The Myth of the Social Contract

re: The Myth of the Social Contract

Brainpolice — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:31:47 GMT

Yes, I have read Shaffer and I like what I've seen.

re: The Myth of the Social Contract

dognillo — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 16:48:32 GMT

Brainpolice, I like your postings. They are very logical and thoughtful. I wonder, have you ever read any of Butler Shaffer's or John Hasnas' articles. If not, I recommend "What Is Anarchy" by Butler Shaffer and "The Myth of the Rule of Law" by John Hasnas. Actually, I would recommend anything either of them have written.

re: The Myth of the Social Contract

Brainpolice — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:47:14 GMT

Part of my point is that there is no such thing as a government that upholds such a contract and is formed on the basis of a voluntary contract. That is, there never has been explicit consent to a government in the first place. And under common sense standards of how a contract works, there is no such binding voluntary contract in existance on a political level. So Locke, in still maintaining a classical liberal position, didn't fully apply his own theory or take it far enough.

You're right that Locke was not an anarchist. But it seems undeniable to me that his theories have profoudly anarchistic implications and influenced early anarchism. His opponents attacked him because they knew quite well that the implications of his theories would delegitimize existing ruling governments of the day. The consistant application of Locke's theory would seem to lead to market anarchism, since it would have to be a genuine private voluntary contract among all participants.

re: The Myth of the Social Contract

natschultz — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 20:06:10 GMT

I believe that Locke knew exactly what he was saying when he wrote that as soon as the government breaks the contract, that the contract is no longer binding, and that the government then loses sovereignty. The People own the contract, so this is the fail-safe to guarantee that no sovereign may rule over the People, but the sovereign is to represent and defend the Rights of the People. You are thinking of the government as a sovereign Ruler above the People, not a representative OF the People. Locke was well aware that Rights are natural, but he was well aware that a legal document was necessary to protect those Rights from being violated by an unruly government. He designed the contract as an unbreakable constant; he fully intended the People to hold it in perpetuity and depose any and every government that breaks it. He fully expected that every government would reach a point where it would try to rule over the People, and he believed that the People would use the contract to legally depose each and every one of those governments.

The Declaration of Independence states "It is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government."

It is We the People who failed, not the Constitution. We failed by not deposing all those who broke the contract. We confused our roles; we somehow decided that the goverment, as defender, was also the owner of the contract, not us. Not like the government didn't have a hand in that propaganda.

Locke was not an Anarchist, he was an Idealist. Unfortunately, the People did not live up to his ideals.

re: The Myth of the Social Contract

zsignal — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:03:45 GMT

The "social contract" often gets brought up to defend state redistribution of wealth

re: The Myth of the Social Contract

Geoffrey Allan Plauche — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 23:17:44 GMT

My paper is draws on his analysis in part.

re: The Myth of the Social Contract

Brainpolice — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:01:38 GMT

I agree with your thesis: we never really get out of a state of nature. It reminds me of the "Do We Ever Really Get Out Of Anarchy?" paper by Alfred Kuzan.

re: The Myth of the Social Contract

Geoffrey Allan Plauche — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 01:42:51 GMT

The link got messed up somehow. I guess this blog doesn't support html. Here's the correct link:

www.veritasnoctis.net/.../persistentanarchyapsa2006.pdf

re: The Myth of the Social Contract

Brainpolice — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:07:21 GMT

How did you know my real name?

In either case, I do know that one view of the "social contract" is that it is the result of a merely unwritten agreement of civility that constitutes society. Basically, customary law is the "social contract". In this sense of the term, I fully support the idea of a "social contract". However, this is NOT the standard view of the social contract, nor is it what I'm critisizing.

re: The Myth of the Social Contract

Jon Roland — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:30:44 GMT

"Brainpolice" (Alex Strekal) is unclear on the concept of "social contract". For a better treatment see www.constitution.org/soclcont.htm

re: The Myth of the Social Contract

Brainpolice — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:25:51 GMT

For some reason the link leads to your main page rather then the pdf file.

re: The Myth of the Social Contract

Brainpolice — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:17:04 GMT

Thanks for the link. I'll definitely give it a look. I enjoy what I've seen from you so far.

re: The Myth of the Social Contract

Geoffrey Allan Plauche — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 16:51:25 GMT

You might be interested in my working paper: "<a href="www.veritasnoctis.net/.../persistentanarchyapsa2006.pdf">On the Social Contract and the Persistence of Anarchy</a>."