3 ms·

Without state there shall be no order cried the politician. No, what would happen is that you would get a series of contracts that are universally used by a su

Without state there shall be no order cried the politician. No, what would happen is that you would get a series of contracts that are universally used by a subset or group. Essentially what it boils down to is this: Do I have the right to make an agreement with an uncoerced, sober adult? "Oh but she is a woman and didn't know better than to sign the pre-nup" -> shouldn't matter, unless she was coerced. "Oh but giving all your inheritance to male heirs is icky and doesn't give with our values" -> shouldn't matter. Don't let them in the country if you don't like the practices of their consenting adults. As for the tax code stuff: That is what you get for taxing stupid things like investments and income at different rates depending on the amount invested or earned. Fix that.

jacques_chester 14y ago
Contract law has to be enforced by somebody. In the absence of functioning anarcho-capitalism, that "somebody" is the state, via the courts. This means that courts must decide on the content and meaning of contracts. This is easy for stuff that has been seen before. It is much harder when you blow away hundreds of years of precedents and start from scratch.
gamblor956 14y ago
1) Contract law is meaningless without the power of the state to enforce contracts. Otherwise, it simply devolves into who has the most guns and is willing to use them. This is great for the violent, but not so great for everyone else. (See, e.g., the drug trade.) 2) Sobriety is not necessary to enter into a contract, but it is a factor that could be examined to determine if a person actually intended to enter into a contract. Coercion generally voids contracts. 3) Fraud is considered a form of coercion. Pre-nups are largely invalidated not by the failure to sign a pre-nup but because the wealthier spouse (usally the husband) has failed to diclose all their assets, which the courts generally deem fraud because the party represents that they have made a full and complete disclosure. 4) That's perfectly acceptable if you choose to do it in your will. It's just not acceptable for the state to mandate that only males may receive inheritances. 5) Agreed, but that's what you get when you let millionaires draft the tax code.

jacques_chester 14y ago

Contract law has to be enforced by somebody. In the absence of functioning anarcho-capitalism, that "somebody" is the state, via the courts. This means that courts must decide on the content and meaning of contracts. This is easy for stuff that has been seen before. It is much harder when you blow away hundreds of years of precedents and start from scratch.

gamblor956 14y ago

1) Contract law is meaningless without the power of the state to enforce contracts. Otherwise, it simply devolves into who has the most guns and is willing to use them. This is great for the violent, but not so great for everyone else. (See, e.g., the drug trade.) 2) Sobriety is not necessary to enter into a contract, but it is a factor that could be examined to determine if a person actually intended to enter into a contract. Coercion generally voids contracts. 3) Fraud is considered a form of coercion. Pre-nups are largely invalidated not by the failure to sign a pre-nup but because the wealthier spouse (usally the husband) has failed to diclose all their assets, which the courts generally deem fraud because the party represents that they have made a full and complete disclosure. 4) That's perfectly acceptable if you choose to do it in your will. It's just not acceptable for the state to mandate that only males may receive inheritances. 5) Agreed, but that's what you get when you let millionaires draft the tax code.