Contract Enforcement in Ancapistan

[r3volution 3.0]

Some example contracts to consider:

Contract #1: "Smith shall give Jones $100 today, and Jones shall give Smith $110 in one year. Either party may unilaterally void the contract."

Contract #2: "Smith shall give Jones $100 today, and Jones shall give Smith $110 in one year. Smith may unilaterally void the contract."

Contract #3: "Smith shall give Jones $100 today, and Jones shall give Smith $110 in one year. If any dispute arises between the parties concerning their obligations under this contract, the parties agree to submit to binding arbitration by Justice, Inc." (Smith is the sole owner of Justice, Inc.)

Contract #4: "Smith shall give Jones $100 today, and Jones shall give Smith $110 in one year. If any dispute arises between the parties concerning their obligations under this contract, each party has the right to try to enforce it against the other, as he sees fit."

Contract #5: "Smith shall give Jones $100 today, and Jones shall give Smith $110 in one year. If any dispute arises between the parties concerning their obligations under this contract, each party has the right to try to enforce it against the other, as he sees fit." (Smith owns a security company. Jones is a ballet dancer).

What's wrong with these contracts, with respect to enforcement?

How would you rewrite the loan agreement between Smith and Jones to solve the problem (in an ancap society)?

[Swordsmyth]

I predict that the only response you will get from the Anarchists is this:

[Occam's Banana]

I predict that the only response you will get from the Anarchists is this:

This is why I no longer substantively participate in threads directed at anarchists by minarchists (and vice versa).

They typically devolve into mutual recriminations of intellectual backruptcy, moral deficiency, etc.

With only the second post, this one is already on its way down that well-trodden path ...

[Swordsmyth]

This is why I no longer substantively participate in threads directed at anarchists by minarchists (and vice versa).

They typically devolve into mutual recriminations of intellectual backruptcy, moral deficiency, etc.

With only the second post, this one is already on its way down that well-trodden path ...

So you would rather use my post (which you could have ignored) as an excuse to avoid the question instead of trying to debate R3v?

[otherone]

Some example contracts to consider:

Contract #1: "Smith shall give Jones $100 today, and Jones shall give Smith $110 in one year. Either party may unilaterally void the contract."

Contract #2: "Smith shall give Jones $100 today, and Jones shall give Smith $110 in one year. Smith may unilaterally void the contract."

Contract #3: "Smith shall give Jones $100 today, and Jones shall give Smith $110 in one year. If any dispute arises between the parties concerning their obligations under this contract, the parties agree to submit to binding arbitration by Justice, Inc." (Smith is the sole owner of Justice, Inc.)

Contract #4: "Smith shall give Jones $100 today, and Jones shall give Smith $110 in one year. If any dispute arises between the parties concerning their obligations under this contract, each party has the right to try to enforce it against the other, as he sees fit."

Contract #5: "Smith shall give Jones $100 today, and Jones shall give Smith $110 in one year. If any dispute arises between the parties concerning their obligations under this contract, each party has the right to try to enforce it against the other, as he sees fit." (Smith owns a security company. Jones is a ballet dancer).

What's wrong with these contracts, with respect to enforcement?

How would you rewrite the loan agreement between Smith and Jones to solve the problem (in an ancap society)?

Who the fvck writes a contract for a hundo loan?

[timosman]

Who the fvck writes a contract for a hundo loan?

and where is the collateral?

[Swordsmyth]

Who the fvck writes a contract for a hundo loan?

Nice dodge, Make it $100,000 with a $110,000 payback.

[Swordsmyth]

and where is the collateral?

So add a collateral clause and explain how it works to make the lender return it when payment is tendered if he decides he would rather keep the collateral in the situations described.

[otherone]

and where is the collateral?

"A fool and his money"
People have been trading outside the aegis of the state as long as there's been people. Pawn shops wouldn't exist if the proprietors relied on municipal contract enforcement.

[otherone]

Nice dodge, Make it $100,000 with a $110,000 payback.

Google "due diligence". You would lend someone money, or borrow from someone, only knowing the state would enforce the contract?

[r3volution 3.0]

I predict that the only response you will get from the Anarchists is this:

So far so good..

[Influenza]

It kind of baffles me that people actually believe the justice system can be privatized. Not that government does a good job, but it would be absolutely idiotic to have a competitive, free market justice system.

[Swordsmyth]

Google "due diligence". You would lend someone money, or borrow from someone, only knowing the state would enforce the contract?

Beyond my circle of trusted friends and relatives I would not make such a loan without collateral exceeding the amount owed nor would I borrow with collateral without an assurance that it would be returned and the tendered payment accepted because an enforcement system existed.

[otherone]

Beyond my circle of trusted friends and relatives I would not make such a loan without collateral exceeding the amount owed nor would I borrow with collateral without an assurance that it would be returned and the tendered payment accepted because an enforcement system existed.

What you've described is the vast majority of transactions. Many people who've been burned in a transaction do not pursue the matter in the courts due to the aggravation and expense. In addition, collecting on a civil judgement in your favor can be difficult as well, or outright impossible if the debtor has no assets or declares bankruptcy. The usual method of recourse is to avoid the individual in future transactions, and bad-mouth him to anyone who listens. The state is not needed for this.

[Occam's Banana]

So you would rather use my post (which you could have ignored) as an excuse to avoid the question instead of trying to debate R3v?

No. I would rather use your post and Influenza's as illustrations of why it is pointless even to bother ...

[...] it would be absolutely idiotic to have a competitive, free market justice system.

They typically devolve into mutual recriminations of intellectual backruptcy, moral deficiency, etc.

quod erat demonstrandum

The only thing lacking at this point is an anarchist chiming in to the effect that Swordsmyth, rev3 & Influenza are vile moral defectives.

At that point, the Platonic form of anarchist vs. minarchist "debate" at RPFs will have been fully immanentized.

[r3volution 3.0]

What you've described is the vast majority of transactions. Many people who've been burned in a transaction do not pursue the matter in the courts due to the aggravation and expense. In addition, collecting on a civil judgement in your favor can be difficult as well, or outright impossible if the debtor has no assets or declares bankruptcy. The usual method of recourse is to avoid the individual in future transactions, and bad-mouth him to anyone who listens. The state is not needed for this.

So, you knowledge that ancapistan has a problem with contract enforcement, but claim that contract enforcement doesn't matter?

[otherone]

So, you knowledge that ancapistan has a problem with contract enforcement, but claim that contract enforcement doesn't matter?

huh?

[otherone]

The only thing lacking at this point is an anarchist chiming in to the effect that Swordsmyth, rev3 & Influenza are vile moral defectives.

Why state the obvious?

[r3volution 3.0]

huh?

Your post was an argument that contract enforcement doesn't matter.

[TheTexan]

Contracts are unenforceable in Ancapistan because roving bands of marauders would run off with the contracts and you wouldn't be able to catch them because there's no roads

[otherone]

Your post was an argument that contract enforcement doesn't matter.

My post was the world somehow works without turning to the state for problem resolution.

[r3volution 3.0]

My post was the world somehow works without turning to the state for problem resolution.

You said:

What you've described is the vast majority of transactions. Many people who've been burned in a transaction do not pursue the matter in the courts due to the aggravation and expense. In addition, collecting on a civil judgement in your favor can be difficult as well, or outright impossible if the debtor has no assets or declares bankruptcy. The usual method of recourse is to avoid the individual in future transactions, and bad-mouth him to anyone who listens. The state is not needed for this.

You're talking about how contract enforcement is unnecessary, because market mechanisms handle defaulters - True or False?

[otherone]

You said:



You're talking about how contract enforcement is unnecessary, because market mechanisms handle defaulters - True or False?

What is "contract enforcement", other than consequences? What protects you from getting a substandard meal at a restaurant? The courts?

[r3volution 3.0]

What is "contract enforcement", other than consequences?

Someone forcing Jones to pay Smith the $110 he owes, per the terms of the contract, should Jones refuse to do so.

[otherone]

Someone forcing Jones to pay Smith the $110 he owes, per the terms of the contract, should Jones refuse to do so.

That's not how civil court works.

[r3volution 3.0]

That's not how civil court works.

Sure it is.

Jones fails to repay Smith as agreed.

Smith files suit against Jones.

The court rules in Smith's favor and orders Jones to pay.

If Jones still refuses, he is forced to pay, e.g. by agents of the state seizing and selling his property.

[otherone]

Sure it is.

Jones fails to repay Smith as agreed.

Smith files suit against Jones.

The court rules in Smith's favor and orders Jones to pay.

If Jones still refuses, he is forced to pay, e.g. by agents of the state seizing and selling his property.

WRONG

http://litigation.findlaw.com/filing...ing-money.html

[r3volution 3.0]

WRONG

http://litigation.findlaw.com/filing...ing-money.html

From your link:

4. When you hold a judgment against an individual, you can garnish his or her wages to collect your judgment. Many states limit the amount you can garnish from a debtor's wages to 25 percent of the debtor's paycheck. To garnish wages, you generally must schedule a hearing with the court and prove that the debtor owes you money and has failed to make payments.

5. Similarly, you may also garnish the bank account of an individual or business debtor.


6. If you hold a judgment against a company, you may be able to get the sheriff to seize the money in the company's cash register. Businesses may also have machinery, equipment, or other assets that are available to seize. For your safety, and to avoid further litigation, only law enforcement or other authorized persons should seize property.

[otherone]

From your link:

None of which supports your claim. Smith is still responsible for recovering his money from Jones. A judgement is not enforcement. Unless it's Jones inc., a separate legal identity.

[r3volution 3.0]

None of which supports your claim. Smith is still responsible for recovering his money from Jones. A judgement is not enforcement. Unless it's Jones inc., a separate legal identity.

6. If you hold a judgment against a company, you may be able to get the sheriff to seize the money in the company's cash register. Businesses may also have machinery, equipment, or other assets that are available to seize. For your safety, and to avoid further litigation, only law enforcement or other authorized persons should seize property.

Have you never heard the phrase "sheriff sale"?