> Darryl Shannon schreef:
>
> > Sonja: Of course the government will enforce contracts.
>
> So give me the example....
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/contracts.html
> > 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.
Where do the rights come from? You just say the government provides the
means to enforce it's (the aggrieved party, not the governments') rights,
then it does zilch. How can you justify saying that?
> > 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.
This is like saying the government doesn't enforce criminal laws, it just
happens to be the source of the laws, the source for the money for the law
workers, and the provider of other things both real and philosophical, but
the governement doesn't really do anything.
> 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.
What do you want? Every contract must be pre-inspected, then have government
inspections at certain points, then have a final post inspection? Is that
the only way you would consider the government to be involved? Just because
you don't have the proper redress in your country, or more likely didn't
choose to use the means provided, doesn't mean the government did nothing.
It set up all the tools, all the facilities, and was just waiting for you to
ask for help.
> > 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.
No this is wrong. There are plenty of means for impoversed people to have
their day in court. Do I have examples? No, I've never needed them. When
I've broken simple traffic laws I've been able to defend myself in court. It
was just me, the judge, the officer, and the transcript person. I didn't
spend any money except for having to pre-pay my fine, which I could have
gotten waved also.
> > 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.
>
> Sonja
Is this where the difference is, if the government doesn't have it finger
dierctly in society then it really isn't there? Wow.
Kevin Tarr
Trump high, lead low
