If Rule 2166, "Assets", does not include the word "contract": {
In Rule 2166, change the sentence containing the text "(hereafter
its backing document)" to read
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:50 PM, Aris Merchant
<thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the spelling correction. I don't see a misplaced opening curly
> brace?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 7:48 PM, Ned Strange <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Reenact not renact. there's a misplaced { in the middle of the
>> second-last change.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Aris Merchant
>> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Okay, here's a contracts system based on the model proposed by G. I
>>> welcome any clean-up suggestions or other improvements, although I
>>> think I've kept it fairly minimal, with the exception of the
>>> provisions in the assets rule, which will remain problematic until it
>>> sees its own reform.
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Title: Minimalist Contracts v1
>>> Adoption index: 2.5
>>> Author: Aris
>>> Co-authors: G., V.J. Rada
>>>
>>> [This proposal saves allowing contracts to control assets until we decide
>>> to allow them to be persons, which is its own can of worms.]
>>>
>>> Renact Rule 1742, "Contracts", at power 2.5, with the following text:
>>>
>>> Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
>>> make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be
>>> binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
>>> is known as a contract. A contract may be modified, including
>>> by changing the set of parties, by agreement between all existing
>>> parties. A contract may also terminate by agreement between all
>>> parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of
>>> parties to it falls below two. For the purposes of this rule,
>>> agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by
>>> contract.
>>>
>>> Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
>>> accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
>>> by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
>>> between the contract and the rules.
>>>
>>> A contract may act as a backing document, as permitted by other
>>> rules. A party to a contract may act on behalf of another party
>>> to it as allowed in the contract.
>>>
>>> [Comments on whether the backing document bit belongs here would be
>>> appreciated.]
>>>
>>> [The portion below may be messy, but that's existing assets rule
>>> messiness, which is also my fault and also needs fixing.]
>>>
>>> If Rule 2166, "Assets", does not include the word "contract": {
>>> In Rule 2166, change the sentence containing the text "(hereafter
>>> its backing document)" to read
>>>
>>> "An asset is an entity defined as such by a (a) rule, (b)
>>> authorized regulation, (c) group of rules and/or authorized
>>> regulations (but if such regulations modify a preexisting asset
>>> class defined by a rule or another title of regulations, they must
>>> be authorized specifically to do so by their parent rule), or (d)
>>> contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely
>>> because its backing document defines its existence."
>>>
>>> In Rule 2166, append the paragraph
>>>
>>> "An asset or class of assets is private, rather than public, if its
>>> backing document is a contract."
>>>
>>> to the end of the rule.
>>> }
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
--
>From V.J. Rada
