Darryl Shannon schreef:
> Sonja: Of course the government will enforce contracts.
So give me the example....
> What happens is that if you break a contract, the aggrieved party will be
> able to
> sue you.
Indeed just what I said in my mail, the (I'll put this in your words)
'aggrieved party' which isn't in my point of view 'the government' (unless
the government is the aggrieved party that is) c a n use the means provided
by the government (on account of society) to enforce it's rights. The
government as such does zilch. Exactly as I already stated. So you are only
repeating what I already wrote.
> They enlist the help of the government (in the person of a
> judge), who will order that the terms of the contract be fulfilled. If
> you don't pay, the government can seize your assets (within certain
> limits) and hand them over to the aggrieved party. If you resist the
> seizure of your assests, the government can put you in jail.
So the government only p r o v i d e s the means to enforce things for you.
And as stated earlier this is just a matter of how you look at it.
Practical example: On many occasions we had a contract and the one we had
that contract with broke it multiple times. Unfortunatly our contract
partner is a lot 'bigger' and has much more money than we do so going to
court would have taken an awfull lot of effort, time and money. So while we
were being right (read the aggrieved party) and the others were the bad
guys (they broke the contract) did the government enforce the contract on
the contractbreakers? Haven't seen them do it.
> Without impartial courts, capitalism is impossible.
Court is for people who have a lot of money. As I see it, it's one of the
downsides of capitalism that you only have as much rights as you can afford
to enforce through court. Being right and getting it enforced through court
is a commodity like socks (rather expensive socks that is ;o) ) or a car.
But that is an entirely different discussion.
> These don't neccesarily have to be government courts, they could be
> councils of
> elders, or other traditional sorts of arrangements. But without the
> rule of law, enforced by the government/tradition, most financial
> transactions become impossible.
That is the difference in the point of view I was talking about. My view is
that the government as such only provides the means to enforce the rules
set by us, the society. As far as I got it from your post, your view is
that the government directly enforces the rules set by society. So you
managed to repeat Gautams and my viewpoint in this post and apperantly you
agree with Gautam. unfortunatly as far as I can see you added nothing new
if you ask me.
<scratches head> Since nothing really new was added I wonder why I'm
reacting to this post then..... ;o) Must be my hormones.
Sonja
