Contract Theory, Title Transfer, and Libertarianism
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
In the present paper we argue that the theory of contracts embraced by many libertarian scholars and relied upon by them in sundry important debates (e.g. over morality of the fractional reserve banking or loan maturity mismatching etc.), that is, the title transfer theory of contracts (TTT) should be rejected as not being able to account for the binding force of future-oriented contracts, including contracts deemed enforceable by those scholars themselves. The TTT claims that the only contracts that should be legally binding are these where the debtor’s failure to abide by them constitutes a violation of the creditor’s private property rights. However, as we argue, no default of the debtor in a future-oriented contract can in itself amount to such a violation.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
By submitting his/her work to the Editorial Board, the author accepts, upon having his/her text recommended for publication, that Diametros applies the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license to the works we publish. Under this license, authors agree to make articles legally available for reuse, without permission or fees. Anyone may read, download, copy, print, distribute or reuse these articles without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author, as long as the author and original source are properly cited. The author holds the copyright without any other restrictions. Full information about CC-BY: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.
How to Cite
References
Anscombe G.E.M. (1957/2000), Intention, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Atiyah P.S. (1979), The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Block W.E. (2016), “Forestalling, Positive Obligations and the Lockean and Blockian Provisos: Rejoinder to Stephan Kinsella,” Ekonomia–Wroclaw Economic Review 22 (3): 27–41.
Block W.E. (2013), Legalize Blackmail, Straylight Publishing, New Orleans.
Block W.E. (2003), “Towards a Libertarian Theory of Inalienability: A Critique of Rothbard, Barnett, Smith, Kinsella, Gordon, and Epstein,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 17 (2): 39–85.
Brinig M.F. (1990), “Rings and Promises,” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 6 (1): 203–215.
Calabresi G., Melamed A.D. (1972), “Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability,” Harvard Law Review 85 (6): 1089–1128.
Child J.W. (1994), “Can Libertarianism Sustain a Fraud Standard?,” Ethics 104 (4): 717–744.
Cohen L. (1987), “Marriage, Divorce, and Quasi Rents; or, “I Gave Him the Best Years of My Life”,” The Journal of Legal Studies 16 (2): 267–303.
Davidson D. (2001), Essays on Actions and Events, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Davidson L. (2015), “Ethical Differences Between Loan Maturity Mismatching and Fractional Reserve Banking: A Natural Law Approach,” Journal of Business Ethics 131: 9–18.
Dominiak Ł. (2019), “Must Right-Libertarians Embrace Easements by Necessity?,” Diametros 16 (60): 34–51.
Evers W.M. (1977), “Toward a Reformulation of the Law of Contracts,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 1 (1): 3–13.
Feenstra R.C., Taylor A.M. (2014), International Economics, Worth Publishers, New York.
Ferguson B. (2018), “Can Libertarians Get Away with Fraud?,” Economics & Philosophy 34 (2): 165–184.
Fletcher G.P. (1978/2000), Rethinking Criminal Law, Oxford University Press, New York.
Fried Ch. (1981/2015), Contract as Promise, Oxford University Press, New York.
Friedman D. (2000), Law’s Order: What Economics has to do with Law and Why it Matters, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Hohfeld W.N. (1913), “Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning,” Yale Law Journal 23 (1): 16–59.
Holmes O.W. (1881/2009), The Common Law, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Kinsella N.S. (2003), “A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 17 (2): 11–37.
Kinsella N.S. (2009), “What Libertarianism Is,” [in:] Property, Freedom & Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, J.G. Hülsmann, N.S. Kinsella (eds.), Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn.
Kramer M.H. (2002), “Rights Without Trimmings,” [in:] A Debate Over Rights: Philosophical Enquires, M.H. Kramer, N.E. Simmonds, H. Steiner (eds.), Oxford University Press, New York.
Langdell C.C. (1880), A Summary of the Law of Contracts, Little, Brown, and Company, Boston.
Moore M.S. (1993), Act and Crime: The Philosophy of Action and Its Implications for Criminal Law, Oxford University Press, New York.
Moore M.S. (1997), Placing Blame: A Theory of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press, New York.
Moore M.S. (2009), Causation and Responsibility: An Essay in Law, Morals, and Metaphysics, Oxford University Press, New York.
Nozick R. (1974/2014), Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Posner R. (1973), The Economic Analysis of Law, Little Brown, Boston.
Rawls J. (1971/1999), A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Rothbard M.N. (1982/2002), The Ethics of Liberty, New York University Press, New York.
Rothbard M.N. (1962/2009), Man, Economy, and State, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn.
Selgin G., White L.H. (1996), “In Defense of Fiduciary Media – or, We Are Not Devo(lutionists), We Are Misesians!,” Review of Austrian Economics 9 (2): 83–107.
Steiner H. (1994), An Essay on Rights, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
Steiner H. (2019), “Asymmetric Information, Libertarianism, and Fraud,” Review of Social Economy 77 (2): 94–107.
von Savigny F.C. (1848/1979), Treatise on Possession; or, the Jus Possessionis of the Civil Law, Hyperion Press, Westport.
Zwolinski M. (2016), “The Libertarian Nonaggression Principle,” Social Philosophy and Policy 32 (2): 62–90.