What defines this "well informed consent": 1. no coercion or leveraging on the part of either party. 2. information is not withheld deliberately by party members, opportunity of each party to explore options to reach a decision is intact. 3. no differential ability exploited
No, Epstein explicitly says that rule enforcement by the court is coercion, but justifies in saying that it makes the market work better. Any enforcement mechanism is coercion, possibly even the case where the parties are required to enforce for themselves.
-
-
I don't care what Epstein says as he is a Jew for one. Coercion is never preventative against wrongdoing, it is compulsion to action by a party such as making people pay taxes on a transaction.
-
And in a rules-enforced market you do pay taxes in the form of overhead to maintain force and fraud provisions. There's no way around it! We see this use of law all the time - people are coerced into taking actions due to the threat of fraudulent use of enforcement.
-
all of these are minor inconveniences and inefficiencies that do not prevent a market from acting analogous to a free market performance wise while avoiding the potential catastrophic effects of a totally free market.
-
Sure, I agree. The point is to emulate a free market as best as possible where trust doesn't exist (and thus a free market isn't possible.)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
For example, for fraud provisions to work, I am coerced to write out the details of what the contract is for, because if I don't the other party could claim fraud and I would have no proof of what we agreed on; they might fabricate details... it goes on.
-
lol that ain't coercion buddy that's just common sense.
-
It's not, there even today are tons of business deals that are just handshakes, I've seen them myself.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
