If you are asking whether duress is a factor in an implicit contract, the answer is “It can be”. Personally, I don’t think that any contract can be made where one party has placed another party into duress, but the system of universal consent fails to robustly account for people who choose not to consent to the government which controls the area in which they happen to be physically present and lack the ability to leave without using the infrastructure provided by that government.
Returning the value you received involves returning the cost to the other parties, not removing the benefit to yourself. What cost was incurred as part of the implicit contract “I will help you live if you accept unstated obligations afterward”, what part of the cost of raising you was incurred as part of the social and legal obligation to care for children, and what part was provided freely and without obligation?
Returning the value you received involves returning the cost to the other parties
Ah, I see. Well, that’s far more convenient. Does this include opportunity costs?
what part of the cost of raising you was incurred as part of the social and legal obligation to care for children, and what part was provided freely and without obligation?
Beats me… what does the social and legal obligation to care for children comprise?
Ah, I see. Well, that’s far more convenient. Does this include opportunity costs?
Either it includes only opportunity costs, or it includes only direct costs. You don’t have to give them back what they spent AND also give them what they could have gotten with that. Unfortunately, costs also include time and other things that are hard to quantify.
Beats me… what does the social and legal obligation to care for children comprise?
Ah. Well, if all of it is obligatory, then it follows that none of it is provided freely and without obligation. That’s easy enough to calculate, at least.
Assuming that math applies in this case, it is. I was using the counterquestion “How much of it could have been withheld without sanctions being applied?”. Actual values may vary.
If you are asking whether duress is a factor in an implicit contract, the answer is “It can be”. Personally, I don’t think that any contract can be made where one party has placed another party into duress, but the system of universal consent fails to robustly account for people who choose not to consent to the government which controls the area in which they happen to be physically present and lack the ability to leave without using the infrastructure provided by that government.
Returning the value you received involves returning the cost to the other parties, not removing the benefit to yourself. What cost was incurred as part of the implicit contract “I will help you live if you accept unstated obligations afterward”, what part of the cost of raising you was incurred as part of the social and legal obligation to care for children, and what part was provided freely and without obligation?
I’m not asking about duress at all.
Ah, I see. Well, that’s far more convenient. Does this include opportunity costs?
Beats me… what does the social and legal obligation to care for children comprise?
Either it includes only opportunity costs, or it includes only direct costs. You don’t have to give them back what they spent AND also give them what they could have gotten with that. Unfortunately, costs also include time and other things that are hard to quantify.
All of it, I think.
Ah.
Well, if all of it is obligatory, then it follows that none of it is provided freely and without obligation.
That’s easy enough to calculate, at least.
Assuming that math applies in this case, it is. I was using the counterquestion “How much of it could have been withheld without sanctions being applied?”. Actual values may vary.