Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Red Wedding -or- Rob Stark, the Libertarian
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3  Send TopicPrint
Hot Topic (More than 10 Replies) The Red Wedding -or- Rob Stark, the Libertarian (Read 321 times)
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9425
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
The Red Wedding -or- Rob Stark, the Libertarian
Apr 19th, 2019 at 10:10pm
Print Post  
Agreements: They are not enforceable under libertarian theory unless they involve title transfer.

https://mises.org/library/property-rights-and-theory-contracts

So what do we do when one man needs passage across a bridge, and the only thing the bridge owner needs is a husband for one of his seventy hideous daughters?

Well, market failure happens.

Both parties are better off if this exchange can be made: Rob Stark's hand in marriage for passage across a bridge at a key moment to win his war.

However, in a libertarian world, this exchange won't be made because Bolton knows Stark has absolutely no reason to keep his word. The agreement is non-binding and absolutely cannot be made so that it is binding.

Stark could offer Bolton a contract that transfers Bolton a large sum of gold if Stark fails to marry one of Bolton's daughters (title transfer = valid; conditional title transfer = still valid) but Rob Stark has no such sums of money, which is why he's in the predicament of having to trade his hand in marriage for passage across a bridge in the first place.

In any world, fantastical or mundane, demand for enforceable contracts of this nature will be high. Party A has something Party B needs, and Party B has nothing to trade but an agreement that he will do some particular thing for Party A. Both parties benefit by the existence of enforcement against B if B breaks his word, because now, A can trust B, and so the mutually beneficial bargain can be struck.

If Bolton was a libertarian, the agreement never could have been made, because Bolton would not only know Stark was likely to breach contract, Bolton would also be obligated to do nothing about it (except perhaps deny Stark passage across his bridge ever again, which he well knows Stark will never need again).

In reality (well, in fantasy I mean) Bolton simply struck the agreement in good faith, then killed Stark when he breached.

Whether it's medieval fantasy or the actual Earthican past, you can expect behaviour like Bolton's because people prefer the world where they can make enforceable contracts. The reason is simple: Everyone is %$#&ing better off with enforcement except those who intend to gain by breaking their word. Everyone is better off if there is contract enforcement because people can %$#&ing trust each other.

Like it or not, not only does the inability to forge an enforceable contract represent a market failure, but keeping one's agreements  and enforcing them, is a fundamental part of civilised society, whereas breaking them is uncivilised.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 41790
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Red Wedding -or- Rob Stark, the Libertarian
Reply #1 - Apr 20th, 2019 at 7:23am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 19th, 2019 at 10:10pm:
Agreements: They are not enforceable under libertarian theory unless they involve title transfer.

But they are enforceable under our laws.

https://thelawdictionary.org/article/is-a-verbal-agreement-legally-binding/
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 41790
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Red Wedding -or- Rob Stark, the Libertarian
Reply #2 - Apr 20th, 2019 at 7:54am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 19th, 2019 at 10:10pm:
However, in a libertarian world, this exchange won't be made because Bolton knows Stark has absolutely no reason to keep his word. The agreement is non-binding and absolutely cannot be made so that it is binding.

You're still confusing libertarianism with anarchy. Try reading something besides Rothbard.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 7595
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: The Red Wedding -or- Rob Stark, the Libertarian
Reply #3 - Apr 20th, 2019 at 10:03am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 19th, 2019 at 10:10pm:
Agreements: They are not enforceable under libertarian theory unless they involve title transfer


Bull shit.  You don't know what you're talking about.  Contracts are the heart of libertarianism.  One of the main functions of libertarian government is to enforce contracts
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9425
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: The Red Wedding -or- Rob Stark, the Libertarian
Reply #4 - Apr 20th, 2019 at 10:33am
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Apr 20th, 2019 at 10:03am:
Bull shit.  You don't know what you're talking about.  Contracts are the heart of libertarianism.  One of the main functions of libertarian government is to enforce contracts


Does the Mises Institute know what it's talking about?

https://mises.org/library/property-rights-and-theory-contracts
Quote:
The right of property implies the right to make contracts about that property: to give it away or to exchange titles of ownership for the property of another person. Unfortunately, many libertarians, devoted to the right to make contracts, hold the contract itself to be an absolute, and therefore maintain that any voluntary contract whatever must be legally enforceable in the free society.

Their error is a failure to realize that the right to contract is strictly derivable from the right of private property, and therefore that the only enforceable contracts (i.e., those backed by the sanction of legal coercion) should be those where the failure of one party to abide by the contract implies the theft of property from the other party.


Quote:
Let us examine, on the other hand, the implications of the now prevalent "promise" or "expectations" theory of contracts. Suppose that A promises to marry B; B proceeds to make wedding plans, incurring costs of preparing for the wedding. At the last minute, A changes his or her mind, thereby violating this alleged "contract." What should be the role of a legal enforcing agency in the libertarian society? Logically, the strict believer in the "promise" theory of contracts would have to reason as follows: A voluntarily promised B that he or she would marry the other, this set up the expectation of marriage in the other's mind; therefore this contract must be enforced. A must be forced to marry B.

As far as we know, no one has pushed the promise theory this far. Compulsory marriage is such a clear and evident form of involuntary slavery that no theorist, let alone any libertarian, has pushed the logic to this point.


In other words, Stark agreeing to give his hand in marriage, crossing the bridge, then going back on his word is the exact thing this article is talking about.

Read. the. words. (Emphasis added.)

No libertarian would side with Bolton if he wanted Stark to be forced to keep his word.

I'm simply pointing out that in the world the Mises institute wants, we have two parties who can make a mutually beneficial trade, and the trade won't happen because Bolton cannot trust Stark.

Market failure.

Jeff wrote on Apr 20th, 2019 at 7:23am:


I'm not talking about our laws.

Go post on a law forum.

This is a libertarian forum, for discussing libertarian ideas.

Not the current laws.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 7595
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: The Red Wedding -or- Rob Stark, the Libertarian
Reply #5 - Apr 20th, 2019 at 10:35am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 20th, 2019 at 10:33am:
Does the Mises Institute know what it's talking about?

https://mises.org/library/property-rights-and-theory-contracts



Opposition:  Anarchists don't think government should enforce contracts.

You sir, are master of the obvious
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 7595
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: The Red Wedding -or- Rob Stark, the Libertarian
Reply #6 - Apr 20th, 2019 at 10:41am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 20th, 2019 at 10:33am:
I'm not talking about our laws.

Go post on a law forum.

This is a libertarian forum, for discussing libertarian ideas.

Not the current laws.


If you weren't stupid as a pile of bricks, when you are discussing anarchists, you would say so.  You say "libertarians" then talk about anarchy.  It's like saying mammals bark.  Most libertarians are not anarchists.

It would be in your own interest to do that as you intentionally cause your thread to be derailed.  Anarchists call themselves libertarian, there's nothing wrong with talking about anarchy.   But OBVIOUSLY you torpedo your own posts by not identifying that you are in fact referring to the tiny portion of libertarians who are anarchists and just saying "libertarians"
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9425
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: The Red Wedding -or- Rob Stark, the Libertarian
Reply #7 - Apr 20th, 2019 at 10:48am
Print Post  
You do realise that while the Mises Institute frequently quotes Rothbard, it's not itself anarchist? It's fundamentally libertarian.

Ludwig von Mises was not an anarchist. You can't just label everything you don't like anarchist.

A piece is not anarchist if it concedes that some contracts should be decisively enforceable. An anarchist would let each private security company decide what it wants to do.

The article in question is definitively not anarchist because it concerns itself with which contracts should be enforceable - which ones government should enforce.

Title transfers.

Nothing else.

kaz wrote on Apr 20th, 2019 at 10:41am:
If you weren't stupid as a pile of bricks, when you are discussing anarchists, you would say so.


If you weren't a pile of bricks, you would understand that someone who links an article is discussing the article.

Every time a cricket chirps or a frog croaks and it's a noise that remotely displeases you, so you dismiss it as anarchist, you lose credibility.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 7595
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: The Red Wedding -or- Rob Stark, the Libertarian
Reply #8 - Apr 20th, 2019 at 10:54am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 20th, 2019 at 10:48am:
You do realise that while the Mises Institute frequently quotes Rothbard, it's not itself anarchist? It's fundamentally libertarian


Read the top of your link, idiot:  "This article is taken from chapter 19 of The Ethics of Liberty."

Who wrote "The Ethics of Liberty?"  Hint, his name is at the top of the article
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 7595
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: The Red Wedding -or- Rob Stark, the Libertarian
Reply #9 - Apr 20th, 2019 at 10:58am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 20th, 2019 at 10:48am:
Every time a cricket chirps or a frog croaks and it's a noise that remotely displeases you, so you dismiss it as anarchist, you lose credibility.


You took an article on a chapter of a book by an anarchist and concluded that "libertarians" don't support contract enforcement.  That isn't the article, that is you.

I'm just tired of you calling anarchists "libertarians" then conflating small government libertarians with anarchists.

No shit an ANARCHIST doesn't believe government should enforce contracts since he's an ANARCHIST.  See how that works?

Small government libertarians believe that contract enforcement is one of the few legitimate purposes of government.  You don't know what you are talking about.

But you don't care.  You WANT your threads to get derailed, which is why you do that.  If you wanted to have an actual discussion on anarchy, you would make what you are saying clear instead of intentionally unclear
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Red Wedding -or- Rob Stark, the Libertarian
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy