Time and Consent
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5787
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Time and Consent
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?
"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.
- whitetrshsoldier
- Premium Member
- Posts: 1773
- Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
- Location: San Diego, CA
Re: Time and Consent
Scott,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?
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.
But if you "refuse" to give value for value, you are free to change your mind on a whim, at any given time.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?
I don't see how this is a difficult concept to agree on?
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5787
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: Time and Consent
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?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.
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.
I'm sorry; I don't know what you mean there.whitetrshsoldier wrote:But if you "refuse" to give value for value, you are free to change your mind on a whim, at any given time.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?
Thanks!
Scott
"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.
- Unrealist42
- Posts: 343
- Joined: April 25th, 2010, 7:04 pm
- Location: City of Dreams
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.
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5787
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
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: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.
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.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?
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.
"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.
- pjkeeley
- Posts: 695
- Joined: April 10th, 2007, 8:41 am
This is not an accurate description of the law. Once consent is withdrawn, sex cannot continue. If it does, it is unlawful.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.
And rightly so.
-
- Posts: 14
- Joined: May 8th, 2010, 9:48 am
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5787
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
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.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.
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.
"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.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13875
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
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.
- whitetrshsoldier
- Premium Member
- Posts: 1773
- Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
- Location: San Diego, CA
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 ...Scott wrote: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.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.
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.
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!
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5787
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
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).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.
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.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?
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.)
"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.
- whitetrshsoldier
- Premium Member
- Posts: 1773
- Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
- Location: San Diego, CA
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?
- Unrealist42
- Posts: 343
- Joined: April 25th, 2010, 7:04 pm
- Location: City of Dreams
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.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?
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.
- whitetrshsoldier
- Premium Member
- Posts: 1773
- Joined: March 11th, 2009, 1:19 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frederic Bastiat
- Location: San Diego, CA
This, I think, is the best description that I have seen posted on this site concerning free-trade.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.
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.
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5787
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
"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.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023