Focus on the Individual

In response to: Krieble (1995) makes a very sensible statement: "the only limit to freedom should be laws that prevent any citizen from infringing on the freedom of others". A legislative framework is essential for a stable economic development. Without suitable laws, business partners might not feel obliged to fulfill a legal contract. Guess it is part of the human nature: the more freedom we enjoy the more we forget about legislative limits. Or do I see this wrongly?

I think that you see it correctly. This is the basis for a "minimal" set of laws. Notice that this approach focuses on the individual as the primary unit of society. The individual can decide to do what she feels she would like to do, as long as her decision does not interfere with the rights of another individual.

This is also the focus that underlies the concept of a capitalist (or free market) economy. In a truly free market, decisions are voluntary. One individual negotiates with another individual concerning the purchase or sale of products, whether a person will work for another person, etc.

However, to maintain such an economic system, you need a minimal set of rules such as rules that prevent one person from using force on other (murder, assault, etc.), rules that prevents one person from taking property by force or deceit (theft, fraud, disclosure requirements, etc.), rules that define property rights so that you know who owns or controls particular things, rules that define and enforce contracts so that people having made voluntary agreements are required to honor their agreements, and rules that define how people can work collectively and through others (this is agency law, which includes laws defining and regulating corporations, partnerships, LLC and agent relationships).

How would you expect law to differ if the focus is not on the individual, but instead focuses on the "tribe" or "society as a whole" as the basic unit?

		July 11, 2005 *Focus on the Individual*
	In response to: Krieble (1995) makes a very sensible statement: "the only limit to freedom should be laws that prevent any citizen from infringing on the freedom of others". A legislative framework is essential for a stable economic development. Without suitable laws, business partners might not feel obliged to fulfill a legal contract. Guess it is part of the human nature: the more freedom we enjoy the more we forget about legislative limits. Or do I see this wrongly? I think that you see it correctly. This is the basis for a "minimal" set of laws. Notice that this approach focuses on the individual as the primary unit of society. The individual can decide to do what she feels she would like to do, as long as her decision does not interfere with the rights of another individual. This is also the focus that underlies the concept of a capitalist (or free market) economy. In a truly free market, decisions are voluntary. One individual negotiates with another individual concerning the purchase or sale of products, whether a person will work for another person, etc. However, to maintain such an economic system, you need a minimal set of rules such as rules that prevent one person from using force on other (murder, assault, etc.), rules that prevents one person from taking property by force or deceit (theft, fraud, disclosure requirements, etc.), rules that define property rights so that you know who owns or controls particular things, rules that define and enforce contracts so that people having made voluntary agreements are required to honor their agreements, and rules that define how people can work collectively and through others (this is agency law, which includes laws defining and regulating corporations, partnerships, LLC and agent relationships). How would you expect law to differ if the focus is not on the individual, but instead focuses on the "tribe" or "society as a whole" as the basic unit?