theprof00 on 30 April 2014
sc94597 said:
Strawman, try again. |
Don't say I'm using a strawman if you think I'm misunderstanding it.
From what I can tell, Rothbard says that a contract is cancelled as soon as one party chooses not to follow it.
From that, if the other guy gets my goat (I think that's sexual innuendo) and doesn't trade me his contractual obligation, then all he is liable for is his civil infraction of possessing something that belongs to me without my consent. Thereby, to rectify, he must give me it back.
Is that right? In my opinion, that is akin to saying contracts don't mean anything more than a simple plan to do something. At least if I'm interpreting it correctly.
