>From: "Robert Rolen" <robert_rolen@...>
<snipped>
>
>I know I'm probably supposed to hold my questions for now, but hopefully
>you can briefly explain this one clause to me.
>
>"7. No Freeman is Required to accept or Perform any Entitlement of any
>Valid Contract, including The Contract."
>
>[Did you read the definitions for the words that are highlighted and
>linked? Also there are the annotations for the "Symmetrical Stipulations"
>(Heading for Section A) that cover items numbered 1-7 (8 and 9 having their
>own annotation file). Did you click on the colored background as explained
>in the Introduction? "For each subsection of The Contract there is an
>annotation page, which is linked from and to the subsection to which it
>relates. (All such annotation page links are indicated herein by text with
>a colored background at the beginning of every subsection of text.)" **kitty]

I see how it works now. I was just reading the definitions, but the
annotation page clears it up. My apologies for any wasted time.

>[While it is suggested to read the NSC through the first time skipping the
>Definition Section and starting at the Whereas Section, it will generally
>be necessary to use the links to the defined words and to the annotations
>for full clarity.
>
>BTW, this was a question I had for Paul when I read it while editing and so
>the annotation for it was created. The key here is to make sure that you
>understand the words "Required" and "Entitlement". **Kitty]

My problem was with the "Perform" part. It kind of sounds like one might
not be required to "render" an entitlement due to another under a signed
contract. It might help to just delete "Perform" unless there is something
I'm still missing there.

It's kind of interesting to note that what might be an "Entitlement" to one
person (received benefit), might be a burden/obligation to another depending
on the situation and what makes each happy.

[I think that you are getting somewhat confused by the words because you are not
keeping yourself clear about their exact meanings. Currently in a normal
contract each party has both rights and obligations. In general these are
inverse or reciprocal. The rights of a party A are the obligations of another
party B and vice versa. Even for the description of contracts under the NSC I
have chosen to eschew the word "rights" (even though within current contracts
that word has no connotation of natural or inalienable rights) because of the
ambiguity of the word "rights" in general. Therefore, when you read my word
"entitlement" you should think of the use of the word "right" solely as it is
used in current contracts. Perhaps an example will help to illustrate.

Simple Services Contract

Bill's Obligations and Entitlements
1. Bill is obligated to place a culvert under a driveway in a designated
position for John.
2. Bill is entitled to receive $25 at the start of the job and $75 when the job
is complete to the satisfaction of John.

John's Obligations and Entitlements
1. John is obligated to offer Bill $25 at the start of the job and $75 when the
job is complete to his satisfaction.
2. John is entitled to have a culvert placed under his driveway in a designated
position for $100 total outlay to Bill

In the above example, the statement "No Freeman is Required to accept or Perform
any Entitlement of any Valid Contract" means that Bill does not have to take
(perform the act of taking) either of the $25 or $75 payments (for example upon
completing the job and finding that it took less time than he estimated, Bill
could instead only take an additional $60). It also means that John does not
have to require Bill to complete the job (perform the act of holding Bill to the
contract) or may pay him more than the agreed price - ie. does not have to
perform the act of paying him only the agreed price (for example if the job was
much harder/longer than both had estimated). In fact, a cooperative value for
value approach would be one where neither Bill nor John would *hold* the other
to his obligations, but instead would alter the contract terms as fit with the
reality of the situation as it became more apparent. This value for value
approach is thus contrary to the current well known principle of buyer (or
contractor) beware, a principle that I maintain should be left in the
uncivilized antisocial past.

OTOH, Bill is required to perform the obligations of the contract which are to
complete the culvert placement once he has received the $25. And John is
required to perform the obligations of the contract, which are to offer Bill $25
as soon as he shows up to do the job, and to offer him $75 when he (John) is
satisfied that the job is complete.

With respect to your phrase "what might be an "Entitlement" to one
person (received benefit), might be a burden/obligation to another depending on
the situation and what makes each happy." it should be noted that "entitlement"
is not identical to "received benefit" (one difference is that an entitlement
does not have to be actually ever received). One's entitlement is more like
something owed by another rather than something actually given. In fact, once a
benefit is given to A, that particular instance of entitlement is no longer an
entitlement of A. Furthermore A can always voluntarily relinquish an entitlement
by permitting B (the obligated person) to not perform the beneficial act (which
is what I mean by A - the entitled person - not being required to perform hir
entitlement).

But this also applies to entitlements that are not related to owed benefits in
the sense of payable goods or services. For example, one does not have to
perform one's property entitlement. One can instead permit another or even all
others to freely use one's real estate or material possessions if one really
wants to.

Finally, "obligation" and "burden" are also not synonymous. Most obligations are
very happily paid because the benefit gained as a result of incurring the
obligation increased one's overall happiness (ie it was an exchange to mutual
advantage). Furthermore, even obligations which gain one no clear direct benefit
(such as the obligations of a Social Contract to not use the real estate or
material possessions of another) are not a burden if one keeps in mind their
many long range benefits to oneself. As for one's happiness, in the long run
performing one's obligations is every bit as conducive to one's happiness as is
accepting and receiving one's entitlements, when both are deemed as a fair
exchange by both parties to the exchange (which is why the value for value
approach is so important to the maintenance of friendly/happy exchanges).
--Paul]


Thanks,
R. Rolen

[Hopefully this now fully answers your original question, Robert. Except for
some small question or comment about what appears to be a mistake (such as you
did here), please note down further comments, questions and suggestions for
discussion once Paul has completed the Natural Social Contract draft and its
annotations. **Kitty]