Capacity to enter into a contact: A philosophy challenge

[gibson042]

Very valid point, however, I wasn't really talking about the state per se. I think this weakness of philosophy is in how such a situation could be handled under even a Libertopia, with competing justice systems. For example... you say "evidence showed the adult child to be incompetent". Showed incompetent to WHOM??? Who decides that? Who gets the authority to determine who is sane? Who chooses the guardian for the six year old orphaned prostitutes? See what a briar patch this is?

Yes, such ridiculous and tragic situations are briar patches.  And since no one is perfectly fit to make those decisions, we have to fall back on the people who care so much that they choose to accept responsibility for them.  Any competent person presumed otherwise will be able to rebut the presumption in voluntary arbitration at least as well as they could in a coerced court.  The same goes for any incompetent person presumed otherwise, albeit with representation by a guardian or caring volunteer.  There is no right answer, but the State is a wrong answer.

I truly believe that when we can figure out a concise philosophy which can be applied here. I believe that having such a philosophical tenet will make answering all those little extremes so many people like to bring up, as breezy and easy as it is to address an issue like free speech.

And I truly believe that no logical argument will change the mind of someone arguing from emotion.  Rational answers abound as to why violent monopolies are in all cases immoral, and less practical (or at least, not more practical) than voluntary interactions lacking "sovereign immunity".  It is not rationality, but fear, that keeps people clinging to the State.  And that's why we must lead with our actions, one gradual improvement at a time.

[Johnson]

I don't believe that there is "no right answer" as you put it.

and, you didn't address any of my points about who makes the decisions.

I don't disagree with improving society, or that the statement that 'the state isn't the answer'... so you are wasting your own time there arguing with me as though I'm a liberal...

I know you don't know me very well, and maybe never heard me when I was hosting FTL... but I'm not even a minarchist - I usually lean more towards Ian's side in debates than Mark's - moreso than any other cohost I've heard - with maybe the exception of Sam.

What I am seeking out here is not a million single issue arguments... I know those arguments... I've heard them hashed out on FTL over and over again, and I've seen and partaken of such debates for many years... What I am seeking out here, is something akin to the Libertarian Pledge, or Galt's Oath, or even Stephan Molyneux's "Against Me" argument.

These things are all principles that can be used to guide even the most novice liberty lover through a debate if that person sticks to keeping the focus on that principle in their mind.... if they keep something like 'where is the initiation of force' in their minds.


So, again... stirring up a hornet's nest here - Sometimes a little caring force does make things BETTER, and ignoring that isn't helping the liberty movement...Let me give a hypothetical example...
Suppose a person gets some kind of schizophrenia wherein they become paranoid and believe people are out to get them... this person loses their job... their home... their life... they trust no one.... They survive barely by rooting through dumpsters while dodging imagined lizard aliens.

However, suppose this is curable, and that the rational person trapped within the schizophrenic would LOVE to get their life back, but as a crazy person they would have to be forced to take that medication.... Obviously I don't want to see that person forced to take medication by the STATE... but what about being forced by their family, or someone else who cares for them?

Again - who determines that this adult has become incompetent... and who decides legal guardianship?
Those questions return... I think there is a way to answer those two questions philosophically.
I think there is a way to make a blanket statement that not only covers that...
but covers things like legal age of becoming an adult in a way that is less arbitrary than the numbers 18 or 21.

There is some kind of guiding principle that can be found in relation to this type of stuff... I know it's there... I just can't see it.

[gibson042]

Again - who determines that this adult has become incompetent... and who decides legal guardianship?

I did answer this.  The determination can be made by anyone choosing to take on that responsibility along with the corresponding consequences.  I guess if you want a simple answer, "responsibility" is it.  For everyone.

[Johnson]

So, I could choose to determine that you are mentally incompetent and then take responsibility for your assets?

[mikehz]

How about the principle that it is incumbent upon those entering into a contract (and congruent with one's self interest) to ensure that the other party is capable of understanding and complying with the terms.

There, I got that in one sentence. The only problem is that it is way too simplistic and is not explicit in the assumption that enforcement might be problematic if any appellate authority disagrees with your definition of competence.

It's built right into the contract process that each party needs to be assured that the other is competent. Otherwise, the contract is invalid, and there is no way the other party can be made to comply with the terms.

When I took my first law class (in high school), the teacher--Benny Berman--got our immediate interest with his first words: "Anyone in this class under the age of 18 doesn't have to pay for anything." He went on to explain that if some store foolishly sold you something on credit and you were under 18, they can't make you pay for it and they can't take it back. "It's up to THEM to ascertain whether or not you're a competent party," he said. "And, if you buy something and later decide to take it back, they HAVE to give you your money back--even if the item is damaged."

[Johnson]

Just keeping track here... according to Gibson - Anyone can determine the mental competency of anyone else.... Which I, playing devil's advocate say extends to being able to then use force on that person as a parent has the right to do to a child they are caring for....

Mike is saying that mental competency is built right into the contract process, and that the scales are weighted entirely to the side of those that are not declared legally competent (by an organization which has yet to be determined - is it the 'anyone' from Richard's claim's?) ...  built in so much so, that anyone under the arbitrary number of 18 years of age can use their powers to abuse business owners almost to the point of theft.

[gibson042]

So, I could choose to determine that you are mentally incompetent and then take responsibility for your assets?

You could attempt that, but I would challenge it (and no one holding onto them would yield anything until the situation was resolved).  Since I am not mentally incompetent, you would end up owing me reparations for anything you got your hands on plus compensation for my defense and potentially also punitive damages.  Should you refuse to pay, you would find yourself in the same outlaw status as all other unrepentant criminals.

That's what is meant by taking responsibility for the determination.

[Johnson]

Suppose then that someone suffers a brain injury, has substantial wealth... but again, no family or caretakers...

Suddenly, it's like a smorgasbord... everyone wants to claim responsibility for them and declare them mentally incompetent to get at the assets... who gets to aquire the care for them and their juicy juicy assets?

[Wayne]

Suppose then that someone suffers a brain injury, has substantial wealth... but again, no family or caretakers...

Suddenly, it's like a smorgasbord... everyone wants to claim responsibility for them and declare them mentally incompetent to get at the assets... who gets to aquire the care for them and their juicy juicy assets?

This already happens.

If a rich person today, with no family or caretakers, were to suddenly become mentally deficient, you can imagine all manner of friends, or even people with merely tangential relationships (maybe the butler) trying to claim guardianship, with suspect motives.

More than likely, either the state will "take custody" so to speak and then manage the assets as THEY see fit, or they will just choose some arbitrary custodian.

So the question becomes: how is this situation worsened in a voluntaryist society?

And really, if there's no substantial difference, then is it worth worrying about?

[gibson042]

Aside from what Wayne said (which I completely agree with), it would seem very strange for such a wealthy person to lack both insurance and a living well specifying exactly what should happen.  But you know what they say about the proverbial fool...

At any rate, you seem to have lost sight of your original question.  I say anyone claiming the capacity to contract is presumed to have it, and that arbitrators might void contracts if past and/or current evidence rebuts the presumption.  It is incumbent upon everyone to look after their own affairs; this includes both wisely choosing business partners and avoiding high-risk actions (like claiming guardianship) without due diligence.

[Johnson]

So, what is acceptable without any sort of code or standards?

I could, say collect orphaned children and mentally handicapped folks, and prostitute them for profit. Without any caretakers, I could become the caretaker and give them a place to live... and train them to the point that they wouldn't want to leave.

In fact, if they are mentally handicapped enough, I could train them to say that they have the capacity to contract, and there's no authority to judge these sorts of things, so therefore, it would have to be assumed that my contracts with them were binding.

Children would be particularly easy to convince to enter into contracts... I mean, I could create an awesome place for young teenagers to go that might be slightly angsty and have problems with their parents... I could get them to claim they are old enough to make rational decisions and that they understand long term consequences... and all they need to do get out from under the mean old boot of their parents, and into my swanky mansion full of parties, drugs, arcade games, and sugary foods would be to just occasionally take their clothes off for the cameras.... No big deal... after all... that sort of thing is acceptable now that prostitution is legal.



(Did I mention I can play a wicked devil's advocate?) There has GOT to be a better answer than these individual little points....

[ForumTroll]

I would say that "anarchy" can't possibly ever succeed if this problem isn't able to be logically solved.

[Johnson]

Oh, and if anyone is about to answer "That happens now" and point to whorehouses or the playboy mansion... and say 'the only difference is just that they are adults...'

That's part of the point I am making, is about this arbitrary system that determines that 18 is the legal age at which someone can willfully do such a thing. It's like something magical happens at 18, and suddenly parents and neighbors don't pull out shotguns to go kill the predator pedophiles anymore....

If you answer that anyone claiming the ability to contract gets it... there is going to be a very violent society in the making when petulant teenagers start abusing that, because their SPECIFIC mental disability is POOR DECISION MAKING because the frontal lobe isn't fully developed until the age of 21-25.

See, mental disability often requires the use of force. This is the problem. Take for example... an addict... Is the addict who is totally mentally compromised going to TELL you that he no longer has the capacity for sound reason so that he can be locked away in a rehab? Uh.. no.  

[Johnson]

This really isn't even about Anarchy Jay, this even applies to a voluntaryist society with minimal government, or some kind of autocratic polyarchy.

[Harry Tuttle]

In any contract, you assume the risk that the person with whom you contract will not keep up their own end. If you contract with a 4-year-old to make installment payments then you have taken a huge risk. If you make the same contract with an 18-year-old then you assume a significantly smaller risk. If you contract with someone who has some form of mental retardation, then you also assume some level of risk. In a free market, you would be perfectly justified in deciding when to - or when not to - accept a given risk. You may make the decision based upon age - or on any other type of criteria.

When the person later challenges the contract, or when you need help enforcing it, your own judgement gets weighed against that of the authority from whom you sought redress.

OF COURSE this issue is complicated. I still stand by my previous post as the best attempt so far as a single-sentence explanation.