[One Degree]

I have to agree with VS. A contract is just an agreement. Who enforces and how that agreement is enforced is irrelevant.

[Victoribus Spolia]

A social contract are liberties you give up for the protections a society gives you.

So how was that deal made prior to a state, if states are necessary for contracts to be made?

The argument is circular. If the state is a contract, and states are necessary for contracts, you have a serious logical pickle on how states can come into existence.

The only way out is to either deny that the social contract is a contract (lol) or that contracts don't require states (the correct position).

A contract is an agreement in law. Without the law it is just an agreement.

Please note the following:

Definition of contract
1 a : a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties; especially : one legally enforceable If he breaks the contract, he'll be sued.
b : a business arrangement for the supply of goods or services at a fixed price make parts on contract
c : the act of marriage or an agreement to marry
2 : a document describing the terms of a contract Have you signed the contract yet?
3 : the final bid to win a specified number of tricks in bridge
4 : an order or arrangement for a hired assassin to kill someone His enemies put out a contract on him.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contract

Especially does not mean exclusively, and in our society which has a state, this is true. But this definition does not require contracts to assume the existence of a state and this is manifestly ahistorical.

Marriage prior to laws was a promise to God. That is how they existed.

Where did you come up with that shit?

They were typically agreements between families involving dowries, land-grants, bride-prices, etc., and indeed had religious significance, but they were agreements or contracts.

If no contracts are possible without government, than no Bedouins or many other groups throughout the world have any marriages at all according to your view. Which is silly.

Quit saying dumb shit.

[B0ycey]

I have to agree with VS. A contract is just an agreement. Who enforces and how that agreement is enforced is irrelevant.

You're fucked VS. One Degree agrees with you.

Didn't you say you were a teacher. Not in English obviously. Look up contract.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I already gave a definition from a dictionary @B0ycey,

My point is confirmed by it, not contradicted by it.

[B0ycey]

Quit saying dumb shit.

Actually, you do. A contract is an agreement in law, and that is something I know a thing or two about actually. But rather than going round in circles, let's just go right to the beginning shall we. A contract is only valid if it is legally binding. So under this scenario you are going to jail if you kill the individual with an agreement or not. It is that simple. And if you want to argue that, you are wrong under the law.

[One Degree]

You're fucked VS. One Degree agrees with you.

Didn't you say you were a teacher. Not in English obviously. Look up contract.

You obviously do not understand the purpose of definitions. Giving a word a definition in one environment does not limit it’s definition in other environments. The whole idea is to restrict the word to a specific purpose. Using definitions as arguments is deliberately limiting.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Actually, you do. A contract is an agreement in law, and that is something I know a thing or two about actually. But rather than going round in circles, let's just go right to the beginning shall we. A contract is only valid if it is legally binding. So under this scenario you are going to jail if you kill the individual with an agreement or not. It is that simple. And if you want to argue that, you are wrong under the law.

I gave a definition and it contradicted your marxist-influenced narrow usage.

Also, here is another question for you since you fucked up so bad on the other ones, this should be easier for you.

why are pot deals in the U.S. (almost always verbal contracts) typically successful exchanges in spite of the fact that they are not government mediated (illegal)?

Why do so many people have successful arrangements with their pot dealers? They're aren't legal after all!?

[B0ycey]

You obviously do not understand the purpose of definitions. Giving a word a definition in one environment does not limit it’s definition in other environments. The whole idea is to restrict the word to a specific purpose. Using definitions as arguments is deliberately limiting.

I'm not going to argue what a contract is. I know exactly what it is. I have gotten use to people digging their own grave numerous times on here. After all, a fallacy doesn't stop being a fallacy just because it has consensus. So all I am going to ask from you One Degree, is if you read the OP, is this contract going to prevent the murderer from going to jail or not? If not, why isn't this contract enforceable?

[One Degree]

I'm not going to argue what a contract is. I know exactly what it is. I have gotten use to people digging their own grave numerous times on here. After all, a fallacy doesn't stop being a fallacy just because it has consensus. So all I am going to ask from you One Degree, is if you read the OP, is this contract going to prevent the murderer from going to jail or not? If not, why isn't this contract enforceable?

No, you are depending upon a definition limited to a specific environment and then saying it must apply to all environments. I would have replied to the original question if I had any interest in it. I don’t. I did have an interest in your misunderstanding of the purpose of definitions.

[B0ycey]

I gave a definition and it contradicted your marxist-influenced narrow usage.

I don't know where you got you defintion from, but it isn't standard as people understand it. Here.

https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-samsung&source=android-browser&ei=KR5SW8GxNYaZgAa3rK-ABg&q=contract+definition&oq=contract+definition&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.12..41j0i67j0l3.11224.11728..12978...0.0...82.263.4......0....1.........0i71j0i22i30.QaFjm67Ul0s

Also, here is another question for you since you fucked up so bad on the other ones, this should be easier for you.

why are pot deals in the U.S. (almost always verbal contracts) typically successful exchanges in spite of the fact that they are not government mediated (illegal)?

Because they enforce their own agreements. And that could mean losing their own life in the process. Under a legal system, things are more uniformed.

[B0ycey]

I did have an interest in your misunderstanding of the purpose of definitions.

The only misunderstanding is from you and VS. As I said, believe your fallacy. It still doesn't prevent the contract being invalid in such a scenario and that is how a liberal could get around this.

[Pants-of-dog]

Thats begging the question, you are assuming what has yet to be proven, that contracts as agreements require a state.

No, that is not what I said. You have a habit of replying to what you think I said rather than what I actually said.

Contracts as legally binding deals require a legal framework in which they are clarified and enforced. This is why you have to stipulate in contracts where and when they were signed: so that all parties know which legal framework applies in terms of enforcement or violation.

Theoretically, you could have this without a state, but since there are no examples in history if this, it is speculation to assume that contracts can exist without a state.

Any inter-personal trade done, without government mediation, is the execution of a contract. An agreement, compact, covenant, etc.

This is why gangsters still can make deals with each other, they are still contracts, but their enforcement is dependent on their own initiative rather than with a third party.

Make a Coke deal with a mobster and refuse to pay him and say that because no state was involved that you don't have to pay him and see how that goes for you.

No. Not all deals made between people are contracts.

If I break a deal with a mobster, the mobster has no ability to use the law to enforce the contract. If I were the hero of an action movie, there would be no way for the mobster to enforce the deal.

[One Degree]

The only misunderstanding is from you and VS. As I said, believe your fallacy. It still doesn't prevent the contract being invalid in such a scenario and that is how a liberal could get around this.

Again, you are just saying you want to restrict definitions and scenarios to those that fit your argument. That is why we give different definitions for different scenarios. A contract, as we defined it, applies to both our scenarios. Your definition only applies to your scenario. Therefore, your definition is inferior due to it’s specificity.

[Victoribus Spolia]

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.

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.

And that could mean losing their own life in the process.

Correct.

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.

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.

[B0ycey]

Again, you are just saying you want to restrict definitions and scenarios to those that fit your argument. That is why we give different definitions for different scenarios. A contract, as we defined it, applies to both our scenarios. Your definition only applies to your scenario. Therefore, your definition is inferior due to it’s specificity.

My definition is in regards to the OP. You know, the topic. If you want to create your own definitions by all means do. But please don't involve me in your fallacy.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Theoretically, you could have this without a state

That is all my position requires.

but since there are no examples in history

Marriage.

If I break a deal with a mobster, the mobster has no ability to use the law to enforce the contract.

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

[B0ycey]

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.



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.



Correct.



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.



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.

You have diverged from the topic actually VS to such an extent you are merely stating bollocks. As you quoted me first, explain why this contract is legal in law and why a liberal can't get around it?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Don't be evasive, you claimed that a contract must be state-mediated, and for that reason argued that a liberal could slip out of the OP's dilemma, that is what I challenged and this why you have been effectively cornered.

The OP's question was about the NAP being violated if someone consented to their own destruction in a lottery.

I said no, because a contract only requires mutual consent based on knowledge of the terms, so no NAP violation is actually done.

I never claimed, nor did any Ancaps claim, that this contract was a government contract. Your assuming otherwise was the point of my critique.

[B0ycey]

Don't be evasive, you claimed that a contract must be state-mediated, and for that reason argued that a liberal could slip out of the OP's dilemma, that is what I challenged and this why you have been effectively cornered.

No. I said a contract is only valid in a legal framework and any other system is an agreement in a state of nature. The only thing enforcing such an agreement in the state of nature is who has the biggest coconut.

The OP's question was about the NAP being violated if someone consented to their own destruction in a lottery.

I said no, because a contract only requires mutual consent based on knowledge of the terms, so no NAP violation is actually done.

I never claimed, nor did any Ancaps claim, that this contract was a government contract. Your assuming otherwise was the point of my critique.

Well this is your opinion and not something I addressed actually. I don't care of it to be frank too. I only care about the legal system and why this contract couldn't be enforced. You quoted me and then created a shit load of strawmen arguments that I don't even care for. As I said to One Degree, create you fallacies but don't involve me in them unless you are addressing something I have actually written.

[Victoribus Spolia]

No. I said a contract is only valid in a legal framework and any other system is an agreement in a state of nature.

An invalid contract, is no contract at all. Same thing.

The only thing enforcing such an agreement in the state of nature is who has the biggest coconut.

Strawman. Also, its still a contract. No state required.

Well this is your opinion and not something I addressed actually. I don't care of it to be frank too. I only care about the legal system and why this contract couldn't be enforced. You quoted me and then created a shit load of strawmen arguments that I don't even care for. As I said to One Degree, create you fallacies but don't involve me in them unless you are addressing something I have actually written.