[ExI] Under the libertarian yoke was Re: Next Decade May See No Warming

[BillK]

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
<snip>
>  But as discussed above, the threat of force, usually implicit, is a
>  very common part of a contract. I won't trade with you unless I know
>  that I will be able to obtain adequate compensation if you cheat me,
>  and that may require the use of force. Similarly, you won't trade with
>  me unless you know you can obtain compensation if I cheat you. Now I
>  would *prefer* that the deal we agree to does not allow anyone to use
>  force against me, since then I can get away with cheating you, but of
>  course you won't agree to anything this one-sided. So unless we both -
>  grudgingly - agree to having force used against us, we will both be
>  denied the benefits of trade.
<snip>


Even that is not good enough in the messy, irrational, crazy,
double-dealing real world.

The whole health fraud industry, which is worth billions, is hugely
successful because of after the fact failed attempts at recompense.
By the time it comes to the notice of the 'authorities' that the magic
cream doesn't actually do anything, the crooks are in a Caribbean
island with their millions of profits. (It never comes to the notice
of the general population. That's why the crooks claim that "there's
one born every minute").

Sometimes they just close the company down every year and start up
again under another name. Sometimes they even pay a few millions in
fines without bothering too much, out of their huge scam profits.
Contracts are pretty much useless against crooks.  Even for ordinary
people, as soon as a contract or agreement appears, people are trying
to work out ways round it, cases not covered by it, loopholes, etc.
That's why we have so many lawyers.

BillK