May 7, 2020, 8:32 AM
The lender baits you into hazard, not the manufacturer. cash in hand is a present demonstrated capacity. credit is a prediction of future demonstrated capacity.
So we don’t confuse ideals (omniscience) with due diligence and statistics free of arbitrage. Where arbitrage is charging
It’s reciprocal as long as it’s fully informed. (we also included right to repair – which would increase the price of the car and decrease the price of maintenance.) creditworthiness is an actuarial science, and with linear returns and without loss-arbitrage, problem disappears.
If it wasn’t in one’s self interest one wouldn’t do it. The court can’t determine self interest (via positiva) it can only determine harm. Courts do not determine ‘good’ (that’s choice) they determine harm.
The Labor of rule of law is divided by design: Monarchy, Military, Law, Government, Court, Individual. And that law produces limits on monarchy, military, Government, court, and the individual.
- The individual produces agreements (good, specific).
- Court produces rulings (bad, specific),
- Government produces legislation (good and general),
- The military produces commands (necessary specific crisis)
- In UK Monarchy for when all fail. Monarchy is above the law. (Specific Crisis)
The foundation of contract law is reciprocity, and irreciprocal contracts will not be enforced by the court. The problem is the court’s definition of irreciprocity favors personal choice and consequence rather than legal defense from baiting into hazard.
P increases the scope of the law to cover both false promise, and baiting into hazard, at contractual ( private contracts ) and political ( contracts of the commons ) scales. This is the weakness in the current law.
(Imagine what would happen if we kept credit ratings, but ended debt collection. We might not have to do anything else.)