Re: Tuesday's elections

Once Upon a Midnight Dreary, While Jane Pondered, Weak and Weary, Over
Many a Quaint and Curious Forgotten Post, and then wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------
>John P said:
>
><<<But, if you make a contract in your living room, and you want to
>enforce it, you have no place other than the government to go to, to
>do so. So what good is a contract if you can't use the courts to
>enforce it?
>
>John P
>>>>
>
> There are private contracts privately enforced every day of the
>week--especially among family members. I know gay couples who were
>formally married in church services two decades ago and who are still
>abiding by their contract even though it is not enforcable through the
>state.

I'm confused. Yes, contracts between two parties can be entered into,
but they cannot be enforced except by the government (and maybe the
mafia, but that's a different thing altogether). One can enter into an
unenforceable contract, but by definition, it cannot be enforced. It
can be followed, or abided by the parties, but if someone decides not
to follow it, that's that.

> The point, however, was that the law noted did NOT deal with
>private contracts, but with the way in which the government should
>RESPOND to such contracts, and there's a difference.

I'm missing the distinction here. Are not all contracts private
(except maybe a contract WITH the government as a party)? Individuals,
corporations, unincorporated associations, all are private, and all
may contract with others, and all MUST resort to the government if one
side doesn't perform. As long as the contract is being performed (most
contracts are) then the government is not involved, but once one party
does not perform in accordance with the contract, then the Government
is asked to step in and enforce the contract. So, in that sense, ALL
contracts involve the government, if only because the threat of
government intervention and enforcement keeps most parties in line.
Without the government, contracts would fail, because there would be
no incentive to perform, if you knew there was no one going to force
you.

>
> For instance, I would allow you to come to an agreement with the
>managers of your company to hire only Polish grandmothers for positions
>in the finance department, and I would NOT allow the government or
>disappointed non-Polish-grandmother applicants to force you to hire
>others.
>
> BUT--if your managers decided you were nuts and hired other people
>anyway, I wouldn't allow you to sue them to enforce the contract you
>made with them, since the state could not validate what you were doing
>(back to the equal access/equal protection thing).
>
> You have the right to be left alone to make your own decisions.
>You do not have the right to have those decisions validated by the
>government.

Yes, but in the area of contracts, the government doesn't pre-approve
all contracts. (there are a few exceptions - e.g. contracts involving
minor's settlements need prior approval) Only when there is a default.
So we are all left alone until we don't perform according to the
contract.

That Civil Rights Statute which followed the 14th Amendment apparently
applies to government enforcement and regulation of private contracts
(according to your post - I really don't do much in the area of Civil
Rights, but I do a lot of contracts). I don't think I could enter into
a contract that violated someone's civil rights, and get away with it.
For instance, if I entered into leases in my apartment building, as a
landlord, but only leased to whites, the local Human Relations Board
would be all over my ***. They actually send out testers who pretend
they are leasing, just to see if I am violating those civil rights
statutes.

Are you saying that as individuals, we have a right, despite those
statutes, to lease to whites only?

John P
.