The Glade 4.0

Just a random thought that popped into my head, but doesn't government enforcement of contracts, just like any other government regulation of commerce, constitute a distortion of the free market? In a completely free market, my decision to enter an agreement with you would depend entirely on my estimate of your ability and willingness to perform, so I'd do more research and be less likely (in theory) to do business with lousy credit risks. If, however, I can rely on the government to force you to perform (*ETA: or more commonly to collect damages from you on my behalf if you don't perform), then I don't have to do as much of that research and I'm more likely (in theory) to participate in unwise transactions. How is that different than, say, the FDIC, SEC regulations, the FDA, etc., etc.?

What makes you think the government forces folks to perform?

Who's forcing Madoff to perform? He's going to jail for breaking the law, but for the folks who aren't getting their money back, where's the gov forcing performance?

I performed work for a company just starting out once. They had loans, they were selling franchises, and I was out thousands of dollars in radio and tv ad time I paid for to do their advertising. They walked away, I got nothing.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Fair point, I've reworded the OP to reflect the fact that enforcement of contract usually means requiring payment of damages (and/or imposing other penalties) rather than actual performance. Either way, though, my point is that the government uses its power to strongly incentivize performance, to adjudicate disputes, assess damages, etc., all of which are distortions of the free market.

It is my understanding that the definition of a free market is one that is free from Gov't coercion except to regulate contracts to protect against force or fraud. Contract protections are inherent to a free market, I'm sure that doesn't really answer your question, but it is part and parcel of a free market.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Maybe it does to some extent. It makes it normal which is what the traditional meaning of regulate means.

So what? Only sith and rabid anonymous extremists deal in absolutes.

A little sugar in my coffee makes it good. Too much rots my teeth and makes me ill.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Regulate = to make regulars, in good and working condition.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

This.

However I think if we were to remove gov enforcement of contract law, then we should also do away with the penalties for those who would seek alternative means to ensure the contract was kept. We can call it Somalian economics.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

exactly

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Well, I think it's pretty well been said already, but "free market" (while a somewhat ambiguous term) isn't synonymous with economic anarchy. Most typically, it denotes the laissez-faire mode.

In any case, I don't think anyone here advocates a complete withdrawal of government from the economic sphere. Speaking for myself, I believe it should do in this sphere that which it has been empowered to do any other: to protect the essential rights of its citizens -- nothing more, nothing less. To that end, punishing breach of contract and fraud is a necessary role of government. If you pay someone $1,000 to repair your roof, but then they only do half of it and abandon the job, then they have stolen your money just as much as if they had broken into your house and taken a wad of cash. It is, simply, theft and should be punished as such and for the same reasons.

I suppose you could say this is a distortion of an anarchic market (which suits me just fine), but not of a free market, as it is usually meant. In that sense, "distortion" refers to artificially altering basic market forces and relationships like supply and demand, the price system, time preferences (saving v. spending), and (honest) risk.

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Rangerdave:

A free market is not a fair market. A fair market can only be achieved under certain conditions. Enforcement of contracts is a big one.

And yes, it's a slippery slope.