Can contracts exist in the absence of government?

Yes contracts can exist without the government.

>There is no government
>You want a fence built
>You call a builder
>You both negotiate the conditions for the contract and sign it. The template for the contract is issued by a contract company
>You both pay a small fee to the company to uphold the contract
>You give the money that is to be paid upon the completion of the fence to the company
>The company is also part of the contract and has contractual rights to arbitrate and award money owed to either party
>When the fence is completed, as long as you have no complaints about the fence, the money is released from escrow to the builder
>If the builder does not build the fence, you are given your money back and your fee is refunded, the fee the builder paid is kept by the company
>If the builder does build it but it is not up to your standard, depending on the conditions of the contract the builder may say he is still owed payment and its up to the company to decide
>Conditions of the contract could require the builder to offer some collateral if some damage is done
>Contract company has its own private police force to enforce contracts and carry out repossessions or the appropriation of property in the result of damages ect.

sure, it's called arbitration

>rips your contract
>shoots you

pssh nothin personnel kid

>Contract company has its own private police force

I see no way this can possibly get out of hand with multiple competing companies.

>Contract company has its own private police force to enforce contracts and carry out repossessions or the appropriation of property in the result of damages ect.
You know what we call these right? That's the mafia.

If a company is known for being unfair or overly forceful no one will cooperate with them and they will go out of business, they are compelled by the market to act in the interests of their consumers otherwise they will lose everything. Their self interest ensures that they cooperate.

Unless contract termination costs exceed the savings from going to another firm. The second the firm gets into real estate you've got feudalism.

contract termination costs would be negotiated at the time each contract is created, you wouldnt be forced to have overly high termination costs. If they were too high for either party to feel comfortable going ahead with the contract then you could just cease writing the contract and it becomes void because it was never completed and signed.

Contracts require courts and some method of enforcement, I don't see how you can have either of those without a state.

There are other costs associated with leaving the "protection" of a firm. Opportunity costs, time costs, and relocation costs also need to be considered. Life as a wandering vagrant moving from place to place without protection is dangerous. In this situation, a protection firm has far more bargaining power than the "consumer". A protection firm in control of territory is indistinguishable from a government.

Thats why you only wouldnt accept an overly tyrannical contract. If that contract was not good enough then you could just go to a competing firm that treats its consumers better and thus offers a better product.

Competition between firms would ensure consumer protection in different ways.

They do. I've had tons of people owing me money and we never signed any kind of loan agreement, and they all paid back. So verbal, informal contracts definitely exist.

>you could just go to a competing firm
You say that like it's simple and instantaneous. Again, opportunity costs, time costs, and transportation costs all exist. There are costs associated with seeking out competitors. These costs are compounded if the protection firm controls a large geographic area.

>contract was not good enough
The firm has far more bargaining power than the consumer because of those costs.

>village laws
So you mean a regional government? Are you against state government, or government in general?

Also, with no laws enforcing contracts, how will you stop someone from reneging the minute they have an opportunity to do so? If, say, the water supplier to your community decides to breach his contract and supply a richer and more influential community instead, how are you realistically going to retain his services?

>just go to a competing firm!

Beggars can't be choosers, user.

So does luck, but the existence of either isn't guaranteed. I have plenty of stories myself of my family and friends getting ripped off by seemingly trustworthy 'friends' they'd known for years.

It would be in the interests of competing firms to have as low costs as possible to be accessible to the widest range of consumers.

Less people would begin a contract with a company that has high costs associated with leaving the firm because they would know before they begin the contract that they would be constricted.

This is why mobile phone companies for instance now frequently offer no cancellation fees, and other leverage to consumers.

Say you are looking for a place to live and you need to end a contract with your current firm, your contract may be paid out by another competing firm because in the long run it may be more profitable for them to help you move.

Another example could be contract insurance, this company would spread the risk of contractual losses and costs associated with ending contracts across lots of people. After however long you have had that insurance contract they will cover your costs associated with moving and ending your contract with the protection firm. Insurance companies would compete in a way that allows them to remain profitable while still covering your risks at the lowest cost to the consumers.

Not that user, but you are assuming their behaviour in a 'wild-west' market would mirror that in a relatively well-regulated one. What do you think is going to happen when they're free to resort to any business practices they see fit with no real competitors in their area?

Cable companies are already getting away with substandard service to customers in areas where they have a monopoly. If it's so easy, why don't you tell those guys to uproot their lives and move somewhere else?

>Relatively well regulated

You are kidding yourself

>Cable companies are already getting away with substandard service

Cable company monopolies are a result of government interference in markets. Local governments and public utilities impose the most significant barriers to entry for new cable companies.

There is no reason there would be no competitors in a wild west scenario unless they offer a good than cannot be competed with which is essentially impossible.

>your contract may be paid out by another competing firm because in the long run it may be more profitable for them to help you move.
Then you get into the very strange and hilarious situation of a firm attempting to extradite the consumer out of a competitor's (private) property, violating the NAP. All bets are off.

I mean local micro-government.

You are not the property of the company and would be free to leave as long as the competing company pays those cancellation fees. It would likely be cheaper to just let you go for the firm you are breaking contract with than to risk confrontation with the extraditing firm you are going to so I dont see the NAP coming into this at all. Competing companies could also put a clause into your original contract establishing conditions where you are allowed to be extradited when you novate your contract to a new company, they may offer you this clause at it would draw more consumers and increases the value of the product to consumers.

Also I'm thinking about writing a book set in a society like this, I'm thinking it'd be pretty fucking funny. I'm not an ancap but ancap theorizing can be pretty fucking entertaining.

I like imagining all the weird shit that would happen.

That's what happens when you're not menacing enough.

It's already been written. Go read 'Snow Crash', you won't regret it.

Weird? Yes. Utopian? Absolutely not.

Its been on my reading list for a while, I keep meaning to get around to it. Ill definitely check it out :)

Here's the thing; local governments aren't accommodating to newcomers BECAUSE THEY'RE PAID NOT TO. If a hunter bribes the fish and game department in his area so he can illegally hunt, does it make sense to dissolve the entire department rather than prosecute the hunter?

Ah, got it. You mean small state.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Natural obligation
>NATURAL OBLIGATION, Civil law. One which in honor and conscience binds the person who has contracted it, but which cannot be enforced in a court of justice.
Say for example, you loan your friend 5k$, and you forget about it. And, depending on your countries laws at some point in time the contract ceases to be enforceable, because you forgot about it.
The obligation still exists, however it is not enforceable.
Should your friend give you 1k or a full payment by accident he can't sue you to get it back, because it's seen as him (partially or fully) fulfilling his natural obligation.

So again, a glorified promise that can't be enforced. You've demonstrated that the law has provisions for such circumstances, but it's ultimately foolish to make any agreement with someone with no way to force or prove compliance, ergo proving the instability of any society founded on simple goodwill.

Well yes. I'm not ancap.

OK, but it's a little illogical to argue against the 'state' while supporting village government, because the former merely describes any politically organised community under one government system. A village easily fits this definition, and as a matter of fact there are plenty of 'villages' that are larger than neighbouring cities and could thus technically declare themselves 'city-states' in the absence of a federal government.

Also, the hypothetical question I posed still lacks an answer; if there are no laws to enforce contracts, then how does one successfully prosecute their breaching? And if the scope of such laws were limited to a single community, then what happens if the breacher leaves it and obtains the legal protection of another community?

Google "Etherium Smart Contracts"

Yeah, for the most part. But i wanted to give an example. I think anarcho anything is stupid at best.

anarcho as a political system is stupid

But its possible to create an economic structure mostly independent of the government and regulation through crypto communication and crypto currency.

Yeah. With trust 3rd parties and escrow.

People escrow shit all the time in EVE Online because you don't punished for scamming.

The 3rd party has to be very well trusted though.

Yes, contracts exist even in near anarchic conditions because they are simply formal agreements between two parties. There is no definition of a contract which necessarily requires the existence of a government. What the government actually does is provide institutions to help enforce contracts and provide objective arbitration for people to resolve their civil disputes. Even semi-anarchic pre-Norman Irish had contracts.

Exist, yes.

Flourish, no.

Yes. If your trading partner can't follow a simple contract then it is logical to assume they are more incompetent or untrustworthy than you thought, jeopardizing the agreement.

Both parties stick to the contract to maintain the deal and improve the potential for repeat trades.

Contracts, in principle, do not need any kind of form.

Maybe you mean how they can be enforced?

Appart from violence, you could check how contracts were made in rome, witnesses, withholding something and return said thing when certain condition it's fullfilled and so on.

Back to your containment board

It's ok sweetie, I'll let you have a ride on my lambo

this creates monopolies, state has to be as strong as possible to protect the free trade

What basic logical principle necessitates that signing your name, applying a seal, or saying "I agree" means you are bound to comply?

1/2

>state has to be as strong as possible to protect free trade

Never in the history of government has more power to the state ensured the protection of trade. Its always caused the complete opposite to happen. Governments cause monopolies, regulations cause monopolies.

The fact you said that means that you know nothing about economic and political history. You literally just need to examine the rise of Hong Kong. Hong Kong outgrew countries lager and stronger than itself, it has little to no natural resources other than its geographical position which one would assume would be a disadvantage but despite that Hong Kongs, low regulation, low taxes and zero tariffs ensured that businesses big and small were able to thrive, entrepreneurs were able to build themselves lives and everyone had a piece of the newfound wealth of the island. Less government and less regulation meant less bureaucracy and lower bar to entry for starting a business, which is what makes free trade possible. Governments that are too powerful ALWAYS over regulate, and are ALWAYS too inefficient at their stated goals, almost everything the government does can be made more efficient, many of your tax dollars are squandered on administration thanks to the bloat and creep of scope in Governments. The U.S.A is the single best example of big government and creep/bloat. Go look at the list of regulations and the list of departments and subdepartments and tell me how many of them are ACTUALLY necessary because a lot of it isnt, a lot of the shit you will see are things you will never have heard of, and have little or no use.

Governments arent bad but they are when they are too large and have too much power.

Another example of a prosperous country fucking itself with big government is Sweden. At one time Sweden was the freest economy in the world, in light of its prosperity it adopted many socialist policies and to support this it raised taxes, and it made everyone POORER.

2/2

Swedens growth plummeted and businesses left as the bar to entry was raised and many businesses found it too hard to survive. On top of that the regulations that came along with the EU also did not help. Sweden basically fucked itself when everyones wealth was increasing it fucked it up for everyone, its now harder to get a job or start a business than it every has been in sweden.

I could go on and on about countries who have fucked their economies by increasing regulation, taxation and the scope of government but I really dont have the motivation. I just wanted you to know that what you said was completely retarded.

The strength of a government isn't defined by its policies, just its ability to effectively enforce its rules.

A weak government can be communist, and a strong government can be very free.