Re: [Gnu-arch-users] OT: Slavery???

[Samium Gromoff]

At Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:38:38 +0100,
Peter Conrad wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2003 at 12:09:58PM +0200, Momchil Velikov wrote:
> > >>>>> "Peter" == Peter Conrad <address@hidden> writes:
> > 
> > Peter> This is wrong: most contracts work very well without enforcement, and
> > Peter> most would even work without the possibility of enforcement. That's
> > Peter> because a contract usually is a win-win situation for the involved
> > Peter> parties (if it wasn't, why should the losing party agree to the
> > Peter> contract?) [1].
> > 
> >   This is wrong: most contracts involve compromises/trade-offs.
> > There's always an incentive from both parties to not make them and
> > sometimes (very often) a party cannot threat with no adherence to the
> > compromises it made as a means to enforce adherence of the other party
> > to their compromises.
> 
> Read [1]. Even a compromise is a win-win situation. Therefore, even if
> breaking a contract means that you win more in the short term, not
> breaking it enables you to win much, much more in the long term.

Now you deliberately choose one fouth of the possible domain of probable
outcomes without any support (or so i perceive), which violates the
occam`s razor principle.
        
short term win, long term win
short term win, long term lose <== somehow you choosed that as the only possible
short term lose, long term win
short term lose, long term lose

> Look at reality: most contracts are fulfilled without anyone even trying
> to sneak out of it. That supports my claim.

So you`re choosing to play on the "people are used to it" thing?

Ok, not so long ago people were used to slavery. It was got rid of,
which supports a claim opposite to yours.

> On the other hand, despite the possibility of enforcement, some contracts
> are broken (some even successfully). According to Tom's logic that'd
> mean: contracts require enforcement. Since there is obviously no reliable
> means of enforcing a contract, it follows there aren't any contracts. q.e.d.

I`m almost sure that you both twist the Tom`s view on contract, and fail
to understand contracts as well.

To me contraction (yes, as a physical term) requires a force. The fact
this force is potential (in contraction as in law) doesn`t make it disappear.

Here you might rebel against my "physical contraction == law contract",
but this is another discussion, which i would prefer to separate.

Therefore a contract`s nature is an enforcement.

> Bye,
>       Peter
> -- 
> Peter Conrad                        Tel: +49 6102 / 80 99 072
> [ t]ivano Software GmbH             Fax: +49 6102 / 80 99 071
> Bahnhofstr. 18                      http://www.tivano.de/
> 63263 Neu-Isenburg
> 
> Germany

regards, Samium Gromoff