Capacity to enter into a contact: A philosophy challenge

[Johnson]

To those that are saying things about Politicians requiring some kind of religious conversion, etc... Again, I don't accept or believe that either, I'm merely talking about people being convinced to believe in liberty. I am looking for logical axioms, but what you guys are referring to is ACTING on a liberty belief.

I've seen politicians be turned from statism on issues before... right before my eyes... and then KNOWINGLY not act in accordance with those beliefs. Politicians are still largely scum... Convincing them that liberty is the logical path is just a first step... getting them to abandon money and power is a whole different ballgame, and that's not what I'm trying for here... I'm just looking at step one... Creating a sound body of logical theories and principles to simplify discussion of liberty oriented principles in a fashion that makes denial more difficult, and eases acceptance of the truth.

Knowing what is right is often much easier than doing what is right.

I think progress is already being made, and I like theCelestrian said, I am soon going to take stock of that progress and lay out the arguments and terms we've already boiled down.

[theCelestrian]

I'll help do that now, since I have a spare moment.  I will catalog our Assumptions and definition, our current Axiom and the outstanding issues.

The Draft Axiom :

Coercive force may only be applied to an individual incapable of consent only
when the direct resultant of the forcible action restores or grants the individual the capacity to consent.

Outstanding issues

• Parent/Child Relationships

Working Assumptions / Terms

• Consensual Competency:  An individual is considered competent when they can demonstrate that they understand the contract's breadth, scope and the likely permutations of consequences (both good and bad) as a resultant of entering such a contract/agreement.
  
  
• Burden of Proof for Consensual Competency: An individual attempting to enter a consensual agreement/contract must demonstrate their capacity for consent to those they are about to enter a contract/consensual transaction with.
  
  
• Burden of Reciprocal Responsibility: Any and all parties attempting to enter a consensual agreement/contract have an equal and reciprocal responsibility to ensure that all other parties to the agreement/contract satisfy the requirements for competency as outlined above.
  
  

Terms needing Definition and/or Clarification

• The Archetype of the Parent/Child Relationship: Required in order to deal with dealing/allowing for the protective acts of a parent that could be regarded as "aggressive, coercive force" in any other circumstance.
  
  Edit: Perhaps we should quickly delineate what it is NOT, to help -
  
  
  • The relationship is non-consensual - Children do not "consent" to parentage.
    
    
  • The moral responsibility is not-reciprocal - I think all would agree that there is a greater (full) moral responsibility on the part of the parent in regards to the child, making it different than most other relationships between human beings.
    
    
  • Potential: A child is incapable of demonstrating a comprehensive and long-term understanding of the consequences/resultants of their actions - I think this potential statement may end up being a focal point for us when determining how to break down this relationship, and the litmus for when the relationship changes from that of Parent/Child to that of two "individuals."
    
  
  

Feel free to add/edit as necessary.  I think this where we're at currently.

[Wayne]

Oh, also, my last three political debates have been with PoliSci majors... So they are very detail oriented, much moreso than you'd think... I want to find liberty arguments so sound that a liberty loving schmoe off the street could easily convince a politician to believe in liberty... I believe that enough brainpower put into the communicative power of language can accomplish a whole lot...

OK.

I've had to think this over a bit to realize that essentially, yes, you are poking at the one true logical hole in the NAP.

While you start out addressing those unable to contract (which is what threw me for a loop), this is essentially the natural condition of children.

I think if the issue of aggression is "solved" for the case of children--however one chooses to define the term "children"--it will become pretty obvious the parallels needed to address the case of invalid adults.

Which figures, since juggling the NAP and the existence of toddlers is something most advocates of the NAP seem to (rather skillfully) dodge rather than address.

Anyway... I'll take a crack at it again soon.

[Wayne]

Hmm.

I think there's only one legitimate way to go about this. And I suspect no one will like the outcome. But just hear me out....

Typically, what most of us believe to be rights are natural rights. We look at nature, see what makes sense, and apply it. For example, it makes sense that since man is biologically able to walk, and can exercise liberty in that area, that he has a right to do so (provided, of course, he doesn't infringe on the rights of others.) What this approach does is removes arbitrariness from the equation. You aren't just picking and choosing what sounds good. You're actually observing where the lines are naturally.

When this general approach toward determining rights is extended to children (or invalids) it seems like an unavoidable conclusion is reached. And that is, that you CAN'T directly extend the approach to such individuals.

This isn't to say such beings should be considered property like rocks or insects. But to treat a child/invalid as an fully-competent adult won't work. The results of doing so speak for themselves. In a very real sense, nature itself cries out that you need to adjust things for invalids. And so I submit the following for consideration as a natural law:

Guardians of invalids have the right to restrict any of the invalid's exercise of their rights, without being lethal in doing so, until the individual is no longer an invalid.

Yes, I know, there are questions. Who is a legitimate guardian? How do you determine when the individual is no longer an invalid? Etc., etc. But those are just quibbling details that can be dealt with later. The core concept, to me, seems perfectly sound. In fact, I don't see how one could argue otherwise in the face of the natural requirements for invalids.

Of course, this leads to some curious, even unexpected conclusions. This is where the whole you're-not-gonna-like-this bit comes in. But again, I'll stand by the claim that it's a non-arbitrary, naturally-derived law. Anything else seems to be starting with a desired outcome, regardless of how natural or right, and working backwards to form an axiom supporting it. (And is that really how we want to go about this?)

I'd address some of these unpopular conclusions, but it's late, and I'm pretty sure one or two will be brought up eventually, so I'll wait until then.

[Wayne]

I'll help do that now, since I have a spare moment.  I will catalog our Assumptions and definition, our current Axiom and the outstanding issues.

The Draft Axiom :

Coercive force may only be applied to an individual incapable of consent only
when the direct resultant of the forcible action restores or grants the individual the capacity to consent.

This isn't a insurmountable issue for this axiom, but something I find interesting.

It basically gives everyone the right to force everyone else to keep their own capacity to consent intact.

Imagine it's 2050. An "instant-sober" pill has been developed. No matter how drunk you are, as long as your blood alcohol level isn't lethal, you can take this pill, and presto! You're completely sober and in total control of your faculties. Its as if you never took a drink.

How many times could I keep forcing the pill on someone who keeps running back to the bar and getting drunk? (And a related question kinda implied by the axiom in the first place: am I not in the right for doing so?)

[Johnson]

While it's too late to for me to add anything useful to the discussion right now, I can say that I am very pleased that while my initial phrasing, questioning, and postulation was probably some pretty atrocious and abusive use of language and communication... I'm glad to see that despite my mushy minded approach, that somehow this thread has, in fact, gotten on the exactly the right track towards precisely what I was getting at. The minds and blocks are falling into place to perfecting something here that I think will really aid liberty lovers in communicating (and not having to dodge certain issues)

[theCelestrian]

It basically gives everyone the right to force everyone else to keep their own capacity to consent intact.

Imagine it's 2050. An "instant-sober" pill has been developed. No matter how drunk you are, as long as your blood alcohol level isn't lethal, you can take this pill, and presto! You're completely sober and in total control of your faculties. Its as if you never took a drink.

How many times could I keep forcing the pill on someone who keeps running back to the bar and getting drunk? (And a related question kinda implied by the axiom in the first place: am I not in the right for doing so?)

Good question.  Likely this would be resolved in your situation either by:

• Taking the pill prior to departure from the establishment as a prerequisite of purchasing alcohol as set by the establishment's owner (to limit liability)
  
  
• While still sober, the drinking individual would sign a non-liability agreement prior to drinking to "opt-out" of the insta-sober pill, and accepting full responsibility for his actions as a result of becoming willfully incapacitated.
  
  

I think provided the pill had no side-affects, and the individual didn't have some religious objection, I don't know if this would be considered "aggressive and coercive," as there is no harm as a resultant of taking the pill (i.e. the Blood Alcohol was still there, but the effects were gone - thus leading to easier alcohol poisonings, or something of the like.).  So the only way I could see this being a potential issue is as the person moves about from establishment to establishment to establishment, as seperate agreements/waivers would need to be completed as described above for each seperate entity the drinker attempts to conduction a transaction with.

That would be by counter-supposition at this time, but perhaps we can explore further.