The reality is that as you move up the social hierarchy in modern human society, trust tends to vanish and is ultimately viewed as something only a rube would rely on. This is why contract law exists, doesn't it?
For example, in the upper tiers of corporations all employment is on a contract basis. Nobody at these levels trusts they will be treated fairly and given a severance package if they are fired, without an explicit contract stating the terms and conditions of employment. Contracts are renewed or renegotiated every few years, right? In contrast, entry-level employees never get contracts, they can be fired at will with no warning or severance, at least in the United States where union power is very limited, relative to Europe.
Similarly, look at the prevalence of marital contracts that imply a lack of trust among the parties, i.e. the famous pre-nuptial agreement regarding how the net wealth of the couple will be divided up in the event of a divorce. There's a zero-trust situation that's increasingly common.
It's true that a society where nobody trusts anyone else and all are suspicious of each other's motives is not a very healthy society, but isn't this also the assumption of the economic theorists who claim all humans are basically little more than rational autonomous self-improving algorithms, with net assets being the benchmark of success?
When I worked with non-trivial (>$1m) contracts, I learned that the sooner you start pointing to contract language, the sooner the relationship breaks down. “Working with” partners through shortfalls and giving second chances resulted in much more long term success than sticking to the letter of the contract.
Part of the reason, I think, is simple human relationship-building. And a big part of that is trust. Trust and credit also play into it directly - the vendor knows we didn’t penalize them when they delivered a feature a month late, so they’re willing to surge when we have a requirement pop up that needs fixing quicker than we agreed to.
Or it exists so that everyone makes sure that everyone else understands the words/concepts being used in the same way.
What does (e.g.) "full payment on final construction" mean? Well, it depends on who you ask. Contracts there to (hopefully) make sure everyone is agreeing to the same transaction.
> The reality is that as you move up the social hierarchy in modern human society, trust tends to vanish and is ultimately viewed as something only a rube would rely on. This is why contract law exists, doesn't it?
I thought about this in such framing, too.
My observation was exactly this: in “higher classes” it looks like trust is implied, and in lower classes everybody is verified.
My logic, however, runs such that we need to elevate the entire society to that level, rather than drop it to the level of “rubes” you mention.
I.e., treat everyone as a respectable individual—a mentally healthy person tends to behave the way they are perceived by others—and by working on general well-being eliminate mental constructs that push people to secure themselves at the expense of others. Does this make sense?
For example, in the upper tiers of corporations all employment is on a contract basis. Nobody at these levels trusts they will be treated fairly and given a severance package if they are fired, without an explicit contract stating the terms and conditions of employment. Contracts are renewed or renegotiated every few years, right? In contrast, entry-level employees never get contracts, they can be fired at will with no warning or severance, at least in the United States where union power is very limited, relative to Europe.
Similarly, look at the prevalence of marital contracts that imply a lack of trust among the parties, i.e. the famous pre-nuptial agreement regarding how the net wealth of the couple will be divided up in the event of a divorce. There's a zero-trust situation that's increasingly common.
It's true that a society where nobody trusts anyone else and all are suspicious of each other's motives is not a very healthy society, but isn't this also the assumption of the economic theorists who claim all humans are basically little more than rational autonomous self-improving algorithms, with net assets being the benchmark of success?