Implicit Contracts and Evictionism

From: B

Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 4:08 PM

To: [email protected]

Subject: Implicit contract and evictionism

Dear Professor Block, Thanks for more thought provoking content.

I have a quick question. You stated ” I see a continuum here: implicit contracts can be stretched, but there’s a limit. Death for innocent people I think falls well within the line.” I agree.

How does an unborn child not have an implicit contract with the mother who brought about the conditions under which a child is trapped in the mother’s booby trap? If anyone on Earth should be allowed the privilege it would be an unborn who can’t make a contract any other way. The mother certainly didn’t put out a sign saying, No Trespassing. Just the opposite they had sex, which is considered an invitation to pregnancy by everyone. You previously said you didn’t think it’s an invitation but then it would by default be an intruder, who was set up and trapped by the mother to be killed later. In the mothers case she Baited, Set the Trap and finished the child off.

Best Regards, B

Dear B:

Nice try. No. I amend that. Brilliant try, on your part. But, I don’t think your attempted reductio against my evictionist thesis succeeds.

For one thing, the implicit contract, if it exists by analogy, would just be to not kill the fetus, merely evict him. True, the baby will die, but so would the hiker-camper perish in the freezing woods, if he cannot gain access to the cabin.

For another disanalogy consider the case of rape. Here, the unborn child is a clear and present trespasser. He is already inside the “cabin.” My claim is that the mother has the right only to evict the fetus. To return to the hiker, suppose he is already inside the cabin. Somehow he has eluded the booby trapped gun. Along comes the owner of the cabin, who tells the camper to leave. Your argument would imply that the owner has no right to evict him. Thus, you are asserting an implicit contract not only to refrain from booby trapping the cabin (without posting a warning sigh to that effect) but, also, that there is some sort of implicit contract for the owner of the cabin to allow the trespasser to remain. This is highly problematic from a libertarian perspective, even if both can survive in the cabin. If only one can, you view implies that the owner must leave, but the hiker may remain.

I thank you for pushing me on this.

Best regards,

Walter

Share

5:21 pm on October 22, 2019