government, London School of Economics

That definition affirms that the state is just a legal fiction, a passive instrument of the imagination, like any corporation. Moreover by this definition literally any armed association is a state, your local mafia clan certainly are or have a state. If "power" is not narrowly defined as martial prowess but as the ability to do anything, such as commerce, then even completely civilian organisations are "states". That definition is either faulty or simply affirms that the fiction is a fiction.
#14934890
Let's recap, so you acknowledge that you superstitiously worship a fiction but then turn that around on me by asserting that I do too. I ask "what do you mean?" because it isn't clear which fiction you imagine that I am worshipping in the same manner that you do. To which you replied with this:

ingliz wrote:An association through which you can exercise power.
:)


[Zag Edit: Rule 2]
#14934894
SolarCross wrote: it isn't clear which fiction you imagine that I am worshipping

You worship 'the state'.

A rose by any other name...

Lacking the power to enforce contracts, you enter into an agreement, a social contract, with others to exercise power on your behalf.

fiction

Why do you believe the 'power of the state' is fictive?


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 23 Jul 2018 15:49, edited 3 times in total.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Atheism is Evil

Nonsense- There are variations in skills or perf[…]

No reparations. One note though. We are not ta[…]

I think it should remain an independent nation. I[…]

I think this is one of the best examples yet of ho[…]