From: GBurch1@aol.com
Date: Fri Oct 18 1996 - 06:33:03 MDT
In a message dated 96-10-17 16:09:09 EDT, Robin Hanson writes:
> You can have a contract without much property, and a contract can
> agree to pretty much any arrangement imaginable, including ones
> without any property. So contracts seem more general.
I've been turning this over and over and can't seem to imagine a contract
that doesn't involve _some_ reference to property rights. It is possible to
imagine a contract of "pure" personal service ... "I'll think for you about
such-and-such a subject and tell you what I come up with for so many
dollars," for instance. But it seems that this contract can be translated
into the statement: "I sell you the right to know what I think about
such-and-such". You now _own_ that right. This may be a mere word game, but
since property rights are obviously fundamental to more concrete
transactions, what am I missing?
Greg Burch <GBurch1@aol.com> <burchg@liddellsapp.com>
http://users.aol.com/gburch1 or http://members.aol.com/gburch1
"Barrister's speeches vanish quicker than Chinese dinners,
and even the greatest victory in court rarely survives
longer than the next Sunday's papers."
-- Rumpole o' the Bailey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:47 MST