>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
|