fandomhigh | Nation Building and the Origin of Government, Period 5, Class 7, Thursday, 2-17

"It's just before spring break," Alex said, "and I'm going to make you sit and talk about contracts. If any of you out there actually find that to be an enjoyable prospect, then I fear for your sanity, and you would do well in the legal profession."

The two went together well.

"Our country has plenty of citizens in it, and they're going to make arrangements with one another. Private business deals, or social ones, or public ones, either between companies or between a person and a company. Sometimes, these arrangements are formalized into what's called a contract. You both agree to terms, and you sign it, and that makes the contract legal."

Seemed simple enough.

"So let's say you and your neighbor make a contract that you'll mow his lawn every Tuesday, and he'll give you fifty bucks at the end of summer. Every Tuesday, you mow his lawn, like clockwork. And at the end of summer, he tells you that he doesn't have $50, but you did a great job with his lawn, thanks! What now?"

Alex lifted her shoulders. "That's where people generally appeal to a higher authority. If the contract was legally entered, then in some cases, the government will step in to mediate its breakdown. Too much intervention, and you end up with an overly litigious society, where people believe they can sue for damages any time someone hurts their feelings. Too little, and you have citizens and companies both invalidating contracts and taking advantage with no subsequent consequence to them. Is it the government's concern, if your neighbor didn't pay you the $50 you both agreed to? What if it's your employer, who decides not to pay your salary for the past two weeks? What if your friend agrees to buy your new bicycle, but gives you a counterfeit check to pay for it? We don't want to interfere in the free operation of business, but scams and fraud, governments generally do frown upon."

"So." She actually smiled at her students. "Talk to me about contracts, and I might be persuaded to let you go ten minutes early so you can pack. Deal?"

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Should the government intervene, in broken contracts? What penalties should be assessed when one person has committed fraud against another, or against a company -- or conversely, when a company commits fraud against another, or a person? Should governments intervene with businesses whose origins are dishonesty -- a pyramid scheme, or selling a high-priced "cure" for a serious illness that is simply sugar water?

Alexander rubbed his neck as he listened and considered the situations in class again. It was going to be another day, he felt, where he should probably just be quiet and listen, since his solution was probably too simple.

He was not very good at this class, and he hoped that didn't mean unfortunate things for Daventry's future...

"I suppose," he said, "it wouldn't do well to expect that the person would learn their lesson about making contracts with that person again, would it? Or to have it simply be common knowledge that this person does not follow through, and therefor should not be trust to meet his end of the bargain so that others do not make the same mistake? In the example, at any rate, though I believe that could easily be carried over to other scenarios. We learn by experience."

Edited 2011-02-17 18:56 (UTC)

"We do," Alex said. "We can learn by others' experience, and not just our own. Would you suggest some kind of a formalized list, or a place to lodge complaints?"

"I would suggest neither," Alexander shrugged. "It seems unnecessary for government to get involved with something that the people can work out amongst themselves. I suppose the exception would be if someone is in danger, in which case the government should get involved, but if someone failed to do something they promised to do, I do not see why we should attempt to police the fact that some people are just not as good as others and cannot be as trusted."

"How are we defining 'danger'?" Alex asked. "Selling something which may harm or kill the user, like meat that's gone bad, or fraudulent cures for illnesses?"

"Is the fraud intentional, or merely accidental?" Alexander asked in return. "And, perhaps, if it is becoming a problem, someone should step in, but that does not necessarily have to be the government. It could be anyone who feels the injustice should be righted. Let's say a witch is poisoning villages; of course something should be done. But should a farmer not realize that there is something wrong with his meat until it is too late, that is a different matter."

"That's an important distinction as well," Alex said. "Accidents can happen. Let's say we can prove this is a known case of fraud. You're suggesting independent citizens should be able to stand up and say, this meat-seller is bad, and therefore everyone else will listen and avoid that meat-seller."

She tilted a hand in the air. "It's a credible idea in theory. What happens when we deal with further duplicity? Let's say one meat-seller hires his brother-in-law to go to another town and say that that meat-seller's wares killed his children. The people of that town then avoid that meat-seller, unfairly. How do we sift out those who are reporting injustice from those who may be serving other motives?"

"That meat-seller than has to show that his meat has not at all done what the brother-in-law has claimed," Alexander said. "Trust, after all, is something that should be earned; in fact, the people could do well to be suspicious that it's a possibility, but they should also be intelligent enough to realize that rumors and hearsay are no substitute for experience and knowledge."

"Show to who?" Alex asked. "You've intimated you don't want a regulating council, so he's in no danger of losing a license to sell meat. To his customers, it will be a matter of those accusations against his reputation. I believe you're suggesting that his reputation should be strong enough to weather the blows."

"Well," Alexander cocked his head. "Shouldn't it?"

"Let's say it does," Alex said. "What's to stop him from knowingly selling subpar meat, from time to time, to increase his margins? His reputation will weather the storm. His accusers will be dismissed."

Miss Cabot seemed to have an particularly low prospect of the intelligence of people to know what they were getting themselves into, really. Either that, or Alexander had an incredibly high one. He sighed, just slightly.

"I have faith in people," he said. "I trust that a person who would do that would be found out eventually. Nefarious deeds and dishonest practices may work for a while, but, eventually, they go noticed and they are punished, in one way or another. If a problem does surface, it can be brought to the government on a case-by-case basis, as I have suggested in other classes, and the government can handle it case-by-case because it is not too busy attempting to regulate all the little details in people's daily lives and business."

"I think," Katniss said carefully, "the importance here is proof. What's to stop me from going to the principal and saying I have a verbal agreement with you that you'll give me a good grade provided that I clean the classroom every week. In order for the government to intervene, we'd need to see documented proof that the contract isn't an easy lie."

"What would you consider proof?" Alex asked. "And what intervention should the government take, if it obtains that proof?"

Nation Building and the Origin of Government, Period 5, Class 7, Thursday, 2-17

Discussion - Contracts - NAT07

Re: Discussion - Contracts - NAT07

Re: Discussion - Contracts - NAT07

Re: Discussion - Contracts - NAT07

Re: Discussion - Contracts - NAT07

Re: Discussion - Contracts - NAT07

Re: Discussion - Contracts - NAT07

Re: Discussion - Contracts - NAT07

Re: Discussion - Contracts - NAT07

Re: Discussion - Contracts - NAT07

Re: Discussion - Contracts - NAT07

Re: Discussion - Contracts - NAT07

Re: Discussion - Contracts - NAT07

Re: Discussion - Contracts - NAT07