I will note you used the term "transaction" rather than "interaction." A "transaction" is of course not something that exists in the state of nature. What exists are interactions. E.g. one animal killing and eating another animal. But a "transaction" is an interaction with the additional quality that it is defined relative to some legal framework. A "transaction" has no meaning without reference to a legal framework or the collective threat of force underlying that legal framework. And that legal framework is, of course, a completely arbitrary social construction.
Thus, it is not the transaction that creates the moral obligation. It is the imposition of the legal framework without which transactions would be merely interactions. That legal framework requires everyone to give up the only thing that can be called a "natural right"--the right to kill and eat whatever cross's one's path. The whole collectively sacrifices it's natural liberty in order to construct a structured society that enables wealth creation. It is that collective sacrifice that creates the collective moral obligation.
I'll give you a very concrete example. We make "conversion" a crime. That is basically using property for your own benefit that is in your possession by the voluntary action of another, but does not "belong" to you. Of course, "ownership" in any sense beyond physical possession is the product of a set of legal contrivances. Activity like embezzlement, etc, didn't actually used to be illegal until relatively recently. "Theft" was defined narrowly to taking from someone's physical possession. But we can't really have a modern economy without lower-level people taking physical possession of property that "belongs" to someone else. The truck driver, the parking garage attendant, the cashier, etc. So we alter the legal system to prohibit this certain activity presumably to increase the output of the economic engine. So when you leave your car with a parking garage attendant, you enter into a "transaction" for him to take care of your car, but that "transaction" is obviously meaningless without reference to the legal framework that's in place. And that legal framework involves people giving up the ability to do things they used to be able to do. And that creates the moral obligation.
Approaching the situation from another angle: your reverence for the "transaction" blinds you to the fact that they are nothing more than arbitrary accounting mechanisms within our arbitrary legal framework. At the physical level, the output of the economic engine of a city is the product of everyone's effort. Like a real engine, nothing goes if the fuel pump doesn't pump the gas, the cylinders don't compress the gas, the spark plug doesn't ignite the gas, the valves don't flush out waste products, etc. The fuel pump may consider itself the most important contributor, because after all there is one fuel pump and perhaps half a dozen spark plugs and a dozen or more valves, but the engine does zero work without all its elements. To the extent that anyone benefits from the output of the economic engine of a modern industrial city, they have a moral obligation to all the other elements without which that output wouldn't be possible. The fact that you use accounting mechanisms you call "transactions" to divvy up the output doesn't mean that those "transactions" are the things with real meaning at the physical level.
You haven't detailed what you mean by "obligation".
Specifically:
- What is the obligation? What we deem most beneficial, what society deems most beneficial, what society deems most monetarily valuable, what prolongs the most lives?
- To whom is the obligation due? Those living under the same legal framework as us (at the local, state, or federal level), those living in nations with compatible frameworks, or all of humanity? Do people from the future count, and if so, is improving a life 50 years from now equal to improving a life today?
- Who, specifically, has this obligation? Is it only those who have benefited the most from society, or those who have benefited more than they have given up, or every member of society? Is the obligation limited to able-bodied adults, or does it include children and the handicapped?
- How far does this obligation go? Is there a way to fulfill it and be released from future obligation (say, through adequate military service or charitable giving)? Does the obligation to one society remain even if one moves to a different society?
If the existence of collective sacrifice via legal frameworks is what creates obligation to society, the answers to the above questions should follow from there. I'm having a hard time seeing how you think they do.
So your contention is that a moral obligation is created by the fact that pillage and plunder is no longer permitted? Since we are both protected from pillage and plunder, which of us owes the other?
Another thing I don't quite understand is this - you implicitly seem to treat the right to kill and eat whatever you like as the only "natural right". Is resisting those who might kill/eat you not a "natural right"? I.e., am I obligated to surrender to the cannibals? If not, then it's hard to see how modern society is anything other than a different strategy of resistance, in which case no moral obligation is owed to anyone.
I'm also confused by your change of topic. Previously you were contrasting the subsistence farmer to modern life. Now you seem to be contrasting hunter/gatherer/cannibal life to modern life. Can you explain?
Thus, it is not the transaction that creates the moral obligation. It is the imposition of the legal framework without which transactions would be merely interactions. That legal framework requires everyone to give up the only thing that can be called a "natural right"--the right to kill and eat whatever cross's one's path. The whole collectively sacrifices it's natural liberty in order to construct a structured society that enables wealth creation. It is that collective sacrifice that creates the collective moral obligation.
I'll give you a very concrete example. We make "conversion" a crime. That is basically using property for your own benefit that is in your possession by the voluntary action of another, but does not "belong" to you. Of course, "ownership" in any sense beyond physical possession is the product of a set of legal contrivances. Activity like embezzlement, etc, didn't actually used to be illegal until relatively recently. "Theft" was defined narrowly to taking from someone's physical possession. But we can't really have a modern economy without lower-level people taking physical possession of property that "belongs" to someone else. The truck driver, the parking garage attendant, the cashier, etc. So we alter the legal system to prohibit this certain activity presumably to increase the output of the economic engine. So when you leave your car with a parking garage attendant, you enter into a "transaction" for him to take care of your car, but that "transaction" is obviously meaningless without reference to the legal framework that's in place. And that legal framework involves people giving up the ability to do things they used to be able to do. And that creates the moral obligation.
Approaching the situation from another angle: your reverence for the "transaction" blinds you to the fact that they are nothing more than arbitrary accounting mechanisms within our arbitrary legal framework. At the physical level, the output of the economic engine of a city is the product of everyone's effort. Like a real engine, nothing goes if the fuel pump doesn't pump the gas, the cylinders don't compress the gas, the spark plug doesn't ignite the gas, the valves don't flush out waste products, etc. The fuel pump may consider itself the most important contributor, because after all there is one fuel pump and perhaps half a dozen spark plugs and a dozen or more valves, but the engine does zero work without all its elements. To the extent that anyone benefits from the output of the economic engine of a modern industrial city, they have a moral obligation to all the other elements without which that output wouldn't be possible. The fact that you use accounting mechanisms you call "transactions" to divvy up the output doesn't mean that those "transactions" are the things with real meaning at the physical level.