Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belinda]

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".

Whitetrshsoldier
Would you allow exceptions such as children, slaves, the mentally ill, the mentally subnormal,or people who are too enfeebled by illness to be in proper charge of their actions?

[RBS]

I still believe that it is hardwired in a persons DNA to not want to feel cheated after consent has been agreed upon by all parties concerned. In my way of thinking we have three choices in reference to this discussion, have laws on the books that allow the injured party to sue to recoup their loss as a result of the broken promise, this would eventually result in the government, in the form of law enforcement, to recoup the loss or administer punitive damages. As Scott stated ealier he is against this. My second concept is similar, except that the perties involved would take the law in their own hands and recoup the loss as they see fit. Of course there are several problems with this, including that the injured party could decide any punishment they see fit. The third option, which I think I understand to be Scott's solution would be to not allow any penalty when a promise has been agreed upon and then broken. I believe that this solution would lead to a stop of all trade and humankind would be stuck with the possesions that they have on hand and what they could produce on their own in the future. I say this because very few would be willing to do any trading without some sort of insurance that they would or could recoup the worth of the trade if the promiser(s) defaulted on the agreement. I still think the first solution is the best.

As far as the loanshark issue, several states, Ohio being one, have passed laws that limit the amount of interest that a Payday loan company can charge, which may not element the practice but is in the step of the right direction. I also think we miss a key point if we don't ask, is it the responsibility of the person looking for a high interest loan not to put themselves in such a financial state that they need this kind of loan? We are blaming the loanshark, but if the demand was not there, the supply would not be needed....just saying.

[whitetrshsoldier]

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".

Whitetrshsoldier
Would you allow exceptions such as children, slaves, the mentally ill, the mentally subnormal,or people who are too enfeebled by illness to be in proper charge of their actions?

Belinda,

Simply, no. If their caretakers/parents/etc. aren't assisting them, then why would you hold another arbitrary citizen [myself, RBS, or Scott for example] liable for a crappy situation?

It wasn't our fault, we had no involvement, and your theft of our property to "resolve" the solution only furthers the injustice ultimately.

[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.

The difference is that the third-party wouldn't be a violent government or mafia or gangster using the threat of the initiation of violence to force someone to do something (in this case to do something they currently do not consent to but to which they promised in the past). It would just be a way for both parties to try to protect their interests to conduct a consensual transaction without using the initiation of violence.

***

In regards to children, the severely mentally ill, the severely mentally retarded, or people who are too enfeebled by illness to be in proper charge of their actions, I agree with what I think is the general consensus in modern society which is that are often able to be considered unable to consent. In other words, a contract between a child and an adult would generally be considered non-consensual and thus invalid in any case. A sexual act between a child and an adult would be considered rape (i.e. non-consensual sex) in any case. I generally agree with the statutes to that effect. These types of statutes make it so that even if a or a severely mentally handicapped person who has been declared incompetent 4-year-old child says, "Yes" when asked by a regular adult about having sex the sex is statutorily non-consensual (i.e. statutory rape) and so that even if that severely mentally handicapped person or 4-year-old signs a contract saying they consent to giving $20 to an adult and then the child hands over the $20 without fight it would still be statutorily considered non-consensual (i.e. statutory theft). Indeed, mentally ill people often cannot even be charged with crimes like murder because it is statutorily believed that they are not really able to meet the legal qualification of intention. Personally, I would want us to err on the side of not declaring people legally incompetent, such as having a lower age of consent or at court having tougher qualifications for declaring someone incompetent and having the burden of proof to be on the side trying to get someone declared incompetent.

***

The third option, which I think I understand to be Scott's solution would be to not allow any penalty when a promise has been agreed upon and then broken. I believe that this solution would lead to a stop of all trade and humankind would be stuck with the possesions that they have on hand and what they could produce on their own in the future. I say this because very few would be willing to do any trading without some sort of insurance that they would or could recoup the worth of the trade if the promiser(s) defaulted on the agreement.

Why do you think that would happen?

Consider all the international business done on the internet using currency like e-gold in which refunds and legal recourse are impossible in the case of a default on a promise or such. People use due diligence to research the trustworthiness of people before giving them money; they learn to spot scams (e.g. "If you send me $10 by Western Union, I'll send you your $1 billion lottery winnings to you a few days later."); they learn to conduct transactions in way that provides security without the threat of violence (e.g. "I'll send you 25% of the agreed price now and the rest after you finish.").

Consider the use of credit agencies and credit scores including organizations like the BBB.

Consider the use of actual literal insurance companies that will for a fee measure the risk associated with a certain business or business transaction and agree to reimburse you for certain types of losses.

What you have said has been proven false, I think, by the internet, which has been a huge boon to business especially in the cases where coercion isn't possible since you are communicating over the computer where you through which you can't physically batter someone and international law enforcement may not be available.

[whitetrshsoldier]

Consider the use of credit agencies and credit scores including organizations like the BBB.

Consider the use of actual literal insurance companies that will for a fee measure the risk associated with a certain business or business transaction and agree to reimburse you for certain types of losses.

What you have said has been proven false, I think, by the internet, which has been a huge boon to business especially in the cases where coercion isn't possible since you are communicating over the computer where you through which you can't physically batter someone and international law enforcement may not be available.

Agreed. And consider companies that insure products themselves, like E-Bay. I'm not entirely sure how their "Guarantee" works, but don't they reassure buyers [in private interactions] that they will monitor the transaction and provide recourse in certain situations?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Consider the use of credit agencies and credit scores including organizations like the BBB.

Consider the use of actual literal insurance companies that will for a fee measure the risk associated with a certain business or business transaction and agree to reimburse you for certain types of losses.

What you have said has been proven false, I think, by the internet, which has been a huge boon to business especially in the cases where coercion isn't possible since you are communicating over the computer where you through which you can't physically batter someone and international law enforcement may not be available.

Agreed. And consider companies that insure products themselves, like E-Bay. I'm not entirely sure how their "Guarantee" works, but don't they reassure buyers [in private interactions] that they will monitor the transaction and provide recourse in certain situations?

Indeed. And most of us would be fairly willing to trust E-Bay and PayPal to do what they promise without any laws that would actually force them to more than the other people using E-Bay which is one reason why people use E-Bay and pay them a commission. If some stranger sends me an email telling me he will send me a phone worth $600 for only $100 but I have to send him the $100 in cash in the mail first and assures me he can be trusted, I of course wouldn't do it. But I feel more secure making a transaction on E-Bay with a seller who has a good E-Bay rating based off the people he has previously traded with on E-Bay. Naturally it also happens to be the case that because of the security and confidence provided by E-Bay you don't nearly as often see scammers making such ridiculous offers on E-Bay as you do say in your email box. By email, I win a foreign lottery at least 3 times a day!

[Unrealist42]

Ebay and Paypal are prime examples of disinterested third parties that exist only to facilitate transactions among strangers. Their entire business is dependent on the trust of strangers so they must act diligently to retain that trust regardless of the law or anything else.
What they sell is trust and the market is almost boundless.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Exactly. It seems to me that we needn't the powers of violence namely by the hand of government to force someone to do what they previously said they would on some vague concept of time-traveling consent for their to be trust and functioning in society and the economy. In fact, I think a mutual caveat emptor and caveat venditor actually leads to more trust in the marketplace in that it takes out the mob-like violence and replaces it with consumers who are responsible for doing their own due diligence leading to peacefully efficient models like eBay rather than economies riddled with the problems of violently enforced future contracts.

[Steve3007]

This topic raises an interesting issue. On the one hand, we have the concept of a contract (either verbal or written) which essentially involves us promising to do a particular thing at a particular future time. If we fail to do that thing then, in at least some circumstances, our breaking the terms of the contract is generally considered to be wrong. On the other hand, we have the right to change our minds.

[Mark1955]

Ebay and Paypal are prime examples of disinterested third parties that exist only to facilitate transactions among strangers. Their entire business is dependent on the trust of strangers so they must act diligently to retain that trust regardless of the law or anything else.
What they sell is trust and the market is almost boundless.

So E-bay and Paypal don't make money out of facilitating transactions, they do it out of love and bare the financial costs of failed transactions themselves. I never knew!

[Mark1955]

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".

Whitetrshsoldier
Would you allow exceptions such as children, slaves, the mentally ill, the mentally subnormal,or people who are too enfeebled by illness to be in proper charge of their actions?

Belinda,

Simply, no. If their caretakers/parents/etc. aren't assisting them, then why would you hold another arbitrary citizen [myself, RBS, or Scott for example] liable for a crappy situation?

It wasn't our fault, we had no involvement, and your theft of our property to "resolve" the solution only furthers the injustice ultimately.

Remind me who pays the military's wages?