theprof00 said:
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 criminal (theft is a crime) 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. |
I thought you intentionally misrepresented the argument. Your revised statement, is fully accurate. I personally find theft more unethical and legally binding than somebody not following through with a promise. Usually theft is dealt with in criminal courts and not civil courts.
"that is akin to saying contracts don't mean anything more than a simple plan to do something."
THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY implies the right to make contracts about that property: to give it away or to exchange titles of ownership for the property of another person. Unfortunately, many libertarians, devoted to the right to make contracts, hold the contract itself to be an absolute, and therefore maintain that any voluntary contract whatever must be legally enforceable in the free society. Their error is a failure to realize that the right to contract is strictly derivable from the right of private property, and therefore that the only enforceable contracts (i.e., those backed by the sanction of legal coercion) should be those where the failure of one party to abide by the contract implies thetheft of property from the other party. In short, a contract should only be enforceable when the failure to fulfill it is an implicit theft of property. But this can only be true if we hold that validly enforceable contracts only exist where title to property has already been transferred, and therefore where the failure to abide by the contract means that the other party’s property is retained by the delinquent party, without the consent of the former (implicit theft). Hence, this proper libertarian theory of enforceable contracts has been termed the “title-transfer” theory of contracts.
This means that, just because I declare I will do something, does not mean I am bound to enact my claim. Until the agreed transaction occurs, the contract is not fullfilled, but it doesn't need to be fullfilled. If one party fullfills the contract, and the other does not, then that is theft and is punisheable through legal action. Otherwise, contracts are not enforceable. If they were, indentured servitude and voluntary slavery would make sense, which they do not, because ownership of one's body cannot be transferred, by nature.
