Time and Consent

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Time and Consent

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Political philosophers generally use consent to distinguish between important categories of interactions. Consent is a big part of law and politics. Many laws are written based on consent. A defining characteristic of many crimes is the lack of consent of the victim. For instance, consensual sex is legal and often looked at as a good thing while non-consensual sex is rape, is generally illegal and is often looked at as the epitome of what kind of act one wants criminalized. For another example, a consensual economic trade is often considered to inherently tend to be productive, beneficial and utilitarian, e.g. "I the barber will cut and style your hair if you the artist paint a nice picture on my wall in return." In contrast, a non-consensual economic interaction is often seen as being the definition of robbery and/or slavery, e.g. "Give me what I want or I'll shoot you."

I think that is all well and understood.

However, I think the problem of time in regards to consent is regularly overlooked. For the most part, I think the mainstream political philosophers tend to fail to deal with it. Wherever it does come up in political philosophy discussions, I think there tends to much disagreement and confusion.

So let's discuss the problem of time in regards to consent.

Does the consent of the past version of a person the same as consent from a current version of a person now? Does consenting to something in the past revoke your right to stop consenting to it in the future. Can a person consent to something that won't occur until a significantly later time?

Let's look at some examples.

If Joe signs a piece of paper that says he will give Jill a haircut next month or something equal in value, does he still have to give her a haircut (or pay her the value of the haircut)?

What if a woman says a man can have sex with her but then in the middle of sex changes her mind and tells him to stop? What if she had promised not to change her mind beforehand? What if she was a valuable porn star actress on contract with a company that would lose lots of money if she failed to live up to her promise?

If you go in my car and take my CD book, that would be burglary and theft (and illegal) unless I consented (i.e. gave you permission to do it). What if today I say you can have my CDs and go in my car and get them next month or next year or in two years but when that time comes I change my mind and say you cannot?

What if Jill promises to pay a loanshark back 5 times the amount he gives her today in a few weeks, but when the time comes Jill changes her mind and thinks that it was a bad deal and she doesn't want to pay up in full but offers to pay the loanshark back 2 times the original amount (still giving him a marvelous ROI)? Do we want a legal system that recognizes her past consent to give him the money in the future that would enable the loanshark to sue her and force her to give him the rest of what she promised? Or do we want a legal system that would not recognize past consent leaving the loanshark to have to take more personal responsibility and be more careful deciding with whom he exchanges money for promises rather than fall back on the violent force of government to recover his losses?

How long does a refusal last? For example, if the owner of a restaurant open to the public demands you leave today and don't come back, does that mean you cannot come back tomorrow or does his refusal to consent to your presence in his restaurant expire after some time has passed?
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
whitetrshsoldier
Premium Member
Posts: 1773
Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Time and Consent

Post by whitetrshsoldier »

Scott wrote:Does the consent of the past version of a person the same as consent from a current version of a person now? Does consenting to something in the past revoke your right to stop consenting to it in the future. Can a person consent to something that won't occur until a significantly later time?
Scott,

I think this is a fairly simple issue. If you consent voluntarily to provide a service/item of value in exchange for another service or item of value, you're forever obligated to repay your debt.
Scott wrote:How long does a refusal last? For example, if the owner of a restaurant open to the public demands you leave today and don't come back, does that mean you cannot come back tomorrow or does his refusal to consent to your presence in his restaurant expire after some time has passed?
But if you "refuse" to give value for value, you are free to change your mind on a whim, at any given time.

I don't see how this is a difficult concept to agree on?
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world"
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Time and Consent

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

whitetrshsoldier wrote:If you consent voluntarily to provide a service/item of value in exchange for another service or item of value, you're forever obligated to repay your debt.
Why? Why do we want the government to obligate us to in the present what we promised in the past thereby forcing us into an interaction that is no longer consensual? Why would we have the government recognize consent that was given about a future event in such a way that overrides a person no longer consenting?

Excuse the vulgarity of the example. But let's look at the sex example I gave. Consider a woman tells a man she consents to sex, promises not to change her mind, then does change her mind in the middle of sex, tells him she no longer consents, and demands he stops, but he doesn't and instead forces her to complete the act. If the government allows consent to travel into the future and obligate someone into an interaction they do not want, then that type of sexual encounter would be considered consensual. Of course, I don't think it is and I can't imagine anyone would. Would any reasonable person really want the government really require her to finish having sex with the men or be civilly responsible for violation of her agreement? If so, why? Why not only recognize present consent?

It's just as simple to say past consent cannot be revoked as it is to say it can.

***

I do think almost everyone can agree that consent can be conditional. For example, a homeowner can say, "I give you permission to come in my home under the condition you take off your shoes; if you refuse to take off your shoes, you cannot come in." If the person given such conditional consent came in and didn't take off his shoes, I would consider non-consensual entering of the home usually referred to as trespassing.

This could still provide people with the power to use the violent force of government to recover losses in many economic transactions. For instance, say John agreed to give Jill 3 of his apples in exchange for 5 of her oranges. In that sense, John is conditionally consenting to give away 3 apples under the condition that Jill give him 5 oranges. If Jill took the 3 apples without giving John the 5 oranges as agreed, then Jill has effectively stolen (i.e. taken without consent) those 3 apples in parallel to the person who refused to remove his shoes effective trespassed (i.e. entered home without consent). I would expect John to be able to sue Jill in civil court to be awarded the 3 apples or the fair market price of 3 apples as well as any other damages resulting from Jill's effective theft. Jill may also be criminally liable for theft or fraud.

That may seem to be the same as a system that holds people to their past consent. But there is some important differences. For one thing, if Jill never takes the 3 apples, she would never be required to provide 5 oranges. If--like the woman having sex--she decided she no longer consented to such a transaction she would not have to enter it. She could not consent in a legally enforced way to a transaction that would occur in the future; she could only consent to a transaction in the present. Also, if she does take the 3 apples and fails to provide the 5 oranges, her liability to John would be for the value of the 3 apples she stole from him not for the value of the 5 oranges she had said she would give to him later. In most transactions this would be a nearly moot difference, since if two people trade something they are trading things relatively equal in market value (insofar as they are trading in a free market). However, the change I am suggesting would stop the government's violence from reducing the free market's inherent tendency to weed out unfair transactions by helping predators like loansharks who use the government's violence to force people to conduct a transaction that is, presumably often due to its unfairness, presently non-consensual (in the way that forcing the woman to continue having sex after she changed her mind is presently non-consensual) simply by getting the past version of someone to consent to a future event. Unfortunately, people are very susceptible to this type of scam--hence why loansharking works so well.
whitetrshsoldier wrote:
Scott wrote:How long does a refusal last? For example, if the owner of a restaurant open to the public demands you leave today and don't come back, does that mean you cannot come back tomorrow or does his refusal to consent to your presence in his restaurant expire after some time has passed?
But if you "refuse" to give value for value, you are free to change your mind on a whim, at any given time.
I'm sorry; I don't know what you mean there.

Thanks!
Scott
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Unrealist42
Posts: 343
Joined: April 25th, 2010, 7:04 pm
Location: City of Dreams

Post by Unrealist42 »

In some cases consent is the result of or caused by duress. In the example of consensual sex it might be more important to look at the factors of duress than the factors of consent. If the woman was drunk, that can be considered a factor of duress. If the man was violent, or was her only way to get home that might be considered a consensual transaction made under duress.

Consent given under duress is invalid but there is limit to when and where one can declare duress and seek to invalidate a transaction. If the woman was not under duress but sought to invalidate the transaction, sex, while it was being transacted by declaring she is suddenly under duress is invalid. Having sex with someone is not an immediate one step process and she had plenty of opportunities to decline to proceed with the transaction as it unfolded that would be legitimate since it was strictly voluntary and required no quid pro quo.

There are other factors that can be used to determine if a consensual transaction is invalid. In the case of John and Jill one could only claim damages if actual harm results. If, for whatever reason, the transaction fails and neither side suffers loss then there is no need for recourse. If one acts in a manner that does not meet the expectations of the other, like if John offers worm eaten inedible apples in exchange for Jill's pristine oranges then Jill can decline the transaction without fault.

It is certain that the law sometimes does not factor in duress fraud and misrepresentation when addressing transactional obligations but that is not its primary goal. The primary goal is to maintain a certain reliability in obligation so that people who do not know each other are willing to engage in trade.

Face it, if there was no recourse to appeal to the law why would anyone do any business with people they do not know and trust?

This only covers private transactions between individuals.

It is a whole other conversation if you want to talk about publicly operated privately owned businesses. Their obligations are much the same but also wider in scope when they choose to operate in public, offering their goods and services to all comers.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Unrealist42 wrote:There are other factors that can be used to determine if a consensual transaction is invalid. In the case of John and Jill one could only claim damages if actual harm results. If, for whatever reason, the transaction fails and neither side suffers loss then there is no need for recourse.
Yes, that is how I feel. I also feel that I do not want Jill, having deciding she does not want the apples and does not want to give away her oranges, to be violently forced into a non-consensual trade or interaction because she consented to it in advance but changed her mind before the transaction actually occurred.
Unrealist42 wrote:Face it, if there was no recourse to appeal to the law why would anyone do any business with people they do not know and trust?
When the initiation of violent force isn't there to fall back on namely in the form of statism, then people have to conduct business and social interactions in a free market and free society which requires personal responsibility. If the FDA isn't there to supposedly order certain types of companies to produce only very safe, clean products at what is essentially the point of a gun, then buyers of products have to take personal responsibility and research the safety of products and consider the credibility of the businesses from which they purchase the products--caveat emptor. If the government won't point a gun at the victim of a loanshark to force the victim to purchase the loanshark's crappy product, then the loanshark has to take personal responsibility and research the credibility of his potential client, research the ability of his client to pay and create a business-model that doesn't require the initiation of violence to be profitable.

Indeed, without violence, people would be wise not to do business with people they don't trust. Without being allowed to force his client to pay by threatening to break the client's leg, the loanshark would likely be wise not to give large sums of money to people who he doesn't have faith will pay him back on their own free will.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
pjkeeley
Posts: 695
Joined: April 10th, 2007, 8:41 am

Post by pjkeeley »

Unrealist42 wrote:Consent given under duress is invalid but there is limit to when and where one can declare duress and seek to invalidate a transaction. If the woman was not under duress but sought to invalidate the transaction, sex, while it was being transacted by declaring she is suddenly under duress is invalid. Having sex with someone is not an immediate one step process and she had plenty of opportunities to decline to proceed with the transaction as it unfolded that would be legitimate since it was strictly voluntary and required no quid pro quo.
This is not an accurate description of the law. Once consent is withdrawn, sex cannot continue. If it does, it is unlawful.

And rightly so.
RBS
Posts: 14
Joined: May 8th, 2010, 9:48 am

Post by RBS »

There are times that consent and timing will be damaging to a party without any goods being traded. Your example of the apples and oranges could be described as that the 3 apples are worth more than the 5 oranges and vise versa. If I have oil and no way to grow crops, and you have crops but no oil to fuel your machinery and we enter into a contract to trade oil for food when at such time I can retrieve the oil. I buy all the equipment to retrieve the oil on the premise that I will receieve food. I get the oil six months later and you decide that you don't want to honor the deal. No one has lost the actual goods, oil/food, but I have spent alot of money getting the oil out of the gound and the bank wants there cut, be it money or food, not oil. There has to be some sort of recourse for me to recoup my losses on the consent that you would honor the deal. I believe anarchy would happen if we did not have laws and the threat of punishment for people that did not pay on their promises.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

RBS wrote:There has to be some sort of recourse for me to recoup my losses on the consent that you would honor the deal.
Why? Why allow you or help you use the initiation of violence to recoup your losses that happened as a result of your actions? Why not just leave it up to personal responsibility--caveat emptor--for you to choose whether or not to believe another person's prediction that he or she will actually consent to what they say they will? You choose to believe the word of someone with bad credit. You choose not to take a security deposit. And you can choose to go into your bathroom and rip up a $100 bill and flush it down the toilet. If you take those risks or make those mistakes, I don't want you initiating violence to recover your losses particularly if the taxpayers have to subsidize such violence through the use of government agencies like police and government-funded courts.

If intentional deceit actually took place, e.g. if a guy promised to do something knowing at the time he wouldn't do it, and that deceit causes you losses, then I do want the intentional deceiver the be about to be charged with fraud and for the victim of the fraud to recover any losses.

But I don't think a person can consent to something in the future. I think any effort to try to say a person's lack of present consent to something they offered a time-traveling consent to before to get something out of them or get some profit is just another way to use the initiation of violence to force a person into a non-consensual interaction. Indeed, non-consensual transactions inherently tend to be better for the person who is pushing it along rather than the non-consenting person who is forced into. The rapist could be said to lose out on something when his victim gets away, but do not want a system that enables him to get what he lost out on from his would-be victim even if she had previously consented to sex ahead of time but changed her mind beforehand or in the middle. I do not want the fact that she promised to consent to sex ahead of time to give the rapist the legal right to force her to have sex or force her to pay him the value of the sex or pay him for any losses he suffered as a result of believing he was going to have sex (e.g. the cost of a condom, the cost of missing a day of work). I think it is incorrect to say the sex or the economic transaction (e.g. forcing her to pay for the cost of the condom he bought in anticipation for sex) would be consensual because she previously consented to it. I realize non-consensual acts like rape (i.e. non consensual sex) and theft (non-consensual economic transactions) can be profitable for the one committing them and if stopped from committing them can cost the would-be assailant some losses ("Oh I bought this gun to mug this guy but now he's got bodyguards.") but I can't imagine why people want a legal system that would allow such acts or would enable the would-be offender to collect damages via civil court from his would-be victim if he chooses not to commit the act (e.g. mugging the guy with bodyguards). In my book, one wouldn't be able to rape a women and one won't be able to punish the would-be rape victim with economic penalties if she chooses not to have sex. And the same goes for any other offensively non-consensual transaction.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13821
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda »

What if A, withdrawing consent at a later date has, at the time of consent or earlier, involved B in a lot of expense or investment of time and energy which was given to A becauseof A's explicit consent?

I think that if A is to be permitted by law to withdraw consent B should be recompensed for whatever he/she has invested in the contract.If the terms of the contract were such that 'buyer beware' were made explicit, then B will have been forewarned that A might not honour the contract. But if caveat emptor is not made explicit or not intended, then it should not be cited after the consent has been withdrawn. Neither should sharks of any sort be allowed to make caveat emptor an excuse for exploiting the vulnerable, even when the contract is newly made.

Buyer beware is tolerable when small sums of money or emotional investment are involved, but is never appropriate when there are large investments.

Sometimes A will be a vulnerable person who has been knowingly exploited by B. In this case the vulnerability of A should be taken into account when A is unable or unwilling to keep the terms of the contract at a later date. I am thinking of loan sharks.
Socialist
User avatar
whitetrshsoldier
Premium Member
Posts: 1773
Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by whitetrshsoldier »

Scott wrote:
RBS wrote:There has to be some sort of recourse for me to recoup my losses on the consent that you would honor the deal.
Why? Why allow you or help you use the initiation of violence to recoup your losses that happened as a result of your actions? Why not just leave it up to personal responsibility--caveat emptor--for you to choose whether or not to believe another person's prediction that he or she will actually consent to what they say they will? You choose to believe the word of someone with bad credit. You choose not to take a security deposit. And you can choose to go into your bathroom and rip up a $100 bill and flush it down the toilet. If you take those risks or make those mistakes, I don't want you initiating violence to recover your losses particularly if the taxpayers have to subsidize such violence through the use of government agencies like police and government-funded courts.

If intentional deceit actually took place, e.g. if a guy promised to do something knowing at the time he wouldn't do it, and that deceit causes you losses, then I do want the intentional deceiver the be about to be charged with fraud and for the victim of the fraud to recover any losses.

But I don't think a person can consent to something in the future. I think any effort to try to say a person's lack of present consent to something they offered a time-traveling consent to before to get something out of them or get some profit is just another way to use the initiation of violence to force a person into a non-consensual interaction. Indeed, non-consensual transactions inherently tend to be better for the person who is pushing it along rather than the non-consenting person who is forced into. The rapist could be said to lose out on something when his victim gets away, but do not want a system that enables him to get what he lost out on from his would-be victim even if she had previously consented to sex ahead of time but changed her mind beforehand or in the middle. I do not want the fact that she promised to consent to sex ahead of time to give the rapist the legal right to force her to have sex or force her to pay him the value of the sex or pay him for any losses he suffered as a result of believing he was going to have sex (e.g. the cost of a condom, the cost of missing a day of work). I think it is incorrect to say the sex or the economic transaction (e.g. forcing her to pay for the cost of the condom he bought in anticipation for sex) would be consensual because she previously consented to it. I realize non-consensual acts like rape (i.e. non consensual sex) and theft (non-consensual economic transactions) can be profitable for the one committing them and if stopped from committing them can cost the would-be assailant some losses ("Oh I bought this gun to mug this guy but now he's got bodyguards.") but I can't imagine why people want a legal system that would allow such acts or would enable the would-be offender to collect damages via civil court from his would-be victim if he chooses not to commit the act (e.g. mugging the guy with bodyguards). In my book, one wouldn't be able to rape a women and one won't be able to punish the would-be rape victim with economic penalties if she chooses not to have sex. And the same goes for any other offensively non-consensual transaction.
I think I misstated my position earlier, Scott. I had meant to follow the logic of RBS, but nonethless, I'd like to address this response instead of your first to me if you don't mind ...

First off, for financial transactions, I agree that it is the responsibility of the person taking the risk [usually the lender] to ensure his future is secure. He can do this either with real property or with the threat of harming a man's reputation [i.e. credit score]. This is sort of how things work now days.

Second, though, as to your quote stating that future consent is not possible [or shouldn't be], are you insinuating that I'm not able to enter into a consentual agreement, like the one above, if both parties understand what the consequences and possible outcomes could entail?

Why shouldn't this be possible, if everything is laid out between both parties prior to the arrangement?

If future consent were disallowed, we would essentially be violating the liberty of the individual to contract with another, even at the moment, or even second, prior to the exchange of services and property that occurs in a business transaction!
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world"
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

First off, for financial transactions, I agree that it is the responsibility of the person taking the risk [usually the lender] to ensure his future is secure. He can do this either with real property or with the threat of harming a man's reputation [i.e. credit score]. This is sort of how things work now days.
Yes, this is all fair in my opinion, I think. And none of it involves the initiation of violence (a.k.a. an infringement on freedom (as I use the term), a.k.a. a governmental interference in the market).
whitetrshsoldier wrote:Second, though, as to your quote stating that future consent is not possible [or shouldn't be], are you insinuating that I'm not able to enter into a consentual agreement, like the one above, if both parties understand what the consequences and possible outcomes could entail?
You can enter into such an agreement. For me or anyone to prohibit you from entering into such an agreement by threatening to offensively cause harm to you (e.g. fine you, imprison you, etc.) would be an initiation of violence--something both you and I oppose.

What I am saying is that if someone consents to a predicted transaction that may happen in the future and the person changes his mind before that transaction occurs, if the person is then forced into into the transaction because of their past consent I don't think it can be considered consensual. In other words, you can say that you consent to something that occurs in the future. You can promise to do something or not do something in the future. But if you change your mind and alert people to your change of mind, then you no longer consent to the action and the other party knows that. So in a sense, since you can't time travel, you are physically unable to consent to something that won't occur until the future. Only whether or not you consent at the time of the transaction can determine whether the transaction is consensual.

So any effort to force someone into a transaction that they claimed to consent to in the past but did not consent to at the time of the transaction would really be non-consensual and would thus be an instance of the initiation of violence. As a matter of political philosophy, I oppose this for all the same reasons I oppose any other initiation of violence, which I would also class an infringement on freedom. I support changing the policies of government to not initiate such promise-enforcing violence and to outlaw the use of such initiating violence by its citizens because removing such infringements on freedom from the market has the same theoretical benefits as the free market in general. I know you are familiar with these; namely, I feel the free market (a market in which all legal transactions are consensual) leads to more utilitarian results (i.e. more wealth/happiness for the average citizen) namely because consensual transaction/interactions inherently tend to be more mutually beneficial (due to the subjectivity of value and the fact that people try to do what is best for themselves).

As you, Whitetrshsoldier, are well aware and can probably explain better than I, the direct benefits of criminalizing the initiation of violence and infringements into the freedom of the market and society are obvious. There is less violence. If it is always illegal to offensively break someone's leg with a bat, you tend to have less people having their leg broken with a bat which anyone but a literal psychopath would almost certainly agree is in and of itself a good thing. Nonetheless, there is also the benefit that the type of transactions indirectly enabled by the legal application of initiating violence would be hindered, reduced or eliminated by criminalizing such violence. When the loansharks are not allowed to threaten to break your leg with that bat to get you to pay them back, in addition to not having lots of broken legs around we also have the indirect benefit that less loansharking will take place. These loansharks might change their business-model and provide better interest rates; they might take more personal responsibility in choosing clients such as refusing to give an untrustworthy addict quick cash; they might take personal responsibility and collect collateral before giving out quick cash rather than lazily relying on government-imposed violence to get their money back plus interest later; they might not make changes but continue their violence-dependent business illegally, get caught and incarcerated hopefully with other violent criminals. In any case, I think we're mostly all better off. Freedom is the mother of order and prosperity.

No, I am not saying you can't do business with a loanshark. I'm saying I don't want the loanshark or an organization such as a government on the loanshark's behalf to threaten to break your leg or use some other coercive technique to force you to pay him back. You two will have to conduct your transactions without the violence of freedom-infringing interferences in the market by the government or by violent individuals.

***

I do want to note that when I say the future, I do not mean the very near future. For practical reasons, someone who consents to an event that is about to occur in a minute can be said to have consented at the time of the transaction. Also, I think a person who has promised to consent to something in the future has a responsibility of notification or to make a reasonable attempt at notification if they change their mind. For instance, if I say you can go in my house and take my microwave and keep it while I'm at work later today, and then I change my mind and don't tell you that I changed my mind, I couldn't accuse you of trespassing and theft when after you go in my house and take it. But if I change my mind a few hours after I tell you that you can have it but before you go to get it, and you say you don't care that I changed my mind and you go and take it anyway, then I would consider that trespassing and theft. (I think it may also be fair to consider myself to be a selfish mean flip-flopping jerk in that pretend example, but being a selfish jerk isn't something I want to be illegal.)
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
whitetrshsoldier
Premium Member
Posts: 1773
Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by whitetrshsoldier »

Scott,

I fully agree with everything you say.

My only concern is with a transaction in which a good has already been transferred to a person in order to complete a service.

What obligation does he have to return the product if he does not fulfill the debt he has incurred by not providing the service he promised?

What right does the man who lost his property have to regain it in this situation?

I agree that third parties only encourage hasty and high-liability transactions, and so I agree that they should have minimal right to enter into this transaction. However, if I have a contract that another man has agreed to, and he has defaulted on his responsibilties within the contract, he has effectively stolen from me. Because of this, I have the right to reclaim my property.

So how do we reconcile this situation without a third party, in your opinion?
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world"
User avatar
Unrealist42
Posts: 343
Joined: April 25th, 2010, 7:04 pm
Location: City of Dreams

Post by Unrealist42 »

whitetrshsoldier wrote: I agree that third parties only encourage hasty and high-liability transactions, and so I agree that they should have minimal right to enter into this transaction. However, if I have a contract that another man has agreed to, and he has defaulted on his responsibilties within the contract, he has effectively stolen from me. Because of this, I have the right to reclaim my property.

So how do we reconcile this situation without a third party, in your opinion?
It depends on the role of the third party whether or not risk can be avoided and satisfaction met in a transaction with the participation of a third party. There are many transactions that depend on third party guarantors so that the transaction, carried out or not, will result in minimum risk to all parties involved. This is a common method for conducting international trade and is a big reason why international trade flourishes. Many credit card companies and banks will also act as disinterested third party guarantors.

This is far different than how some people view third party participation. For many their only conception of third party intervention is with actors who have a vested interest or become involved only in after the fact legal activities.

In many transactions it is foolish to not have a disinterested third party guarantor since guarantors are fairly ubiquitous and cheaply engaged there is little reason to not avail oneself of them in any transaction that has a chance of going sideways.

If one freely enters into a transaction without any third party guarantor then they have made the choice to take a risk with a path of recourse that is bound to be less than satisfying. That they are then unsatisfied is the result of poor decision making and they only have themselves to blame.
User avatar
whitetrshsoldier
Premium Member
Posts: 1773
Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
Location: San Diego, CA

Post by whitetrshsoldier »

Unrealist42 wrote:If one freely enters into a transaction without any third party guarantor then they have made the choice to take a risk with a path of recourse that is bound to be less than satisfying. That they are then unsatisfied is the result of poor decision making and they only have themselves to blame.
This, I think, is the best description that I have seen posted on this site concerning free-trade.

It IS the responsibility of the two parties to protect themselves during trade. If they are not to secure their own livelihoods, and depend on a government [or any type of third party] instead of real property, they will "...only have themselves to blame".

If we instead allow them to rely on the government, the liability will fall on the blameless citizens who had no consent; their fellow countrymen.
"I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings! I'm obviously just insecure with the ineptitudes of my logic and rational faculties. Forgive me - I'm a "lost soul", blinded by my "ignorant belief" that there's such a thing as reality and truth in the world"
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

I don't think any of us would have a problem with two parties to both agree with each other to have a willing, trusted third-party be involved in some way namely as a mediator. For instance, I think--not sure on the details--the company from which I rent my apartment has my security deposit in an escrow account at a third-party institution in my name. I cannot take that money out any time I want. But when the lease is up and all, I can get that money. This is done to meet state regulations but a similar process could be done in cases where I would trust a bank to determine if and when to give the security deposit to me or the landlord more than the landlord. In a more practical example, I may to buy a magazine from a person I don't trust and he doesn't trust me; I don't want to give him my money before I get the magazine and he doesn't want to give me the magazine before I give him the money. We might voluntarily agree to give both the money and the magazine to a trusted mutual friend who would then give the magazine to me and the money to him.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021