Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!cca!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Re: Politics and Ethics [Liberty as
Message-ID: <28200426@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 21-Dec-85 21:46:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200426
Posted: Sat Dec 21 21:46:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 24-Dec-85 20:45:45 EST
References: <561@qantel.UUCP>
Lines: 35
Nf-ID: #R:qantel:-56100:inmet:28200426:000:1798
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Dec 21 21:46:00 1985


[Mike Huybensz  ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh]
>In article <28200411@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes:
>> 
>> > [Bob Stubblefield]       The libertarian umbrella shelters 
>> > ...   anarchists who believe that the concept of contract has meaning
>> > in the absence of government ...
>> 
>> But of course it does ! Does the treaty on USA-Canada border have no
>> meaning in the absence of a super-government ? Then why is it kept
>> so well ? 
>
>Contracts are generally enforced by threat.  Without a threat, there is
>no reason to uphold the other end of the contract.  The threat can be nice
>(I wouldn't trade with you any more) or nasty (I'd shoot you.)
>
>Threats are effective according to enforceability.  Neither of the above
>threats is effective with a fly-by night operator, but they are effective
>for essentially immobile neighbors like the USA and Canada.
>
>Governments can provide effective threats for contracts with several social
>benefits.  1) More powerful than the individual can provide.  2) Standard
>limitations to threats.  3) Standards for contract enforcement allow less
>conservative judgement of contract risks, which increases number of
>contracts accepted, and thus benefits business.
>
>I'm sure libertarians will point out (accurately) that private organizations
>could perform these tasks also.  (Which is better is a different debate.)
>I just want to demolish these two straw horses.

Mike: I had to quote your argument as a whole because I didn't understand
it, so couldn't condense. Which two straw horses ? And are you rebutting
my point or making a separate one (either would be all right, to be sure) ?
My point was : the concept of contract retains a  meaning even in the
absence of government. Have I made it to your satisfaction ? --Jan W.