From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Open letter to the libertarian right
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:40:55 GMT
	<1992Oct5.042029.3793@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
	<ISBELL.92Oct5090106@panther.ai.mit.edu>
	<1992Oct7.074710.27666@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
Followup-To: alt.politics.libertarian
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
In-reply-to: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu's message of 7 Oct 92 07:47:10 GMT

starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:
|}|No, just maing a simple mistake.  Only a legal positivist would say that a
|}|"social contract" must precede fraud proceedings.  Good libertarians are
|}|legal naturalists.  Fraud is what it is regardless of whether you or I
|}|agree about it, and proceedings against offenders are justified regardless
|}|of whether they think they've done anything wrong or not.
|}Is this an axiom?  More specifically, are breaking written contracts =
|}fraud = a crime an axiom?  Contracts are, after all, like money:
|}pieces of paper that society agrees has some kind of value.  Without
|}the consensus that 1) they mean something and 2) that meaning can be
|}backed up by the coercive force of a govt (thru its police and
|}courts), it is just a piece of paper with writing on it.

|Axiomatic?  I don't know.  But you've got contracts wrong.  Contract is
|informed consent to terms, independent of any instrument, such as writing on
|paper, which may be (but needn't be) used to record it.

True.  But I was implictly thinking of a contract which has been
recorded in some manner.  I was specifically thinking of a
not-too-distant thread wherein the position was taken by some subset
of USENET Libs that vocal contracts were not binding (this grew out of
a subthread of the floating Economic Discrimination in Libertaria
thread).  Given that, I must ask why are "recorded" contracts valid?

At this point, one may get philosophical and note that "consent" is an
internal mechanism unknowable to outside agents.  I may claim to
consent and not actually do so.  In Libertaria, written contracts are
taken to be Contracts(tm) (ie "informed consent to terms").

But that's the point:  "contracts" cannot be taken to be Contracts(tm)
unless either 1) its axiomatic and given to us by God or the universe
or 2) a previous contract (consent) has been signed (given)... at
least not within the context of the argument that social contracts do
not exist.

Position 1) strikes me as one that will not be taken by the proponents
of the argument with which I disagree and 2) just hilites the
infinite antecedent contract problem. 

|There's a methodological difference here.  Methodological individualism puts
|it that if two parties consent to terms on an informed basis, they've
|contracted, and this is a social relation, thus the contract has social
|recognition.  This is entirely separate and distinct from whether or not
|the contract is enforcable.

That is true.  I am speaking of the "moral" right of govt to enforce
the contract within the context that social contracts do not exist.

|}In short, to have meaning *and* to be able to bring to bear the
|}coercive force of the threat of death (as is the utlimate threat
|}whenever the govt compels you to do something) there must be a social
|}contract.

|No, there must be social institutions.  One of the main principles of
|libertarian thought is the concept of spontaneous order.  A classic example
|is a footpath that's been worn through a grassy field.  This is the result
|of human action, but not of human design.  The path was worn by the feet of
|many pedestrians, but none of them agreed with any other to walk it.  There's
|no informed consent to terms involved.

Right, but isn't this besides the point?  We would only be concerned
with such an example if govt. attempted to "enforce" or "coerce"
persons into travelling (or not travelling) along the path.  Right?

|Common law is such a spontaneous order.  It's the result of cultural
|evolution, not of the will of any legislator(s).

True.  But--as law--it falls under the coercive umbrella of govt.
Question: whence the moral authority of govt to coerce us to follow
this common law?

|The way the concept of social contract is classically used is to denote an
|explicit agreement that parties agree to on an informed basis.  Perhaps this
|isn't the way you use it, in which case the term must be clarified so that
|your meaning will be known to us.  My point is that there is no such contract,
|except in the sense of there being social institutions or conventions which
|people tend to accept.

I think I'd quibble with the use of "explicit," but then mybe I
wouldn't.  The problem with your point is that these "social
institutions" (like little "c" contracts in Libertaria or big "C"
Constitutions in USA) carry with them the threat of death.

|BTW - money ain't paper, either.

Don't mess with me--I was on a roll :).  Dollar bills are paper-ish
and they are money-ish and the argument stands.

|}If one is going to argue that the amendments to the constitution and,
|}indeed, the constitution itself are not valid because "I never signed
|}it" then it seems clear to me that one must accept the argument that
|}contracts are meaningless because I never signed the contract that
|}said that contracts are legal.  Further, this is an infinite argument,
|}regressing back forever.  In practice, and I suspect in theory, there
|}must be some consensus or "social contract" (for lack of a better
|}term) for any piece of paper, any govt, any law to have broad meaning.
|}These contracts may be changed and tinkered with, but they are
|}probably never "signed."
 
|My position isn't that the US Constitution is (completely) invalid, but that
|its validity doesn't rest upon any informed consent to terms by any of
|the parties subject to it.

Well, one would hope not.  But as a practical matter, its power must
come from the consent of those governed or else it doesn't really
matter.
 
|My position is that (some) natural rights are recognized by the
|amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Sure.  But does that mean that the rest of the Constitution is
invalid?  And if so, in what sense?  Why is a little "c" contract
valid and.or enforceable

|My foundation is in natural law, not the will of the masses.  Suppose
|the minds of many change, capriciously, as they are wont to do.  Does
|this mean that if they all breach their contracts with me that my
|contract is or was invalid?  Or are they at fault?  I take the second
|position. 

In practice, it means both, I suppose.

But I feel this drifting off the topic at hand (at which point Gordan
Fitch introduces himself....).

A contract is a "social convention" or "instituition" for a
Contract(tm).  Other than thru force of history and the will of the
people to accept it, it *has* *no* *power* and certainly does not
empower the libertarian govt to enforce it... unless you accept this
"spontaneous order" to be a "social contract" (what's the difference,
really, at least for the cases where the govt can enforce our "order"
or "contract").

--
Peace.
            "Look! An X-man movie's coming out!"
                    care of a 10 year old in a Tulsa movie
                    theater, looking at a poster for _Malcolm X_
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian