>So, the forms of cooperation are two - voluntary and involuntary.  
  
  
Not really. Most cooperation is neither; most   
cooperation is tacit, habitual, inculturated.   
Contract and coercion (which are actually two   
aspects of the same thing) come into play only at   
the edges, and always presume tacit knowledge and   
cooperation, a certain "habitual" virtue, and a   
certain "cultural" agreement (usually tacit)   
about the meaning of things and the required   
actions. No business relationship is entirely   
spelled out in a contract (else no contract would   
be shorter than an encyclopedia) but only what   
needs to be spelled out for the other forms of   
cooperation to function in that particular   
instance. And the cultural problem can be   
insurmountable. Did the Indians, who did not   
share our notions of allodial land ownership,   
really sell Manhattan for $24? Or did they sell   
something else, something that was worth, at   
best, $24 dollars? The cooperated, they   
contracted, but what did that cooperation mean, what was that contract for?  
  
When a civilization is in decline, that is, when   
tacit and habitual cooperation no longer work,   
then the role of law, lawyers, and judges must   
increase, because only contract and coercion remain.  
  
  
  
>So, are we discussing the history of a science that has become an end in  
>itself while perhaps losing touch with the real world? Or as Prabhu asks,  
>how do we evaluate economic history - from inside the discipline, or from  
>outside where uncertainty is the only thing that's certain.  
  
Theories are always easiest if we do not allow reality to intrude.  
  
  
John C. Medaille