The social contract.

So I'm wondering what the best argument you guys feel, against the social contract theory, is? I suppose its just that entering into a contract without having to sign anything sorta negates it. Or perhaps that the united states can never enforce a territorial contract on us because it slaughtered the original owners of this land and therefore are by default invalid. Anyone have some clever refutations?

There are no good refutations of pure contractarianism.

Now, if you're referring to the Constitution and whatnot, that's an entirely different story. The Constitution isn't even a social contract. Who here agrees with it, yet we're forced to live under it?

 

The authority of the state derives from the consent of the governed.  I whole heartedly believe in that.  The problem is, the state isn't holding up their end.  I don't consent, and yet they still act as if they have authority over me.

 

The real reason is because it's begging the question. It does not really justify the imposition of a group of individuals over a territory, and even less their imposition on non-consenting third parties. It tries to justify rule over an area by way of agreement, without generating a sufficient explanation for why this leads to rights over that territory. Moreover, it does not take the notion of reciprocity or contract seriously. Consider the situation where I mowed your lawn regardless of your own volition, then demanded you pay for it. Why should you? You never even requested it. So, if I provide a service without your wanting it in the expectation to force you to pay for it, it is unclear why this should be taken as just.

-Jon

I think that was a very good decomposition jon thanks. It probably also brings into question the legitimacy of control over a territory and natural land monopoly. How much land can the usa really claim to control. I really don't think drawing lines in the dirt makes you a controller/owner and certainly not legitimate.

 

twistedbydsign99:

So I'm wondering what the best argument you guys feel, against the social contract theory, is? I suppose its just that entering into a contract without having to sign anything sorta negates it. Or perhaps that the united states can never enforce a territorial contract on us because it slaughtered the original owners of this land and therefore are by default invalid. Anyone have some clever refutations?

 

1. It basically is the idea of a perpetual contract, which leads to intergenerational slavery.

2. It puts forth the idea of an "implicit" contract that you didn't even sign being binding on you for merely being born.

3. It's the idea of a contract that you can enforce onto innocent bystanders or 3rd parties.

4. Empirically, they are crafted and only directly consented to by tiny aristocracies.

Here is one of my videos argueing against the statist-social-contract notion from youtube:

Implicit Consent and Intergenerational Slavery

Here is another one that gets more into the practical and empirical argument that the government has reniged on its own alleged contractual obligations (hence, the contract is breached and invalid), that if the Lockean social contract theory is taken to its logical conclusion, no state in the history of mankind can be legitimate, and the general failure of the constitution according to its own terms and alleged purpose:

The Myth of the Social Contract

BP, you are a very nice shade of blue.

The social contract - how do I sign out?

 

Thank you for the video replies BP. I hate arguing about this topic actually because they use the word "contact." That contradiction in terms kinda makes my brain turn to mush.

 

Notice that "social," when prefixed to anything, causes it to mean its opposite. "Social justice" is unjust; "social security" is insecure; "social contracts" are the opposite of contracts--i.e., slavery.

--Len

Perhaps one should first make sure we have consensus on what is used by social contract theory.

twistedbydsign99:

So I'm wondering what the best argument you guys feel, against the social contract theory, is? I suppose its just that entering into a contract without having to sign anything sorta negates it.

You do not have to sign something to be in a contract. Even if many people think that one "signs a contract". One doesn't, one only affirms the existence of a contract via signature and the signed document is henceforth documentary proof of the existence of a contract as declared within the document.

A contract is an agreement between more then one parties. Such an agreement can come into existence if A states an intention to B. There maybe conditions that apply. With other words if you tell someone you sell item Y for X amount this already would be a contract, if it is accepted and the conditions are to be met. Then there are implicit contracts as well...

twistedbydsign99:

Or perhaps that the united states can never enforce a territorial contract on us because it slaughtered the original owners of this land and therefore are by default invalid. Anyone have some clever refutations?

 It slaughthered the original owners? Is that a true statement?

Anyway don't forget that warfare is one of the means to gain dominion over a territory just as homesteading, purchasing/exchanging, receiving are donation etc. are. Besides that, I think this would be making a category mistake. Because this only would render the claim invalid, but not the principle. The principle in question would be assuming a legitimate claim to territory and that this claim would result into a legitimate (social) contract over the inhabitants.

 

Len Budney:

Notice that "social," when prefixed to anything, causes it to mean its opposite. "Social justice" is unjust; "social security" is insecure; "social contracts" are the opposite of contracts--i.e., slavery.

--Len

Good point Len, more Newspeak!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNj0VhK19QU

This video shows how the social contract, as implemented by the government, is self -contradictory, and eventually shown to be a moral evil. I've used this a few times and its worked quite well ;)

Torsten:

A contract is an agreement between more then one parties. Such an agreement can come into existence if A states an intention to B. There maybe conditions that apply. With other words if you tell someone you sell item Y for X amount this already would be a contract, if it is accepted and the conditions are to be met. Then there are implicit contracts as well...

All true. But there's no way that a third party can be sucked into a contract against his will. Even an implicit contract involves intentionality from both parties. For example, if I invite you into my home, I'm implicitly agreeing that I won't kill and eat you once you're inside. But this implicit contract was created when I invited and you accepted--it didn't fall on my head from the sky.

--Len

I think you made good and true points torsten thanks for clarifying my attempts. I found it important to invalidate the actual claim because I think that if it can be said that you are the legitimate owner of a land, that you can decide who lives there. So basically I was trying to invalidate their property rights over my current residence. I don't want the argument turned around on me in the form of "well if you dont agree to the implicit contract then you can leave." Something a legitimate owner could say.

Len Budney:

All true. But there's no way that a third party can be sucked into a contract against his will. Even an implicit contract involves intentionality from both parties.

Personally I think "social contract" maybe a bit misleading wording.

To me the term contract means a conscious agreement between at least two parties. Social consensus may be a better term.

Len Budney:

 For example, if I invite you into my home, I'm implicitly agreeing that I won't kill and eat you once you're inside.

Unless you'd be a cannibal.

Len Budney:

But this implicit contract was created when I invited and you accepted--it didn't fall on my head from the sky.

 Besides that, even, if one didn't explicitly agree on it, their are customs that imply certain norms and behaviour.

Well, staying in a country - Being of some nation etc. may imply certain duties, rights and norms as well.

 

Well, staying in a country - Being of some nation etc. may imply certain duties, rights and norms as well.

No it does not. It only does if we assume a false premise, I.E. legitimacy. But "the country" as a whole and in the abstract has no rightful owner. That's the problem with the whole "you implicitly consent to these laws, norms, privileges, etc., by living within the country" thing. It assumes what it's trying to prove.