5 ms·

> The dead have no property rights, Mill claims. Should any contract be void if all of the parties to one side or another die? I think we can at least say "no"

> The dead have no property rights, Mill claims. Should any contract be void if all of the parties to one side or another die? I think we can at least say "no" if parties on the other side are responsible for the death. If I make a contract with a mortuary to bury me (preferably) after my death, should they be released from the agreement by my death? It seems like this principle would also do serious damage to life insurance. Isn't a life insurance policy a property right? Companies and other organizations are sometimes bound by contracts that have only been agreed to by people that are now dead. Is that an argument for not allowing a company to be a party to a contract? Or do we say that a company is a legal person for that purpose, and so since that "person" persists, so should their contractual obligations? If so the issue of control by a dead philanthropist is trivially fixed by incorporation. I hear the U.S. Constitution described as a social contract. Should it be relevant (as Lysander Spooner believed) that all of the signatories to that contract are dead? Or does democracy nullify the principle? If the last legislator who voted for a law dies, should it have any affect on the law? With a philanthropy, maybe the solution is to simply transfer ownership to the trustees, who then have the power to amend their own charter as they wish, breaking any hold by a dead hand.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> I hear the U.S. Constitution described as a social contract. Should it be relevant (as Lysander Spooner believed) that all of the signatories to that contract are dead? Thomas Jefferson, it should be noted, believed something very similar. In a letter to James Madison, having earlier in that letter recounted some (no doubt less systematically gathered than a modern reader would prefer) statistics and concluding from then that the mean remaining life expectancy of a randomly chosen adult was in the neighborhood of 19 years, and having made based on that arguments about the proper duration of validity of public debts argues thus: “On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.—It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.” https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/tho...
- gubbrora 8y ago
  Imagine if instead of holding the budget hostage people held law hostage.
  - patmorgan23 8y ago
    So here in Texas with have what's called a sunset system, basicly every state agency has a defined life time(I think 7 years) and before the legislative session where they expire(we have a part time lege) they go through a review process where they have to justify their existence and all of their functions. This last one of the sunset bill got held hostage and special session had to be called to make sure this specific agency (in this case the Texas medical board) didn't cese to exist a few months later.
- cmroanirgo 8y ago
  Wow. Compare this with the tweets of POTUS. There's a world of difference. If only modern politicians thought with such due consideration for the future.
- tomjen3 8y ago
  >They are masters of their own persons... Wise words, from a slave owner. Better a hypocritical slave owner than not, of course, but I still have a really hard time separating the arguments from the mind that created them.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Wise words, from a slave owner. Yes, the slave owner talking to us from beyond the grave about why we shouldn't be ruled from beyond the grave by his dead hand and those of his contemporaries—slave holders and their enablers, every last one—is quite wise. > Better a hypocritical slave owner than not Jefferson seemed to live in relative accord with his professed views on slavery and issues surrounding it (which, yes, included that slavery was bad, but also that “freeing” slaves unprepared to survive and sorry themselves as free citizens was bad, and that the ideal solution was for the state to acquire saves and train and then free them.) Which is not to say that Jefferson's views (other than the “slsvery is bad”) part weren't biased in favor of his own position and perhaps bolstered by some measure of racism, but hypocrisy is less evident.
umvi 8y ago
> Should any contract be void if all of the parties to one side or another dies? Well, in the words of Alexander Hamilton (paraphrased): "We signed a treaty with a King whose head is now in a basket Would you like to take it out and ask it? Should we honor our treaty, King Louis' head? 'Uh do whatever you want, I'm super dead'"
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Have to != should. Also, while the dead don't care, the living may be interested in what you do, especially if they're considering entering into a contract with you that may outlive them.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- evan_ 8y ago
  Hamilton's argument was that the treaty was with the old French government, not the new revolutionary government.
CharlesColeman 8y ago
> Should any contract be void if all of the parties to one side or another dies? I think we can at least say "no" if parties on the other side are responsible for the death(s). Yes, it should be void, though maybe not quite immediately on death. How could it be otherwise, unless the the contract were somehow binding on person's heirs (either personally, or though the burden if administering an estate that they can't wind down). > If I make a contract with a mortuary to bury me (preferably) after my death, should they be released from the agreement by my death? Maybe they'll bury you, but the cemetery doesn't have to maintain your grave in perpetuity after your death: http://theconversation.com/losing-the-plot-death-is-permanent-but-your-grave-isnt-33459 http://theconversation.com/losing-the-plot-death-is-permanen...
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Of course there is a use to such a construct much as philanthropy - the alternative is defacto dynasties essentially - and even an estate tax doesn't do as much good if transferred before death. Philanthropic endeavors allow for them to choose to push their values after death as a legacy instead of their blood. If they can't do that then it makes their influenced descendants the next best thing. It may be a "fair for its day" solution compared to others and something that should have some limits. Racial restrictive covenants for housings were decidedly not grandfathered in with changes of laws for a deliberately extreme example. The cemetery shouldn't be liable for maintaining the grave unfunded in perpetuity but being able to say take a fund for maintaining the grave for 100 years and pocket it is wrong. Essentially I think they should be allowed to stand when reasonable in changing circumstances.
- KorematsuFred 8y ago
  >cemetery doesn't have to maintain your grave in perpetuity after your death If the cemetery has charged you more for such service and made it a part of the contract obviously they have to honor it. Of course, there will always be a "reasonable effort" clause. If there is a flood, earth quake or foreign invasion the cemetery might not be able to keep its promise. I think the underlying principle is not as much about "perpetuity" as it is about whether the contract with dead must be honored even years later. I think it should be and that is the whole point of having contracts. Of course subject to reasonable efforts.
roenxi 8y ago
The US Constitution is an interesting example; and there is a reasonable case that is has been nullified over time. I keep tabs on a number of libertarians, and the case is that the Constitution failed as a contract with the FDR new deal and the unarguably weird interpretation of the commerce clause. This doesn't damage US democracy as a whole, because the power sits with the institutions; but that incident stands as great evidence that as a contract the constitution is really more of a set of guidelines than something that the government buys into. It can be overruled by political pressure without formal process. I personally think there is a case for laws sunsetting after some period of time (30 years?) to prevent build-up of cruft and to deal with generational change.
- dnautics 8y ago
  It's very strange though that there are sections of the constitution that we pay very close attention to. The oath of office and the process of electing the president, for example, is followed to the letter as if the consititution is the source of authority, though we really basically cast it aside for everything else. Have you ever tried to get a trial jury for a traffic ticket more than $20 (which is a civil, not criminal, suit)? There's a lot of questionable things. The general idea of the constitution and the declaration enshrine the concept that governance is only permissible if with the consent of the governed. Hence the principle of "no taxation without representation". Yet, we do tax individuals who make money under the age of 18, in spite of the fact that we do not recognize their consent (try going to the polls if you're under 18). Governments spend more than they take in (defecit spending) despite the fact that it obligates future generations to pay it back, who cannot, as far as we know with our current model of physics, give their consent for that spending in any direct OR indirect way.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > The oath of office and the process of electing the president, for example, is followed to the letter as if the consititution is the source of authority, though we really basically cast it aside for everything else. No, we mostly don't. > Have you ever tried to get a trial jury for a traffic ticket more than $20 (which is a civil, not criminal, suit)? Like all of the Bill of Rights, the 7th Amendment is a limitation on the Federal government. Unlike some provisions of the Bill of Rights, the provision of the 7th you raise has not (as of yet) been found to be a component of “liberty” protected by the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause and, thereby, incorporated as a right defended against State action. Traffic tickets are generally under state law and thus not subject to the provision.
xoa 8y ago
It seems to me from my reading of this that the key specific question is about the unique issues that are raised by perpetuity and un-amendability. I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point, but doesn't that result in a different twist on the examples you give? >Companies and other organizations are sometimes bound by contracts that have only been agreed to by people that are now dead. Is that an argument for not allowing a company to be a party to a contract? Or do we say that a company is a legal person for that purpose, and so since that "person" persists, so should their contractual obligations? Right but the legal entity making the contract is not dead, and further contracts in perpetuity are commonly unenforceable. In California for example if the contract lacks language on an express or implied fixed term, courts take that to mean it's terminable at will at any time by any party. And other states consider perpetual contracts to flat out violate public policy and thus be completely unenforceable (note this is different from auto-renew-by-default "evergreen" contracts which are totally kosher, any party can simply choose to actively non-renew). And contracts are not inviolable, there just are consequences for doing so. And the entity is "living" so to speak and may amend itself and adapt to a changing world. >I hear the U.S. Constitution described as a social contract. Should it be relevant (as Lysander Spooner believed) that all of the signatories to that contract are dead? Or does democracy nullify the principle? If the last legislator who voted for a law dies, should it have any affect on the law? This seems to really be stretching the point too far. "Social contract" is not some fixed legal meaning at all, I think you're getting into silly levels of abstractionism. Polities are self-perpetuating in ways more basic of legal entities existing within them. And to the point, they're also endlessly amendable by definition and by society at large, not fixed in time by an individual. >With a philanthropy, maybe the solution is to simply transfer ownership to the trustees, who then have the power to amend their own charter as they wish, breaking any hold by a dead hand. That seems like one possible way to bring things into line with normal corporations and such, though there are others. It's definitely a very interesting question though, to consider to what extent any polity should allow and support the creation of perpetual static legal constructs within it, particularly in a democracy. I'm not immediately fully convinced by the article, but I also feel like it's true it's become a recent unquestioned consensus without any modern debate or reflection, and that it deserves such debate on principle.
- hirundo 8y ago
tzs 8y ago
> Should any contract be void if all of the parties to one side or another die? I think we can at least say "no" if parties on the other side are responsible for the death. As a first cut, I'd say it should become void if and only if the death leaves nobody with standing to sue over the alleged breach. > If I make a contract with a mortuary to bury me (preferably) after my death, should they be released from the agreement by my death? Under my standing rule, I'd say the contract would still stand under the argument that the people who would otherwise have to deal with disposing of your body were intended third party beneficiaries and they can enforce it. Alternatively or additionally, there should probably be a special case for contracts concerning things actually involved in your death or in the short or mediate term dealing with the aftermath of your death. The justification for a special case is that as a matter of public policy we want people to make arrangements to handle their deaths, and the ability to make durable contracts concerning that is necessary to promote that.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> I hear the U.S. Constitution described as a social contract. Should it be relevant (as Lysander Spooner believed) that all of the signatories to that contract are dead? Thomas Jefferson, it should be noted, believed something very similar. In a letter to James Madison, having earlier in that letter recounted some (no doubt less systematically gathered than a modern reader would prefer) statistics and concluding from then that the mean remaining life expectancy of a randomly chosen adult was in the neighborhood of 19 years, and having made based on that arguments about the proper duration of validity of public debts argues thus: “On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.—It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.” https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/thomas-jefferson-james-madison https://jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-documents/tho...

gubbrora 8y ago
Imagine if instead of holding the budget hostage people held law hostage.
- patmorgan23 8y ago
  So here in Texas with have what's called a sunset system, basicly every state agency has a defined life time(I think 7 years) and before the legislative session where they expire(we have a part time lege) they go through a review process where they have to justify their existence and all of their functions. This last one of the sunset bill got held hostage and special session had to be called to make sure this specific agency (in this case the Texas medical board) didn't cese to exist a few months later.
cmroanirgo 8y ago
Wow. Compare this with the tweets of POTUS. There's a world of difference. If only modern politicians thought with such due consideration for the future.
tomjen3 8y ago
>They are masters of their own persons... Wise words, from a slave owner. Better a hypocritical slave owner than not, of course, but I still have a really hard time separating the arguments from the mind that created them.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Wise words, from a slave owner. Yes, the slave owner talking to us from beyond the grave about why we shouldn't be ruled from beyond the grave by his dead hand and those of his contemporaries—slave holders and their enablers, every last one—is quite wise. > Better a hypocritical slave owner than not Jefferson seemed to live in relative accord with his professed views on slavery and issues surrounding it (which, yes, included that slavery was bad, but also that “freeing” slaves unprepared to survive and sorry themselves as free citizens was bad, and that the ideal solution was for the state to acquire saves and train and then free them.) Which is not to say that Jefferson's views (other than the “slsvery is bad”) part weren't biased in favor of his own position and perhaps bolstered by some measure of racism, but hypocrisy is less evident.

umvi 8y ago

> Should any contract be void if all of the parties to one side or another dies? Well, in the words of Alexander Hamilton (paraphrased): "We signed a treaty with a King whose head is now in a basket Would you like to take it out and ask it? Should we honor our treaty, King Louis' head? 'Uh do whatever you want, I'm super dead'"

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Have to != should. Also, while the dead don't care, the living may be interested in what you do, especially if they're considering entering into a contract with you that may outlive them.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
evan_ 8y ago
Hamilton's argument was that the treaty was with the old French government, not the new revolutionary government.

CharlesColeman 8y ago

> Should any contract be void if all of the parties to one side or another dies? I think we can at least say "no" if parties on the other side are responsible for the death(s). Yes, it should be void, though maybe not quite immediately on death. How could it be otherwise, unless the the contract were somehow binding on person's heirs (either personally, or though the burden if administering an estate that they can't wind down). > If I make a contract with a mortuary to bury me (preferably) after my death, should they be released from the agreement by my death? Maybe they'll bury you, but the cemetery doesn't have to maintain your grave in perpetuity after your death: http://theconversation.com/losing-the-plot-death-is-permanent-but-your-grave-isnt-33459 http://theconversation.com/losing-the-plot-death-is-permanen...

Nasrudith 8y ago
Of course there is a use to such a construct much as philanthropy - the alternative is defacto dynasties essentially - and even an estate tax doesn't do as much good if transferred before death. Philanthropic endeavors allow for them to choose to push their values after death as a legacy instead of their blood. If they can't do that then it makes their influenced descendants the next best thing. It may be a "fair for its day" solution compared to others and something that should have some limits. Racial restrictive covenants for housings were decidedly not grandfathered in with changes of laws for a deliberately extreme example. The cemetery shouldn't be liable for maintaining the grave unfunded in perpetuity but being able to say take a fund for maintaining the grave for 100 years and pocket it is wrong. Essentially I think they should be allowed to stand when reasonable in changing circumstances.
KorematsuFred 8y ago
>cemetery doesn't have to maintain your grave in perpetuity after your death If the cemetery has charged you more for such service and made it a part of the contract obviously they have to honor it. Of course, there will always be a "reasonable effort" clause. If there is a flood, earth quake or foreign invasion the cemetery might not be able to keep its promise. I think the underlying principle is not as much about "perpetuity" as it is about whether the contract with dead must be honored even years later. I think it should be and that is the whole point of having contracts. Of course subject to reasonable efforts.

roenxi 8y ago

The US Constitution is an interesting example; and there is a reasonable case that is has been nullified over time. I keep tabs on a number of libertarians, and the case is that the Constitution failed as a contract with the FDR new deal and the unarguably weird interpretation of the commerce clause. This doesn't damage US democracy as a whole, because the power sits with the institutions; but that incident stands as great evidence that as a contract the constitution is really more of a set of guidelines than something that the government buys into. It can be overruled by political pressure without formal process. I personally think there is a case for laws sunsetting after some period of time (30 years?) to prevent build-up of cruft and to deal with generational change.

dnautics 8y ago
It's very strange though that there are sections of the constitution that we pay very close attention to. The oath of office and the process of electing the president, for example, is followed to the letter as if the consititution is the source of authority, though we really basically cast it aside for everything else. Have you ever tried to get a trial jury for a traffic ticket more than $20 (which is a civil, not criminal, suit)? There's a lot of questionable things. The general idea of the constitution and the declaration enshrine the concept that governance is only permissible if with the consent of the governed. Hence the principle of "no taxation without representation". Yet, we do tax individuals who make money under the age of 18, in spite of the fact that we do not recognize their consent (try going to the polls if you're under 18). Governments spend more than they take in (defecit spending) despite the fact that it obligates future generations to pay it back, who cannot, as far as we know with our current model of physics, give their consent for that spending in any direct OR indirect way.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The oath of office and the process of electing the president, for example, is followed to the letter as if the consititution is the source of authority, though we really basically cast it aside for everything else. No, we mostly don't. > Have you ever tried to get a trial jury for a traffic ticket more than $20 (which is a civil, not criminal, suit)? Like all of the Bill of Rights, the 7th Amendment is a limitation on the Federal government. Unlike some provisions of the Bill of Rights, the provision of the 7th you raise has not (as of yet) been found to be a component of “liberty” protected by the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause and, thereby, incorporated as a right defended against State action. Traffic tickets are generally under state law and thus not subject to the provision.

xoa 8y ago

It seems to me from my reading of this that the key specific question is about the unique issues that are raised by perpetuity and un-amendability. I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point, but doesn't that result in a different twist on the examples you give? >Companies and other organizations are sometimes bound by contracts that have only been agreed to by people that are now dead. Is that an argument for not allowing a company to be a party to a contract? Or do we say that a company is a legal person for that purpose, and so since that "person" persists, so should their contractual obligations? Right but the legal entity making the contract is not dead, and further contracts in perpetuity are commonly unenforceable. In California for example if the contract lacks language on an express or implied fixed term, courts take that to mean it's terminable at will at any time by any party. And other states consider perpetual contracts to flat out violate public policy and thus be completely unenforceable (note this is different from auto-renew-by-default "evergreen" contracts which are totally kosher, any party can simply choose to actively non-renew). And contracts are not inviolable, there just are consequences for doing so. And the entity is "living" so to speak and may amend itself and adapt to a changing world. >I hear the U.S. Constitution described as a social contract. Should it be relevant (as Lysander Spooner believed) that all of the signatories to that contract are dead? Or does democracy nullify the principle? If the last legislator who voted for a law dies, should it have any affect on the law? This seems to really be stretching the point too far. "Social contract" is not some fixed legal meaning at all, I think you're getting into silly levels of abstractionism. Polities are self-perpetuating in ways more basic of legal entities existing within them. And to the point, they're also endlessly amendable by definition and by society at large, not fixed in time by an individual. >With a philanthropy, maybe the solution is to simply transfer ownership to the trustees, who then have the power to amend their own charter as they wish, breaking any hold by a dead hand. That seems like one possible way to bring things into line with normal corporations and such, though there are others. It's definitely a very interesting question though, to consider to what extent any polity should allow and support the creation of perpetual static legal constructs within it, particularly in a democracy. I'm not immediately fully convinced by the article, but I also feel like it's true it's become a recent unquestioned consensus without any modern debate or reflection, and that it deserves such debate on principle.

hirundo 8y ago

tzs 8y ago

> Should any contract be void if all of the parties to one side or another die? I think we can at least say "no" if parties on the other side are responsible for the death. As a first cut, I'd say it should become void if and only if the death leaves nobody with standing to sue over the alleged breach. > If I make a contract with a mortuary to bury me (preferably) after my death, should they be released from the agreement by my death? Under my standing rule, I'd say the contract would still stand under the argument that the people who would otherwise have to deal with disposing of your body were intended third party beneficiaries and they can enforce it. Alternatively or additionally, there should probably be a special case for contracts concerning things actually involved in your death or in the short or mediate term dealing with the aftermath of your death. The justification for a special case is that as a matter of public policy we want people to make arrangements to handle their deaths, and the ability to make durable contracts concerning that is necessary to promote that.