>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