Agreement to agree: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{g}}The sort of thing a [[co-calculation agent]] is expected to do — one that law students learn in lesson one of ''The Law of {{tag|Contract}}'' one logically cannot be obliged to do, is agree that you will, later, agree on something you cannot be bothered to agree upon just yet. But oh, perfidious syntax of our earthly legal frames! Those who foresee arguments about [[valuation]] know there are jagged corals of metaphysical rock not deep beneath our footsteps.
{{a|contract|
[[File:Jungfrau.png|450px|thumb|center|O Tempora! O {{t|paradox}}!]]
}}The sort of thing a [[co-calculation agent]] is expected to do — one that law students learn in lesson one of ''The Law of {{tag|Contract}}'' one logically cannot be obliged to do is agree that you will, later, agree on something you cannot be bothered to agree upon just yet. But oh, perfidious syntax of our earthly legal frames! Those who foresee arguments about [[valuation]] know there are jagged corals of metaphysical rock not far beneath our footsteps.


This paradox curls back reflexively on itself, for if you agree to it, you must ''have'' agreed, but if you have ''not'' agreed it, you ''can’t'' have.
This {{t|paradox}} curls back reflexively on itself, for if you agree to it, you must ''have'' agreed, but if you have ''not'' agreed it, you ''can’t'' have.


This sort of thing made Kurt Gödel very famous, but unpopular with Bertrand Russel and David Hilbert. It is an example of the necessary incompleteness of law as a logical system.
This sort of thing made [[Kurt Gödel]] very famous, but unpopular with Bertrand Russel and David Hilbert. It is an example of the necessary incompleteness of law as a logical system.


An organising principle of the law is that, within identifiable limits prescribed by public law (such as crimes), a citizen is free to agree anything. But the set of things one is free to agree does not include agreement itself. for if you agree it, you must already be consigned to it, so ''you are no longer free to agree it''. And if you remain free to agree it, then ''you have not agreed it''.
An organising principle of the law is that, within identifiable limits prescribed by public law (such as crimes), a citizen is free to agree anything. But the set of things one is free to agree does not include agreement itself. For, if you agree it, you must already be consigned to it, so ''you are no longer free to agree it''. And if you remain free to agree it, then ''you have not agreed it''.


Drink that in a while, fellow [[Daybreak|aeronaut of the logical spirit]].
Drink that in a while, fellow [[Daybreak|aeronaut of the logical spirit]]. And don’t ask about ''[[culpa in contrahendo]]''.
{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*''[[Culpa in contrahendo]]''
*[[Co-calculation agent]]
*[[Co-calculation agent]]
*[[Valuation]]
*[[Valuation]]
{{draft}}{{egg}}
{{draft}}{{egg}}

Navigation menu