Why not sell water to the US?

[Hugo]

You can hardly consider that outcome either desireable or sufficient though, can you?

Why not? Their main goal in life was to get rich through selling energy. That hope is now dashed. The main goal of the executives was to prosper through running a company, now, they will never work in that position again. The goal of their accountants was to prosper through providing accounting services, now, they will find it very hard to do that anymore.

To ask for any more sounds like a petty desire for vengeance against people who haven't even done anything to you. They've already lost everything they really wanted out of life.

I am also familiar with the terms greed and opportunism, which are equally real, I assure you.

What is the meaning of this irrelevant distraction? I thought I could assume that you knew the meanings of all words unless I was specifically informed otherwise.

I've read differently.

No, you haven't. As we've established, you've read very little, and you grossly misinterpreted that, so let's have no more bluster about what you've "read", please.

What are your sources?

You've already seen them. Stop stalling.

This was my point. It obviates completely your contention that Equifax is an entirely private dispute resolution regime. Thank you for conceding the obvious.

You're resorting to selectively editing out the key points in my post in order to prove yourself right? How desperate are you?

Look at what Sweal said, everyone:

I'm... an insane gibbon

Wow. Since you admit your own incompetence in such an unequivocal way, we need hardly continue this debate!

Or perhaps you could just start addressing what I said, rather than what you wish I had said. It's quite simple to understand, really: I said "In role [Equifax] is the heir of the Law Merchant" which means that, although they have taken on new methods, they still use many of the same key principles of operation that the Law Merchant did.

Now, since you're so clever at lexicography, perhaps you can think about what "heir" means. Does it mean to be exactly the same as that which you inherited from, or does it merely mean that one has inherited certain qualities or artifacts?

Anything falling short of 'legitimate', authoritative, and enforceable is, for the intents and purposes of this discussion, non-governmental.

Who defines legitimate and authoritative? Who has the right to enforce? This is a circular argument. Government is that which enforces and regulates, that which enforces and regulates is government, according to you. Perhaps just clarifying your argument will show you the dereliction of your logic. In your attempts to define government and regulation, you end up defining absolutely nothing. This is what you get when you make definitions more important than logic!

Exactly. Now what constitutes a 'requirement' in this sense?

A rule that people are obliged to follow if they want a desired outcome? For instance, the requirement that you conform to USB2 standards to sell a USB2 peripheral, or the requirement that you not shoot people if you want to stay out of jail.

Who are the members?

Anyone who wants to be, although that tends to be companies and individuals doing business in the fields that IEEE-SA generates standards for. If you go to their website, you can even sign up online!

More lies.

Again, your failure to put up any kind of counter-argument shows that your point is either indefensible or you don't consider it worth defending. Your posts are here on this forum for all to see, what's the point lying about it now?

[The Terrible Sweal]

You can hardly consider that outcome either desireable or sufficient though, can you?

Why not? Their main goal in life was to get rich through selling energy. That hope is now dashed. ... To ask for any more sounds like a petty desire for vengeance ...

Specific outcomes for individual wrongdoers doesn't begin to cover the socio-economic and regulatory issues in this matter.

I've read differently.

No, you haven't. As we've established, you've read very little, ...

True, on that particularized topic, I've read little. But the little I've read is perfectly clear, and refutes your contentions.

So what sources say different and what do they say? Make an argument if you have one.

You're resorting to selectively editing out the key points in my post in order to prove yourself right? How desperate are you?

Lies.

I said "In role [Equifax] is the heir of the Law Merchant" ...

I understood you to have tendered Equifax and "the" Law Merchant as examples of non-governmental regulation. So for each I have provided facts and evidnce which disprove that.

Anything falling short of 'legitimate', authoritative, and enforceable is, for the intents and purposes of this discussion, non-governmental.

Who defines legitimate and authoritative?

You and I do, as the observers attempting to explain our observations on this subject.

Once again I have the impression that we are approaching these discussuions with completely different emphases: you from the perspective of advocating for a philosophy, me from the perspective of seeking to understand phenomena encountered.

But anyway, give the terms the general meaning and consider the point, why don't you?

Who has the right to enforce? This is a circular argument. Government is that which enforces and regulates, that which enforces and regulates is government, according to you.

It's not an ARGUMENT, it's a description. Do you have an argument with that description?

Exactly. Now what constitutes a 'requirement' in this sense?

A rule that people are obliged to follow if they want a desired outcome?

But 'obliged' by what? You've merely substituted a new word.

Who are the members?

Your posts are here on this forum for all to see, what's the point lying about it now?

I don't lie. You do. You have. You are.

[The Terrible Sweal]

error

[Hugo]

Specific outcomes for individual wrongdoers doesn't to cover the socio-economic and regulatory issues in this matter.

The socio-economic costs cannot be gauged with any kind of accuracy, so it's pretty ridiculous to advocate punishing somebody for crimes you don't know about but only suspect may have happened. Innocent until proven guilty - or perhaps, like a good socialist, you advocate "innocent until accused"?

In any case, those who suffered damages as a result of Enron's misdeeds are perfectly free to file suit against them. So I really don't see a problem. And don't bother with "crimes against society", there's no such thing. Crimes are committed against identifiable individuals or they aren't committed at all.

True, on that particularized topic, I've read little. But the little I've read is perfectly clear, and refutes your contentions.

My point stands because you won't argue against it. Your interpretation was completely at odds to what the author wrote because you did not read the source in full. Since your only response is the word "lies" there's not much point in us arguing any further on this particular note. One word is not an argument, a refutation or a rebuttal. If you can come up with one we can discuss this further.

I understood you to have tendered Equifax and "the" Law Merchant as examples of non-governmental regulation.

Then you understood wrong. Here is the very first time I mentioned Equifax:

Equifax will make your life a misery as a penalty without any "residual or delegated government enforcement authority" whatsoever.

That is perfectly correct. Equifax can induce credit providers, employers, landlords and more to shun you without ever involving the government. That is a very unpleasant situation to be in, when your credit rating is preventing you from making any major purchases or even finding a decent job or a place to live.

More to the point, Equifax does not press charges in court against bad debtors anyway. The creditors do. So what is your point? Your assumptions are completely wrong, your argument is derelict and you can't even remember the original point of the discussion, so give it up. What I said stands: Equifax has inherited the role of Law Merchant and operates in a similar way.

You and I do, as the observers attempting to explain our observations on this subject.

So then why are we arguing, if it is purely subjective? Would you like to argue with me about what food tastes best?

Do you have an argument with that description?

Yes - it is a circular description. It describes two things only as they relate to each other and not to anything else in the world. It would be analogous to saying that a ball is a sphere and a sphere is a ball - even if correct, it gives you absolutely no useful information about what either is. Using that definition, it's impossible to make a cogent argument about how a ball or sphere would interact with other things in the world.

But 'obliged' by what? You've merely substituted a new word.

Obliged by their own desires. A trader who desires to make money by selling USB2 computer peripherals is obliged to follow those specifications. If he doesn't desire to sell USB2 peripherals he is under no obligation to do so. Hence voluntaryism and self-regulation, which is at odds with your idea that all regulation is government, unless we use your useless definition of government which cannot distinguish between Parliament, a marriage counsellor, and now even one's own mind.

I don't lie. You do. You have. You are.

I've already offered my demonstration of how I was not lying in imputing that you had misinterpreted the text on the Law Merchant and you offered absolutely no counter-argument. If you are going to make accusations of lying I require that you actually back them up with some kind of evidence that I actually have been lying. So far you haven't, so stop pouting. You look ridiculous.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Specific outcomes for individual wrongdoers doesn't to cover the socio-economic and regulatory issues in this matter.

The socio-economic costs cannot be gauged with any kind of accuracy, so it's pretty ridiculous to advocate punishing somebody for crimes you don't know about but only suspect may have happened. Innocent until proven guilty - or perhaps, like a good socialist, you advocate "innocent until accused"?

1. Punishment is a red-herring of your invention -- not really my point though.

If you want to change the subject from time to time, it would help if you said so.

2. Socio-economic effects are often sufficiently discernible to warrant persons and groups making choices about them.

3. I'm not a socialist, so please just spare me the tired rhetoric.

My point stands because you won't argue against it. Your interpretation was completely at odds to what the author wrote because you did not read the source in full.

I read the source sufficiently to discern that Law Merchant was steeped with governmentalism. Nothing you've provided refutes that. Too bad for you.

I understood you to have tendered Equifax and "the" Law Merchant as examples of non-governmental regulation.

Then you understood wrong. Here is the very first time I mentioned Equifax:

Equifax will make your life a misery as a penalty without any "residual or delegated government enforcement authority" whatsoever.

Well, sorry, but I can't even see the hair you're trying to split there. Please explain why the characteristics I have noted about Equifax don't amount to governmental involvement.

What I said stands: Equifax has inherited the role of Law Merchant and operates in a similar way.

Your point appears to me to have undergone substantial evolution in the course of this discussion. Good for you.

You and I do, as the observers attempting to explain our observations on this subject.

So then why are we arguing, if it is purely subjective?

I surely don't know why you're arguing with me.

But, btw, it's not 'purely subjective', except at a meta level.

Do you have an argument with that description?

Yes - it is a circular description. It describes two things only as they relate to each other and not to anything else in the world. It would be analogous to saying that a ball is a sphere and a sphere is a ball -

It is not analogous to that at all. I am defining a thing in terms of its observed characteristics, not merely substituting one word for another.

Do you have an alternate description we can use?

But 'obliged' by what? You've merely substituted a new word.

Obliged by their own desires.

So, if I'm following you correctly, regulation, in your view, amounts to serving your own desires? I'm sorry, but I don't think that serves very well. Firstly, different persons' desires may conflict with eachother and the common interest. Second, why would you bother to regulate what happens anyway?

A trader who desires to make money by selling USB2 computer peripherals is obliged to follow those specifications. If he doesn't desire to sell USB2 peripherals he is under no obligation to do so. Hence voluntaryism and self-regulation, ...

Well, that situation doesn't, in my opinion, fall within the applicable meaning of regulation, and it certainly doesn't exhaust the entire spectrum of regulation as we encounter it in reality.

I don't lie. You do. You have. You are.

I've already offered my demonstration of how I was not lying in imputing that you had misinterpreted the text on the Law Merchant and you offered absolutely no counter-argument.

I don't intend to dignify lies by responding with arguments.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Equifax ... In role it is the heir of the Law Merchant, which existed outside of any government law ...

The claim in bold was incorrect.

[Hugo]

1. Punishment is a red-herring of your invention -- not really my point though.

If you want to change the subject from time to time, it would help if you said so.

2. Socio-economic effects are often sufficiently discernible to warrant persons and groups making choices about them.

3. I'm not a socialist, so please just spare me the tired rhetoric.

None of this is actually a reply to anything I've asked you. How are you going to accurately measure socio-economic costs and what do you propose to do about them?

I read the source sufficiently to discern that Law Merchant was steeped with governmentalism. Nothing you've provided refutes that.

I will quote the passage, again:

First, the merchants at St. Ives were subject to many legal regimes other than “the law merchant,” including the ordinances of the abbot, the statutes of the king, and the customs and principles of equity that constrained and modified these two authorities... these observations gravely weaken the argument that the merchant community exercised the primary legislative authority within the fair—that the merchants were sole authors of the laws by which they were privileged to be governed.

-- My emphasis.

Now here was your passage:

In the context of thirteenth-century legal theory, there could have been little dispute about such questions; these functions were very clearly the abbot’s to command.  The court was part of the patrimony of the abbot of Ramsey, and the court’s officers—the steward, the bailiffs, and the clerks—were appointed by the abbot or by his representatives.

Is that clear now? The example the author deals with is quite clearly stated as not being representative of the Law Merchant.

Please explain why the characteristics I have noted about Equifax don't amount to governmental involvement.

It should be self-evident that you don't need government involvement to refuse to do business with somebody. I refuse to do business with people dozens of times every day without any government ordinance saying that I have to.

Your point appears to me to have undergone substantial evolution in the course of this discussion. Good for you.

Here is what I originally said on March 4th at 4:39 PM:

In role [Equifax] is the heir of the Law Merchant

What I said in my last post on March 8th at 9:44 AM:

Equifax has inherited the role of Law Merchant

You think this is "substantial evolution"? These sentences mean exactly the same thing!

Do you have an alternate description we can use?

I already gave them, but what the hey:

Government: an organization exercising a monopoly over law in a geographical area.

Regulation: a set of rules.

Note the key difference between rules and law: failing to observe rules only nets a negative outcome in very limited circumstances. For instance, I'm not incurring any negative outcome by failing to observe the USB2 specification right now.

On the other hand, failure to observe law will net a negative outcome in almost every circumstance. For instance, if I shoot you I will almost certainly go to jail no matter what my personal circumstances and goals.

This is because laws are basically rules that are applied to the whole of society, which is only possible because government monopolises law. For example, there may be competing standards and regulations, at the same time, in the same industry and the same place (e.g. RAMBUS and DDR-RAM), but there is no competing standard to government law within a geographical area.

Therefore, it's fair to say that government is a vastly overblown, monopolistic and unnecessarily violent manifestation of a standards body. That is why I say it is patently ridiculous to assert that only government is capable of resolving disputes, which was the original point!

The difference in our definitions is that you say all regulation is government, whereas I say that government is just this quite specific form of regulation.

I am defining a thing in terms of its observed characteristics, not merely substituting one word for another.

That is in and of itself another word game. The "observed characteristics" you see are that each thing is characteristic of the other thing. Government is characteristic of regulation, regulation is characteristic of government. The sphere is characteristic of the ball, the ball of the sphere. You see?

So, if I'm following you correctly, regulation, in your view, amounts to serving your own desires?

No. Self-regulation amounts to serving your own desires, but in a uniquely human manner that is capable of valuing future outcomes as well as present ones. A human and an animal both desire to eat. An animal would steal all the food it could find, but a human would self-regulate and trade for food because he recognises that stealing food, while in his short-term interest, is against his long-term interests.

Well, that situation doesn't, in my opinion, fall within the applicable meaning of regulation

That's because, as I've demonstrated, your definition of "regulation" is so loose and ill-defined as to be useless.

[The Terrible Sweal]

None of this is actually a reply to anything I've asked you. How are you going to accurately measure socio-economic costs and what do you propose to do about them?

Look we have travelled very far from the point of this thread. The issue is the nature and interaction of public and private interests as they relate to water and I'm not inclined to wander further into diversionary rhetoric. I challenged you on a side issue: the notion of 'private' substitutes for government. So far, your examples, Equifax and law Merchant fall short of qualifying as 'private' endeavors.

The larger point of this is that there is not really any such thing as 'private' except as the public defines it.

You, I imagine, will disagree with that, but your objections are not reasonable.

I read the source sufficiently to discern that Law Merchant was steeped with governmentalism. Nothing you've provided refutes that.

I will quote the passage, again:

First, the merchants at St. Ives were subject to many legal regimes other than “the law merchant,” including the ordinances of the abbot, the statutes of the king, and the customs and principles of equity that constrained and modified these two authorities... these observations gravely weaken the argument that the merchant community exercised the primary legislative authority within the fair—that the merchants were sole authors of the laws by which they were privileged to be governed.

Quote it as often as you like, what on Earth does it do to support your contention?

Are you saying that the author is differentiating St. Ives from Law Merchant? If so, show me a case which you say is representative of Law Merchant, please.

Please explain why the characteristics I have noted about Equifax don't amount to governmental involvement.

It should be self-evident ...

The argument of a man without an argument!

... that you don't need government involvement to refuse to do business with somebody.

Having a little trouble reading? I asked you to rebut the characteristics I noted. You did not.

Government: an organization exercising a monopoly over law in a geographical area.

If this is your definition of government, then it is mutually exclusive with private law in any such geographic area.

This aligns perfectly with my contention that we observe no truly 'private' law anywhere that government holds sway.

My next contention is that in instances outside of government sway where we observe 'private' law to exist, it is indistinguishable from and equates to government.

Regulation: a set of rules.

See 'Rules'

Rules: a set of regulations.

See 'Regulations'.

Note the key difference between rules and law: failing to observe rules only nets a negative outcome in very limited circumstances.

I see no difference there whatsoever.

On the other hand, failure to observe law will net a negative outcome in almost every circumstance.

Whatever definition of law you are using to arrive at that conclusion is probably unworkable.

That is why I say it is patently ridiculous to assert that only government is capable of resolving disputes, which was the original point!

Oh dear me, no!

That, Hugo, was your specious strawman response to the original point.

I am defining a thing in terms of its observed characteristics, not merely substituting one word for another.

That is in and of itself another word game. The "observed characteristics" you see are that each thing is characteristic of the other thing. Government is characteristic of regulation, regulation is characteristic of government. The sphere is characteristic of the ball, the ball of the sphere. You see?

Instead of using your fallacious analogy, why don't you speak to the actual characteristics I specified and the generally accepted meaning of those terms.

I'm sure diversionary flourishes are all the rage down at the Libertarian Youth Coalition, but they don't cut ice here.

So, if I'm following you correctly, regulation, in your view, amounts to serving your own desires?

No. Self-regulation amounts to serving your own desires, ...

Well, now you've introduced a new term: self-regulation. This is ridiculous.

...but in a uniquely human manner that is capable of valuing future outcomes as well as present ones.

Exactly. As in the social contract theory of the formation of the state.

A human and an animal both desire to eat. An animal would steal all the food it could find, but a human would self-regulate and trade for food because he recognises that stealing food, while in his short-term interest, is against his long-term interests.

What about when he doesn't recognize that? There's a lot of short term thinking goes on, when you're hungry.

That's because, as I've demonstrated, your definition of "regulation" is so loose and ill-defined as to be useless.

Have I tendered a definition of regulation?

[The Terrible Sweal]

No, I don't believe I have.

Can you believe it? Hugo, making up something like that? Shocking.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Hugo's source says ...

...

law merchant

n. The commercial rules developed under English common law that influenced modern commercial law and that are referred to as supplementing rules set down in the Uniform Commercial Code and in state codes

...

The Law Merchant, or Lex Mercatoria, was originally a body of rules and principals laid down by merchants themselves to regulate their dealings. It consisted of usages and customs common to merchants and traders in Europe, ...

...

States or local authorities seldom interfered, and surrendered some of the control with trade within their territory to the merchants. ...

The Law Merchant was the product of customs and practices among traders, and could be enforced through the local courts. 

[Hugo]

The larger point of this is that there is not really any such thing as 'private' except as the public defines it.

No, you have it backwards. There's no such thing as "public" except as private individuals define it. Humanity is reducible to individuals, go any futher down than that and you are not talking about autonomous agents anymore. The "public" is made up of individuals, therefore, to say that private only exists as public defines it is ridiculous, since how can a derivative be the source of its own source?

Are you saying that the author is differentiating St. Ives from Law Merchant? If so, show me a case which you say is representative of Law Merchant, please.

I've given you the accepted historical definition of the Law Merchant. Since that is the definition, that which deviates from it is not representative of it.

Having a little trouble reading? I asked you to rebut the characteristics I noted. You did not.

You defined government as regulation and regulation as government. What characteristics are there to rebut?

If this is your definition of government, then it is mutually exclusive with private law in any such geographic area.

But according to the definitions I gave you, governmental laws can have no competition. Therefore, for their particular law, there is not and can never be a competing law in the same area. The same is not true of private law. Private law may exist only outside the government's field of interest.

My next contention is that in instances outside of government sway where we observe 'private' law to exist, it is indistinguishable from and equates to government.

If that much is true, then even the self-restraint we apply to ourselves, the laws we invent for ourselves, are governmental. Therefore, government is pretty much everything. Therefore, how do you distinguish Parliament from these myriad governments? Or is it all much of a muchness to you?

Rules: a set of regulations.

Read further before you start slapping yourself on the back too hard. Your implied question has already been answered.

I see no difference there whatsoever.

Did you not understand the examples or not agree with them? In either case, why? Try to explain yourself better.

Whatever definition of law you are using to arrive at that conclusion is probably unworkable.

Again, why? This is no argument. You might as well state that the moon is made of cheese. It's not enough to state something, you need to demonstrate it with logic or evidence!

That is why I say it is patently ridiculous to assert that only government is capable of resolving disputes, which was the original point!

Oh dear me, no!

That, Hugo, was your specious strawman response to the original point.

No, actually it was a question I posed. You never, ever answered it, but since you are determined to disagree with absolutely everything I say I'm assuming you are disagreeing with it, too.

Instead of using your fallacious analogy, why don't you speak to the actual characteristics I specified

Again, what characteristics? All I've seen is A=B and B=A. That tells us absolutely nothing about what either A or B is, except that whatever they are, they are equivalent.

Well, now you've introduced a new term: self-regulation.

What's wrong with that? Does it particular matter if one voluntarily accepts rules one makes oneself or if one voluntarily accepts rules laid out by another? The only key difference with regulations that I see is between those that are agreed to and those that are imposed by force!

Exactly. As in the social contract theory of the formation of the state.

There is no such thing. Social contract theory is invalid because a contract is an agreement between consenting and specific parties with very specific terms. The "social contract" is an agreement between people who not only don't consent but often aren't even born, and the terms are not so much vague as completely unspecified.

What about when he doesn't recognize that? There's a lot of short term thinking goes on, when you're hungry.

Spurious and invalid. The occasional failure of an individual to think of his long-term goals do not mean that such goals do not exist or that others never think of them.

Have I tendered a definition of regulation?...  No, I don't believe I have.

Here is your definition, given on March 6th at 7:09PM:

A body of REGULATIONS, is not governmental to you?

And on March 7th at 11:19 AM:

Voluntary regulations are either not regulations but merely guidelines, or if they have greater authority, precision and enforceability, they are an alternate manifestation of government (as I already said).

You do qualify "regulation" but in a wholly subjective matter, since there is no objective standard for "greater authority, precision and enforceability", no line at which a regulation becomes governmental.

This is why your definitions are so weak that your arguments fall apart. You can't even get your concepts straight.

The commercial rules developed under English common law

"Developed under" means "the same as?" Interesting argument. Since anarchism was intellectually developed under the state, anarchism must be statism, right? Or it must be derived from statism? Right?

States or local authorities seldom interfered, and surrendered some of the control with trade within their territory to the merchants.

So, once again, "surrendered control" means "controls"? This is a revelation of private law, not the opposite as you are claiming. You're trying to confuse the origins of the Law Merchant with the way it operated.

The Law Merchant was the product of customs and practices among traders, and could be enforced through the local courts.

And apparently, "could be" means "always is." Otherwise, we'd be dealing with private law that sometimes or often resolved disputes without resorting to state courts, and that's precisely what you are arguing against.

Oh, and I am still waiting for your critique of Xeer law. That was my other example. Dead silence from you on that front, so far...

[The Terrible Sweal]

No, you have it backwards. There's no such thing as "public" except as private individuals define it. Humanity is reducible to individuals, go any futher down than that and you are not talking about autonomous agents anymore. The "public" is made up of individuals, therefore, to say that private only exists as public defines it is ridiculous, since how can a derivative be the source of its own source?

You're a brilliant sophist. But why do you bother?

No single individual creates the social contract. A contract requires counterparties. The counterparties in the social contract are the individuals who comprise the public.

I've given you the accepted historical definition of the Law Merchant. Since that is the definition, that which deviates from it is not representative of it.

Meaning, you can't give me any example which stand up to scrutiny. BTW, see my lower posts in reply to your 'definition'.

You defined government as regulation and regulation as government.

Lie.

If this is your definition of government, then it is mutually exclusive with private law in any such geographic area.

But according to the definitions I gave you, governmental laws can have no competition. Therefore, for their particular law, there is not and can never be a competing law in the same area. The same is not true of private law. Private law may exist only outside the government's field of interest.

... SO, ... neither Equifax nor Law Merchant are examples of truly 'private' law.

My next contention is that in instances outside of government sway where we observe 'private' law to exist, it is indistinguishable from and equates to government.

If that much is true, then even the self-restraint we apply to ourselves, the laws we invent for ourselves, are governmental.

We invent society by existing in social groups. Societies manifest governments and governments manifest laws.

Therefore, government is pretty much everything.

No, society is pretty much everything that sharks, parrots, and muskrats don't have.

Whatever definition of law you are using to arrive at that conclusion is probably unworkable.

Again, why? This is no argument. You might as well state that the moon is made of cheese. It's not enough to state something, you need to demonstrate it with logic or evidence!

I can't make an argument against a definition you haven't given yet. That's your style, not mine.

That is why I say it is patently ridiculous to assert that only government is capable of resolving disputes, which was the original point!

Oh dear me, no!

That, Hugo, was your specious strawman response to the original point.

No, actually it was a question I posed.

No, actually, it was an argumentative tactic in the form of a question with the question premised on a straw man fallacy.

Will you ever learn to desist from such peurile debating club maneouvres?

You never, ever answered it, ...

I never answered it because it is premised on something I never said.

Will you ever learn to desist from such peurile debating club maneouvres?

Exactly. As in the social contract theory of the formation of the state.

There is no such thing. Social contract theory is invalid because a contract is an agreement between consenting and specific parties with very specific terms. The "social contract" is an agreement between people who not only don't consent but often aren't even born, and the terms are not so much vague as completely unspecified.

That's a completely ridiculous argument. Whatever you may say constitutes a "contract" (which I dispute), the 'social contract' is distinct and different from it in way which make it 'the social contract'. Your argument doesn't disprove the social contract, it merely distinguises it from (your definition of) a "contract".

For you to tender such an argument bespeaks either that your grasp of abstract reasoning is exceeded by the demands of this material, or that you'll throw in any old argument just for the sake of disputatiousness.

What about when he doesn't recognize that? There's a lot of short term thinking goes on, when you're hungry.

Spurious and invalid.

WTF???

Ludicrous.

Okay, we're done.

You're a total waste of my time.

Bye.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Here is your definition, given on March 6th at 7:09PM:

Lie.

"Developed under" means "the same as?" Interesting argument.

False attribution. And strawman.

The Law Merchant was the product of customs and practices among traders, and could be enforced through the local courts.

And apparently, "could be" means "always is."

Intentional distortion. And red-herring.

[Hugo]

The counterparties in the social contract are the individuals who comprise the public.

What are their names? Where are their signatures? If you can't identify either, you don't have a contract.

neither Equifax nor Law Merchant are examples of truly 'private' law.

No, not truly private, since by existing in a statist system they necessarily have to make sops to the state. But I'm sure you can see that both Law Merchant and Equifax provide an example of how "truly private", noncoercive law might work.

We invent society by existing in social groups. Societies manifest governments and governments manifest laws.

Society can't manifest anything because it does not exist. It's metaphysical. Individuals manifest government, and the individuals in that government manifest laws.

No, actually, it was an argumentative tactic in the form of a question with the question premised on a straw man fallacy.

Let's go back a step or dozen and explain.

It was posited that if ownership of water was entirely private, disputes over water rights would arise since one person's exploitation of "his" water can affect another's water.

Since we are discussing the necessity of state intervention in water ownership and distribution, my question was to ask whether or not others in this forum thought that such disputes could be resolved privately, or if they required government intervention.

I don't believe it's a strawman, and you either can't or won't demonstrate how it is a strawman, so perhaps you could get off your high horse and actually answer me?

I never answered it because it is premised on something I never said.

You only answer questions premised on your own arguments? Then why are you here? Go start a blog!

Whatever you may say constitutes a "contract" (which I dispute), the 'social contract' is distinct and different from it in way which make it 'the social contract'. Your argument doesn't disprove the social contract, it merely distinguises it from (your definition of) a "contract".

Contract:

1. An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law.

2. The writing or document containing such an agreement.

1 : an agreement between two or more parties that creates in each party a duty to do or not do something and a right to performance of the other's duty or a remedy for the breach of the other's duty

I can't help but feel that your definition will be something not used by the rest of the English-speaking world, and that your argument will, once again, rest upon faulty vocabulary rather than logic. So, why bother?

Your only other recourse is the argument you're already trying to pass off as legitimate: the contract that is not a contract.

Ludicrous.

Okay, we're done.

You're a total waste of my time.

Bye.

Ha! Ha! I was wondering how long it would take you to acknowledge that you got schooled. Let me know when you finish your Bizarro Dictionary, I'd like to see it.

Lie... False attribution. And strawman... Intentional distortion. And red-herring.

Is that so? How convenient that you are God, and as such need no proof whatsoever of your accusations.

[The Terrible Sweal]

This thread is the proof.

[Guest eureka]

Hugo, try looking up yhr legal concept of a "deemed" contract.

[Hugo]

Do you mean implied contracts? I don't see how that changes anything. The contract still requires that it be an agreement between two readily identifiable parties with clear terms and mutual consent, for instance, the implied contract that if I order a meal in a restaurant I will pay for it is quite clear in terms, in parties involved and in mutual consent. The "social contract" is none of these things.

[The Terrible Sweal]

So what? So nothing.

[Guest eureka]

No, I meant a "deemed" contract. But it doesn't matter: I just thought you might broaden your perspective on the "social contract."