Single Issue Voter?

[David Floyd]

The point is that somebody wouldn't contract without a means with which to enforce the contract -- the whole point of a contract is that everybody has to obey its terms.

I don't think that's necessarily true.

Take two people. One owns an orange grove (Person A), and the other has free time (Person B) and is hungry.

Person A comes to Person B and says "If you work in my orange grove today, I will give you 10 oranges." Person B agrees - after all, he's hungry, and he has nothing better to do anyway, and has no reason to doubt Person A.

Person A, though, has a big club, and thus is in the stronger position. At the end of the day, instead of giving Person B 10 oranges, as he promised, A instead pulls out his club and orders B off of his property.

Person B can do nothing about this right now, as Person A has a bigger weapon. All Person B can do is to try to steal the oranges later, find a bigger club, or find some friends, in an attempt to enforce the contract.

But that's not really an enforceable contract - even if Person B succeeds in taking what he was originally promised, all that means is that he was clever, stronger, or found a bigger weapon.

To me, an enforceable contract comes about when there is a body that everyone has agreed to that is able to step in a force Person A to live up to his promise. This doesn't rely on individual interactions in which the stronger person wins - it involves a body which everyone has agreed to (either society as a whole or something within society) arbitrating the matter and enforcing the contract on its merits.

That brings up another problem of contracts in nature - there can be legitimate disagreements over contracts with neither party actually trying to screw over the other. If neither is willing or able to compromise, it again comes down to who is bigger, stronger, or has a bigger club.

However, in a society, society as a whole can agree upon general rules for arbitrating contracts, and things of that nature - they can basically invent contract law. In this case, the parties who disagree on what a contract means are able to take their dispute before a court, and have the problem arbitrated and resolved.

If a state of nature exists if a contract cannot always be properly enforced, then we're still in a state of nature -- people still break laws, and sometimes they get away with it.

I never said that society is 100% successful in enforcing contracts, simply that the presence of society is an indication that contracts are enforceable. If someone still manages to violate a contract, that doesn't really have any bearing on the fact that contracts are truly enforceable.

It may be punishment enough that nobody's going to make any contracts with the guy in the future since he's known to renege on contracts.

That's not necessarily true. The people immediately involved in the situation might not make contracts with him, but people who don't know the full story will probably make contracts with him - sure, the guy gets some bad press, but not everyone will necessarily believe it.

If you mean that laws and punishments must be explicitly denoted in order to be valid,

In order for contracts to be enforceable, a law doesn't have to be passed that reads "Anyone violating a contract will be thrown in jail." All that has to happen is for there to be a method of resolving contracts that is fair and that everyone has agreed to. The punishment can be based on the situation, or it can be based off of specific laws - I'm not arguing judicial process or anything like that, that's another discussion.

Contracts are implicitly enforceable,

Not if the wronged party is weaker than the other party. Yes, both parties SHOULD live up to their contracts, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will, and if they are stronger, then they will probably always get away with it.

and by definition people agree to contracts (otherwise they're not contracts).

And people can renege on their agreements. That's why there must be another element in order to make contracts truly enforceable.

You seem to be arguing that somebody can be in a state of nature despite being under contractual obligations (which would mean that somebody would not be in a state of total liberty while in a state of nature),

A person in a state of nature is in a state of total liberty. Part of that liberty, though, includes the liberty to make contracts and agreements that, hypothetically, limit their freedom of action.

Without an enforcement mechanism, though, their freedom of action is not really limited - they can still do whatever they want, and as long as they are stronger, they will get away with it.

[loinburger]

Many of your objections are answered by your own defense of the enforcability of explicit contracts:

If someone still manages to violate a contract, that doesn't really have any bearing on the fact that contracts are truly enforceable.

The fact that you've given Person A a big club and the fact that you've taken away Person B's ability to spread the word that Person A reneges on contracts does not change the fact that the contract is in enforceable in principle and that the two Persons are not living in a state of nature. Similarly, in what you would call a society, if Person A has the police and magistrate in his pocket then he wouldn't suddenly be living in a state of nature just because he can renege on his contracts.

Also, you'll need to explain what you mean when you say

One owns an orange grove (Person A)

Do you mean "Person A was the first person to claim an orange grove, or is the eldest son of somebody who made such a claim"? Do you mean "Person A is capable of defending an orange grove, and so he 'owns' the orange grove"? You'll need to explain what "ownership" means in a state of nature -- in a society it generally means that everybody (more or less, obviously there may be some lawbreakers) within the society implicitly/explicitly agrees that Person A owns the orange grove for X reason (because he owns the deed to it, because he can manage it, whatever), but you need to explain the implicit/explicit contract being honored in the state of nature (why does Person A necessarily have a more valid claim to ownership than, say, Person B?).

Your definition of the transition point between a "state of nature" and a society still strikes me as being rather arbitrary:

To me, an enforceable contract comes about when there is a body that everyone has agreed to that is able to step in a force Person A to live up to his promise.

So if Person A has the police and magistrate in his pocket then he (and everybody else) is living in a state of nature (since nobody can or will step in to force him to honor his contracts -- laws can and have been passed that are grossly unfair, so it doesn't make sense to say that a society is only a society if its laws are fair), whereas if five people cooperate to take down a mammoth then they would be in a society since it is implied that if one person tries to eat more than his share than the other four will prevent him (the cooperative enforces the contract).

Would a simple family unit be a "society" since the matriarch/patriarch/oligarchy can enforce its contracts with its children ("Eat your peas or you won't get any dessert" or "Help clean the mammoth or no supper")? Would a kingdom be a "state of nature" since the King is ostensibly above the law (and can renege on contracts with peasants as he sees fit)? Would a small hunting party be a "society" since the group can enforce the implicit agreement that the quarry be divided up fairly ("No, Grog, you don't get any more mammoth meat than the rest of us, now put it back or we'll bash in your head"), unless one of the group happens to manage to steal more than their fair share in which case the group would actually be in a "state of nature"?

A person in a state of nature is in a state of total liberty. Part of that liberty, though, includes the liberty to make contracts and agreements that, hypothetically, limit their freedom of action.

Without an enforcement mechanism, though, their freedom of action is not really limited - they can still do whatever they want, and as long as they are stronger, they will get away with it.

There is always an implicit enforcement mechanism to a contract -- at the minimum, such a mechanism would be "If you renege on the contract then you will not be able to make future contracts" and/or "If you renege on the contract then everybody else will no longer have the responsibility to uphold the contract." F'rinstance, moral behavior is an implicit contract -- if you behave morally towards others then others will behave morally towards you (which is a desirable outcome), and if you behave immorally towards others then they will behave immorally towards you (which is an undesirable outcome). The fact that moral behavior in others is desirable while immoral behavior in others is undesirable provides the enforcement mechanism. The fact that somebody's actions are thereby limited to moral behavior means that they are not in a state of total liberty. Similarly, the fact that somebody does not want their property to be stolen enforces the implicit contract that they will not steal property belonging to somebody else, but if Lug doesn't understand the concept of personal property (he doesn't "own" anything because the concept of ownership is alien to him) then he isn't violating any kind of implicit contract when he uses the shiny rock of which Grog claims possession -- he is still in a state of total liberty and thus a state of nature (insofar as property is concerned) since he hasn't entered into any contracts regarding "property rights." However, when he understands the concept of personal property and acquires some, he enters an implicit contract to not take/damage the property belonging to somebody else (he understands and respects what you call "property rights") and he is therefore no longer in a state of total liberty.

Sure, somebody who is sufficiently clever/powerful may decide to behave immorally since he won't suffer any ill effects of immoral behavior in others, just as he may decide to take/damage the property belonging to somebody else for the same reason. However, as you yourself said, "If someone still manages to violate a contract, that doesn't really have any bearing on the fact that contracts are truly enforceable."