I'm not planning to attack you, but it seems like you've got quite a chip in your shoulder there.
In my view, we would do well to introduce greater familiarity into society. I understand that, as argued by Hayek, the level of wealth modern society has generated is partially due to the shift toward providing services and having interactions with unknown people instead of known people. But I think this is one of the main shortcomings of economists. They have decided that the ultimate objective is "maximum production." And part of the problem is that people don't agree on the definition of maximum production. But if you can set that aside for a moment, and allow that sustainability, community, and health are higher goals than any notion of maximum production, then the stability and other benefits which come from known interactions become very attractive.
How does that relate to contracts? In this way: My view is generally that I only wish to consent to contracts with those I trust. That is to say I trust their word. In my community, I view it as my responsibility to interact and make agreements with parties who have proven themselves trustworthy. I do not expect any outside entity to help me in this regard. Of course, I have to find some things out by experimentation, and I have to expect to get burned sometimes. That's part of the responsibility of life.
Even with "contracts" and all that BS in place, I still get burned. Just drive an old car and have someone wreck it. It would be reasonable to have the car fixed, but the insurance company with their contract in hand is going to total it, and I'm stuck having to either fix it mostly on my own nickel or figure out a way to purchase a vehicle that is 30 times the cost. (Thirty times the cost!) It has happened to me. What's my view? 1. It's my responsibility for being on the road in a dangerous situation. I've taken my life in my hands without regard to sustainability, community, and health. 2. The BS system we have in place which is involuntarily forced on this society is counterproductive and of no use to me.
Now I understand that we have been born and raised in this counterproductive and insane system. But the great question is not how to justify it, if one is honest, but how to find something better---and especially for future generations.
There could, of course, be many helpful (voluntary) structures to help in the natural responsibility of determining viable partners for "anarchist contracts," i.e., contracts which do not rely on a coercive state for enforcement---rating systems with competition for example. And there are lots of others, but they're not so common because people trust what we've got. When they actually experience the outcomes from what we've got, they almost universally complain. But they don't usually see how to improve the situation. Taking personal responsibility is, I think, one way.
And speaking more broadly, you are welcome to set up any kind of "enforcement" you might want, as long as you leave me the opportunity to opt out.
I think one problem with those who oppose voluntarism is that they can't get their mind around anything that does not dominate and permeate everything in a society. They require some sort of absolute monopoly thinking it's going to help. I don't think it helps. Life involves risks. You need to develop relationships with people you can trust.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: