The Myth of the Social Contract

[sangha]

Well, in truth, your choices are limited aren't they?

For instance, I'm not overly keen on a lot of things the government does; some of them make me furious or ashamed or disgusted. Yet for the most part, I shrug and carry on. I'm not going to uproot my child, leave my family and friends behind, leave everything I know and move to Outer Botswana in the hope it will be better there because they don't have X or do Y. Anywhere I might move other than America, I'm probably going to be giving up a lot for a dubious return. As the Declaration says, (rough paraphrase) "People are inclined to accept familiar abuses, while those abuses are tolerable, because mankind is loathe to change the familiar."

Renegotiate.... someone, (Rathi?) mentioned that "renegotiation" often involves revolution or armed revolt, as in the European serfs of the Middle Ages. Revolution has its own risks and follies... one being that it is often a case of "out of the frying pan, into the fire". We tend to forget this in America, because our own Revolution worked out exceptionally well, but in France they had one which was followed by Robespierre's Rein of Terror and then by a dictator named Napoleon. Russia's revolution was followed by Bolsheviks who shot dissidents, and then by Stalin who did them in on a larger scale.

As for peaceful renegotiation... well we do that every other year when we vote, don't we? At least in theory... in practice does much really change for the better? Rarely.

It isn't really much of a choice, now is it? Just like "your money or your life" isn't much of a choice, lol.

So what else do we do? We carry on, and we bitch about our disgruntlement with (insert political bone to pick here) on Internet forums... :lol:

Yes, there are different means of "renegotiation". But one should be prepared for the consequences. If a majority agree with you, then there's a good chance of success, and rightfully so. A govt whose governing has resulted in a majority taking up arms (or even a smaller portion) is obviously in need of reform, and if that reform can not be achieved through the processes set up to do so, then the people have an inherent right to rise up and overthrow their govt.

 

[sangha]

No we've moved away from that largely.
The U.S. was meant to be one giant free trade zone, with a unified armed force.

It has manifested itself into something entirely different.

I don't recall reading that in the constitution

 

[sangha]

I don't recall ever signing this contract. I wonder if anyone is able to produce the original; I would like to take it to my lawyer, maybe I have a case against society for perpetrating a fraud.

I tried that excuse the last time I tried walking out of Macys' with a bunch of clothes.

 

[Jerry]

Would it make everyone happy if we changed the "social contract" to the "social balance of power? The authority of government certainly is coercive and you are under its authority without choice. I feel the terminology is getting in the way of the debate. As far as I can tell, Libertarian thought engages in the same "quid pro quo" arrangement of governmental benefits for restrictions, with simply a lot less of both than the current deal.

In this contract I allegedly signed, which no one has yet to produce, please quote the Title and Paragraph containing a clause whereby the name and terms of said contract may be altered. I look forward to your link.

 

[Jerry]

I tried that excuse the last time I tried walking out of Macys' with a bunch of clothes.

So your a thief.

I fail to see how your character flaws are relevant to this thread. Perhaps you should start a confession thread in the religious forum.

 

[haymarket]

In this contract I allegedly signed, which no one has yet to produce, please quote the Title and Paragraph containing a clause whereby the name and terms of said contract may be altered. I look forward to your link.

It was made quite clear to you that you never signed an actual piece of paper. So why do you persist in this charade? It is intellectually dishonest and more than a bit nonsensical since it involves you intentionally and purposely ignoring the actual meaning of what is being discussed in favor of your own constructed straw man.

Every day that you remain here, every day you participate in the society larger than you are, every day you obey the laws and benefit from society and its government, you have agreed to the social contract.

You engage in contracting for all kinds of things without ever signing anything that has nothing to do with the government. Eating in a restaurant is but one example. you cannot then walk out and complain "I never signed no stinkin' contract".

You can leave at any time. There is no Berlin Wall here with jackbooted guards forcing you to remain. you can withdraw your consent to the social contract at any time you want to.

Like I said before - you do not need a lawyer. You need a travel agent.

 

[sangha]

You are now claiming that taxation is not theft when it is for things deemed truly essential. Do libertarians get to decide what is truly essential, or is that a function all of us get to participate in?

The answer is clearly "Yes". The libertarians have yet to explain why their ideas of what is coercive and what is not should rule. They merely repeat their slogans about how their coercions are OK. They have no ideological basis for where they draw the line; It is nothing more than an emotional response to an environment they find oppressive.

 

[sangha]

And even with your credentials, you've yet to prove anything really.

I see no need, and have no desire, to prove or explain anything to a libertarian. I see the threat of libertarian rule as being on the same level as the threat of Sharia law being instituted in the US.

It's libertarians who need to explain their absurd assertions of oppression. And if they don't see the need, that's fine with me too.

 

[sangha]

In this contract I allegedly signed, which no one has yet to produce, please quote the Title and Paragraph containing a clause whereby the name and terms of said contract may be altered. I look forward to your link.

I said the same exact thing to the judge. He said "Disingenuity is not a defense"

 

[sangha]

So your a thief.

I fail to see how your character flaws are relevant to this thread. Perhaps you should start a confession thread in the religious forum.

How dare you call me a thief!! I signed no contract and those clothes were left abandoned in a public place.

 

[Jerry]

How dare you call me a thief!! I signed no contract and those clothes were left abandoned in a public place.

Could you please quote the portion of this contract the judge said you violated? I look forward to your link.

 

[Slartibartfast]

wow! what a terrifying view of humanity! on what do you base this?

geo.

The vast majority of human history has been one of might makes right under various titles, such as dictatorship, king, etc. It is only recently that society has been based on something beyond physical force.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Could you please quote the portion of this contract the judge said you violated? I look forward to your link.

The social contract is figurative so there wouldn't be anything concrete, but good job trolling the thread.

 

[Jerry]

The social contract is figurative so there wouldn't be anything concrete, but good job trolling the thread.

Ahh yes, accuse anyone who takes the "it's a myth" side, of trolling. A classic yet infective debate tactic.

Sangha disagrees with you, Sangha says this contract exists. Sangha is invited to begin sourcing his argument.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Ahh yes, accuse anyone who takes the "it's a myth" side, of trolling. A classic yet infective debate tactic.

Oh please - you troll this board like it's your job. The social contract exists as a figurative reality. It points to any society where citizens agree to submit to the authority of the government in exchange for some service like protection or education. We exist in such a society - therefore we have a social contract.

 

[Jerry]

Oh please - you troll this board like it's your job. The social contract exists as a figurative reality. It points to any society where citizens agree to submit to the authority of the government in exchange for some service like protection or education. We exist in such a society - therefore we have a social contract.

I'm asking for links because I do not wish to be bogged down in all the usual "nu-uhh", "oh yeah we yes-huh".

As with any claim ever made on any thread: Links or it doesn't exist.

 

[sangha]

Could you please quote the portion of this contract the judge said you violated? I look forward to your link.

The judge said "Disingenuity is not a defense". I think that applies to the Libertarian argument

 

[sangha]

Ahh yes, accuse anyone who takes the "it's a myth" side, of trolling. A classic yet infective debate tactic.

Sangha disagrees with you, Sangha says this contract exists. Sangha is invited to begin sourcing his argument.

Please quote where I said this contract is on a piece of paper that you signed.

Disingenuity isn't an argument either

 

[Jerry]

The judge said "Disingenuity is not a defense". I think that applies to the Libertarian argument

I realize you may still be editing, so I'll wait for you to finish including the supporting hyperlink before commenting on your argument directly. Please take you time.

 

[sangha]

I'm asking for links because I do not wish to be bogged down in all the usual "nu-uhh", "oh yeah we yes-huh".

As with any claim ever made on any thread: Links or it doesn't exist.

And I'm asking for a link to where I said that there's a contract on a piece of paper that you (or I) signed

As with any claim ever made on any thread: Links or it doesn't exist.

 

[sangha]

I realize you may still be editing, so I'll wait for you to finish including the supporting hyperlink before commenting on your argument directly. Please take you time.

I realize you may still be editing, so I'll wait for you to finish including the supporting hyperlink before commenting on your argument directly. Please take you time

 

[Jerry]

Please quote where I said this contract is on a piece of paper that you signed.

Disingenuity isn't an argument either

If it's not a document, then it must be a verbal contract. Surly you can provide evidence that this verbal contract was made, by whom, what the terms are, and who witnessed it, just like any other verbal contract; which have widely varying degrees of validity and enforceability from state to state.

 

[Jerry]

And I'm asking for a link to where I said that there's a contract on a piece of paper that you (or I) signed

As with any claim ever made on any thread: Links or it doesn't exist.

So, you can't prove that this 'social contract' acutely exists in any meaningful, tangible way?

 

[haymarket]

So, you can't prove that this 'social contract' acutely exists in any meaningful, tangible way?

Jerry

are you a US soldier?

 

[Neomalthusian]

Post 167:

Strawman from you HG.

That was not even close to a straw man. Are we calling everything a straw man nowadays?

The answer is clearly "Yes". The libertarians have yet to explain why their ideas of what is coercive and what is not should rule. They merely repeat their slogans about how their coercions are OK. They have no ideological basis for where they draw the line; It is nothing more than an emotional response to an environment they find oppressive.

Of all the BS I see around here, I'm finding yours to be the purest.

Democracy's tendency to tyrannize the minority is mitigated by limiting a central government to its most basic functions. It should not grow, and it should not be responsible for the basic financial needs of families and companies. The end. That's pretty much the ideological basis right there, but you'll just relegate it to a slogan even though it's repeated a hundred times in as many different ways with examples and allegories and all sorts of other ways to help liberals understand, but they're not gonna. You'll just keep calling it a slogan or talking point. Obnoxious.

Your comment on libertarians as just emotional is comical. If liberals have a problem with libertarians, it's that the latter are too logical and do not employ enough emotion.