| In this chapter Rothbard breaks with current legal conventions to describe a theory of contracts. Basically, a contract transfers property. Agreements or statements, written or oral, that do not are not enforceable as contracts. | この章でロスバードが現在の法律と別れた契約の理論を述べる。基本的に契約が所有を譲渡する。譲渡しない協定が契約じゃない。 |
| When it comes to exchanges or gifts of present goods, this is simple and obvious, but contracts are most valuable for their transfer of future rights- and this is where interpretation is hard. | 現在物の交換か贈り物には簡単で当たり前のようだけど、契約の価値が未来物について一番高くなる。そしてこれが解釈の難しいところでござる。 |
| For instance, “I promise to give you one silver coin in one day,” is not a contract, but, “I agree to give you one silver coin in one day,” is. There needs to be a way to express present intent to transfer in the future and present transfer of a future good. But because the ideas are so similar, we have to be careful and precise in our language. | 例えば、「一日で一銀貨を上げると約束する」が契約じゃないけど「一日で一銀貨を上げると承諾する」が契約でござる。未来で譲渡する現在の意志と未来で送る現在に譲渡することを述べる言葉が必要でござる。考えが似ていて言葉扱いが注意深く正確にしないとならない。 |
| Unfortunately, imposition of a different legal standard may have contributed to the ambiguity of our language in this area. | っと、それが今の英語の状態だけど。日本語では正確な言葉があるかは分からない。知識が不完全で困る。 |
| Rothbard does have a curious contradiction when it comes to voluntary slave contracts. He says they are not enforceable, but later says if someone sells himself for a great sum of money and after some time wants to be free again, then he has to return the money. Yet suppose he doesn’t have the money. Rothbard stated in his chapter on punishments that a man can be enslaved to repay a debt, such as this one. There is little to distinguish this enforceable contract from the unenforceable one, once the money is gone. | ロスバードの理論に志願な奴隷契約について矛盾がある。執行できないと言うけど、後でそういう条件で大金を受け取ったら、また自由が欲しくなるとその金を返さなきゃならない。もういないと、ロスバードの刑罰の理論で奴隷にされると主張したんだ。金がなくなった後、これは志願な奴隷契約では？ |
| But it gets better! | でもまだまだ先がある！ |
| Rothbard endorses the use of performance bonds (now unenforceable by legal fiat), so a man can contractually bond his service for life, with any arbitrary penalty levied upon him if he refuses at some point to follow through. So the slave doesn’t even need to be paid beforehand! | 条件付きの支払金を契約できると述べるから奴隷状態に逆らう条件では金を受け取らなくても奴隷になれるだろう。 |
| I wonder what he would say to that. | ロスバードがどう答えたかな？ |
| Rothbard also shows that fraud is a crime in this framework, and that bankruptcy laws are unethical. | この制度では詐欺が犯罪のことも現在の破産法が倫理に反していることもロスバードが述べる。 |
| I find it interesting how this basically removes “enforcement of contract” from the legal system. It’s less that the contract is being enforced, and more that property rights are, and the contract merely describes what the property rights in question are. It’s evidence of what to enforce, rather than being itself something to enforce. | 基本的に契約執行を法律から取り除くことが面白い、と拙者が思う。契約の執行ってことより所有権の執行になる。契約が所有権を定義するだけでござる。 |
Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 19: Property Rights and the Theory of Contracts
Bookmark the permalink.