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.