Re: Force is not physical

[jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald)]

Hal writes
> If he wants to say, "tough luck, ha ha," then
> there's nothing much you can do about it other than try to be more
> careful next time (and let other people know who screwed you).
> 
> I think this position is consistent and interesting, but it does seem
> like it may be inefficient compared to a system in which people can
> authorize the use of physical force applied against themselves under
> agreed-upon circumstances.  It also seems like historically people have
> not used non-binding contracts as much as binding ones,

Surely contracts binding by honor only are better than contracts
binding by force.

Honor has been predominantly used, rather than force.

For example I have about $60 000 in unsecured credit.  If
I blew all that and told the banks to piss off, there is
nothing they can do, other than burn my credit rating.

And the US government (unfairly and unjustly) prevents
them from burning my credit rating permanently.

The legal system in the US has effectively collapsed.  It is cheaper
to use honor, than force.  In cyberspace the cost advantage
of honor is even greater.

I expect that in the future, fifty to a hundred years, we
will see a freeman class, literate and numerate, whose
contracts are based entirely upon honor, and an illiterate
servile class whose contracts are based primarily upon
force: 

"If you do not pay back this loan with accumulated
compound interest we will break your arms and legs, as
you agreed."

"Duh, whats compound interest?"

"Or alternatively you could work for me for food
and board until the debt is, Heh, heh, (evil laugh)
paid off."

-- 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our
property, because of the kind of animals that we              James A. Donald
are.  True law derives from this right, not from
the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.                jamesd@netcom.com