[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Peter Conrad
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] OT: Slavery???
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:38:38 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i


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.

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

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.

Peter Conrad                        Tel: +49 6102 / 80 99 072
[ t]ivano Software GmbH             Fax: +49 6102 / 80 99 071
Bahnhofstr. 18            
63263 Neu-Isenburg


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]