The Myth of the Social Contract

[ThePlayDrive]

I can see you're not willing to respond to the scenario that I presented you.

I actually responded to it quite clearly: You presented to me a scenario where I don't like my choice. You have not presented to me a scenario where the choice does not exist. Please show me an example in our society where I do not have a choice.

 

[Guy Incognito]

If your ideal model of society is ever shown to work, you may have a point

What do you mean by "shown to work?" If by "shown to work" you mean that the system must demonstrate that it can provide utopian peace and happiness for all people everywhere alll the time, I think you will be unable to find any system that is "shown to work."

What is shown to work about libertarianism is shown a priori. It works because it is the system which best minimizes the infringement of government and private coercion on human liberty.

 

[sangha]

What do you mean by "shown to work?" If by "shown to work" you mean that the system must demonstrate that it can provide utopian peace and happiness for all people everywhere alll the time, I think you will be unable to find any system that is "shown to work."

What is shown to work about libertarianism is shown a priori. It works because it is the system which best minimizes the infringement of government and private coercion on human liberty.

How about we start with "shown to have ever existed"?

I think that should be shown before you try to prove what libertarianism is best at

 

[Guy Incognito]

And the libertarians have no problem coercing people into supporting a military, courts, etc. Their coercions are OK; Ours are evil.

You don't seem to understand libertarian theory or else you would understand that this is a straw man. Libertarians generally oppose military adventurism, and support the courts insofar as they punish illegitimate coercion. Libertarians oppose aggressive wars, the draft, and victimless crimes.

You would have an easier time railing against libertarianism if you understood it, and you would have an easier time understanding it if you stopped railing against it until you understood it. Until such time, please leave this discussion to those who are serious about it.

 

[sangha]

You don't seem to understand libertarian theory or else you would understand that this is a straw man. Libertarians generally oppose military adventurism, and support the courts insofar as they punish illegitimate coercion. Libertarians oppose aggressive wars, the draft, and victimless crimes.

You would have an easier time railing against libertarianism if you understood it, and you would have an easier time understanding it if you stopped railing against it until you understood it. Until such time, please leave this discussion to those who are serious about it.

You're right. I don't understand why libertarians think that their coercions are OK, but others are not. That's because they never explain them. They just repeat their slogans. To wit:

Libertarians generally oppose military adventurism, and support the courts insofar as they punish illegitimate coercion. Libertarians oppose aggressive wars, the draft, and victimless crimes

That contains no explanation for why some coercions are OK, while others are not. It is merely a restatement of "what libertarians believe"

I cannot understand libertarianism as an ideology because libertarians cannot explain it as one.

And I will not be leaving this discussion. Deal with it.

 

[phattonez]

I actually responded to it quite clearly: You presented to me a scenario where I don't like my choice. You have not presented to me a scenario where the choice does not exist. Please show me an example in our society where I do not have a choice.

I was showing you the problem with that kind of logic. If someone came to your house and wanted 50% of your income, you would rightfully want the person gone from your property. You would not and should not have to live by his rules because it is your house. How is it any different with government?

 

[Slartibartfast]

So until it has been shown to work, it will not be allowed to exist, and it can only be shown to work if it is allowed to exist.

:lol: that is your takeaway from my argument?

That's quite a defense you've set up there, as it totally ignores the contentions that I'm making. Just because something hasn't been, does not mean it should never be. That's a lack of an argument.

Then you missed my argument, which is that human nature will tend seek the types of societies which have existed. This is why those societies existed and not other types of societies.

When is it okay to infringe on the rights of others?

Assuming we are using your definition, then its ok if its a legitimate action of government, such as criminal prosecution, certain military actions (like war), broad consensus, legal statute, etc.

It depends on a lot of things, like the type of society one is in, its moral framework, the moral framework of its individuals, what reality will allow, etc. Often times, rights and their need are perceptions and social construct.

Now when you want to reply "so its ok for me to harm if you if I believe its right." (at least this is one of the standard libertarian responses) My answer is that it depends. Because if you believed it was not ok, you probably would not do it or not want to be on the receiving end. If you believed it was ok, you would probably be fine with it. Its a saddening and scary answer, but thats life and we have to be mature enough to accept this uncomfortable reality, which exists no matter how much we want to logic it away.

But do we infringe on their rights?

Rights are changing all the time, so yes and no.

 

[phattonez]

:lol: that is your takeaway from my argument?

That really was the gist of it. You want a working example, yet it hasn't been allowed to exist because the people have been deluded that government is necessary. There are some examples that are close though, most notably would be Ireland before the English invasions.

Then you missed my argument, which is that human nature will tend seek the types of societies which have existed. This is why those societies existed and not other types of societies.

Societies exist because they existed? Do you realize how nonconstructive that kind of analysis is?

Assuming we are using your definition, then its ok if its a legitimate action of government, such as criminal prosecution, certain military actions (like war), broad consensus, legal statute, etc.

Criminal prosecution does not require government, aggressive military action is a bad thing, broad consensus does not sure that something is right, and law existed antecedent to the government.

Now when you want to reply "so its ok for me to harm if you if I believe its right." (at least this is one of the standard libertarian responses) My answer is that it depends. Because if you believed it was not ok, you probably would not do it or not want to be on the receiving end. If you believed it was ok, you would probably be fine with it. Its a saddening and scary answer, but thats life and we have to be mature enough to accept this uncomfortable reality, which exists no matter how much we want to logic it away.

I thought that Socrates disproved might makes right long ago.

Rights are changing all the time, so yes and no.

Only if you have a worthless definition of what rights are.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

I was showing you the problem with that kind of logic. If someone came to your house and wanted 50% of your income, you would rightfully want the person gone from your property. You would not and should not have to live by his rules because it is your house. How is it any different with government?

The problem is that none of this contradicts the only point I made: that we always have a choice. You have still yet to provide me with any examples that support your original claim that "there is no choice".

As for your current question, if someone [who provides me with education, protection and many other services which he does even though you didn't include that important aspect in your example] demands 50% of my income, I would either give him that income, end all services or renegotiate the contract. Those three choices are always there - as a result, your original claim that "there is no choice" is absolutely false.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Only if you have a worthless definition of what rights are.

I agree. Rights are immutable and sacrosanct. To the extent that "new" rights come about, like equal protection under the law, this is not an advent so much as it is government finally catching up with its moral obligations after thousands of years of shirking. Rights are not created, they are discovered.

 

[Guy Incognito]

As for your current question, if someone [who provides me with education, protection and many other services which he does even though you didn't include that important aspect in your example] demands 50% of my income, I would either give him that income, end all services or renegotiate the contract. Those three choices are always there - as a result, your original claim that "there is no choice" is absolutely false.

In addition to education, etc, there is also one more thing phattonez left out of the analogy. The guy who provides you those services and demands your income is also holding a gun to your head.

 

[phattonez]

The problem is that none of this contradicts the only point I made: that we always have a choice. You have still yet to provide me with any examples that support your original claim that "there is no choice".

Choice under coercion is not a free choice. Without the coercion, you would choose for him to not take 50% of your income and to stay on your property. You're intentionally avoiding the heart of the criticism.

As for your current question, if someone [who provides me with education, protection and many other services which he does even though you didn't include that important aspect in your example] demands 50% of my income, I would either give him that income, end all services or renegotiate the contract. Those three choices are always there - as a result, your original claim that "there is no choice" is absolutely false.

"End all services" is conditional, though. You must leave if you want to end all services. That's the problem.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Choice under coercion is not a free choice.

So now you're changing the goalposts: we went from "choice" to "free choice" and as we all know, "free choice" is a subjective and ambiguous term.

Without the coercion, you would choose for him to not take 50% of your income and to stay on your property.

Not necessarily. If he's providing me with education and defense and providing the needy members of my community with medicare and social security, I would let him take the 50%, but if I think 50% is too much, then I would go to my council meeting and suggest that we all renegotiate the price since I have that choice.

"End all services" is conditional, though. You must leave if you want to end all services. That's the problem.

But it's a choice. Moreover, leaving is not the only way to "end all services", you can also renegotiate.

 

[phattonez]

So now you're changing the goalposts: we went from "choice" to "free choice" and as we all know, "free choice" is a subjective and ambiguous term.

Not necessarily. If he's providing me with education and defense and providing the needy members of my community with medicare and social security, I would let him take the 50%, but if I think 50% is too much, then I would go to my council meeting and suggest that we all renegotiate the price since I have that choice.



But it's a choice. Moreover, leaving is not the only way to "end all services", you can also renegotiate.

So if you have a choice, it's okay? This is all a dangerous defense you're putting up. If I put a gun to your head and say give me your money or die, it's okay because I left you a choice? Really?

 

[phattonez]

Not necessarily. If he's providing me with education and defense and providing the needy members of my community with medicare and social security, I would let him take the 50%, but if I think 50% is too much, then I would go to my council meeting and suggest that we all renegotiate the price since I have that choice.

What about people who don't want the services and don't want to be taxed at all? You know as well as I do that they have no choice.

 

[Slartibartfast]

That really was the gist of it. You want a working example, yet it hasn't been allowed to exist because the people have been deluded that government is necessary. There are some examples that are close though, most notably would be Ireland before the English invasions.

So you concede that it not existed and this philosophy is therefore still in the realm of the theoretical. Thanks. Also the deluded word is hysterical, you are starting to sound like an anarchist :lol:

Societies exist because they existed? Do you realize how nonconstructive that kind of analysis is?

So now you are deliberately misinterpreting my argument? I thought you were better than this. Do you want me to explain it to you again? Of course you just conceded the point so there is no longer a need.

Criminal prosecution does not require government

perhaps not in simple society with few members, but those do not exist anymore or if they do, they are in the deep amazon rainforest or some similar place. Not relevant to the discussion of the modern US.

aggressive military action is a bad thing

Yet people have and will attack us. Also, I disagree on another basis, military aggression against the Nazis was a good thing as well as the threat of war against the USSR. Helping out the revolutionaries increase their rights against Khadaffi is a good thing.

broad consensus does not sure that something is right

Yet it increases the likelihood that whatever is agreed on will be enacted, whether or not you and I like it, the might of a lot of people is hard to defend against, so its best to try and mitigate it in other ways. Its one of those uncomfortable realities that does not go away when one declares it not good.

Also this statement is based on a value judgement. If you agreed with the crowd, you would be singing a different tune.

and law existed antecedent to the government.

Again, in simple societies, sure, but different models work for those societies that would not work in other societies.

I thought that Socrates disproved might makes right long ago.

He disproved in terms of a value statement, and I agree with him, on the basis that if you look at Maslow's heirarchy of needs, physical needs are at the bottom of the list (also science trumps philosophy). But the reality is that on a physical level, the guy with the biggest guns gets to dictate the terms after a fight. Why do you support the second amendment?

Only if you have a worthless definition of what rights are.

This is, of course, a value judgement and not really a useful statement as far as this debate is concerned. We could make value judgements all day and never get anywhere with each other.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

In addition to education, etc, there is also one more thing phattonez left out of the analogy. The guy who provides you those services and demands your income is also holding a gun to your head.

A gun to my head you say? Well, from my experiences with this man, I can pay him the 50% by April 15 so he doesn't shoot me, but then after April 15, I hold a council meeting with my community to bring the rate down to 30% if I can convince them that this is the appropriate share. Moreover, I can also try to convince them that such a collection should not be forced at gunpoint, but they will likely respond that anyone who is a member of this community must contribute or else stop crying and form his own community where the rules are different.

(I think we should also make clear that the man can't shoot to kill since being shot (i.e. being jailed or fined) is only a temporary consequence and not so drastic and final as some libertarians always try to make it seem.)

To be honest, this all sounds like a "poor me" sob story told by people who are unwilling to take responsibility for their own ability to choose.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

So if you have a choice, it's okay? This is all a dangerous defense you're putting up. If I put a gun to your head and say give me your money or die, it's okay because I left you a choice? Really?

Hmmm...good thing the choice with government isn't as dramatic as "give me your money or die". Good thing I can renegotiate my contract. False analogy.

 

[phattonez]

So you concede that it not existed and this philosophy is therefore still in the realm of the theoretical. Thanks. Also the deluded word is hysterical, you are starting to sound like an anarchist :lol:

I'm just still waiting for a real argument other than it hasn't existed so it must be impossible.

So now you are deliberately misinterpreting my argument? I thought you were better than this. Especially since you made my point in your top quote in this thread. I have made it bold for you.

I wasn't misinterpreting it. That's what I read it as. If I'm misinformed then show me the difference.

perhaps not in simple society with few members, but those do not exist anymore or if they do, they are in the deep amazon rainforest or some similar place. Not relevant to the discussion of the modern US.

It works even for large societies. Remember that common law developed before there was a top heavy system of courts and prosecution.

Yet people have and will attack us. Also, I disagree on another basis, military aggression against the Nazis was a good thing as well as the threat against the USSR.

Defense is fine. Aggressive military action is not. As for the Nazis, they would have crumbled on their own as they were a bubble economy. The USSR crumbled without us invading them. And how many innocent lives would have been taken had we invaded that country?

Yet it increases the likelihood that whatever is agreed on will be enacted, whether or not you and I like it, the might of a lot of people is hard to defend against, so its best to try and mitigate it in other ways. Its one of those uncomfortable realities that does not go away when one declares it not good.

So what if it is enacted? I am after what is right, not what is popular.

Again, in simple societies, sure, but different models work for those societies that would not work in other societies.

Why wouldn't it work today?

He disproved in terms of a value statement, and I agree with him. But the reality is that physically it remains true. Why do you support the second amendment?

Then that's all that matters. If it is wrong then it is wrong. I support the second amendment because it allows me to have defense.

This is, of course, a value judgement and not really a useful statement as far as this debate is concerned.

I'm talking about ideals.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

What about people who don't want the services and don't want to be taxed at all? You know as well as I do that they have no choice.

Actually they do have a choice - leave or renegotiate.

 

[phattonez]

Hmmm...good thing the choice with government isn't as dramatic as "give me your money or die". Good thing I can renegotiate my contract. False analogy.

If I don't want to pay taxes, I can't renegotiate the contract. Besides, I never signed up for a contract. You're being evasive and you know it.

 

[phattonez]

Actually they do have a choice - leave or renegotiate.

And I've already shown why that's coercion. You just chose to ignore it. I know you're lying when you say you're fine with the scenario I presented you earlier.

 

[sangha]

I was showing you the problem with that kind of logic. If someone came to your house and wanted 50% of your income, you would rightfully want the person gone from your property. You would not and should not have to live by his rules because it is your house. How is it any different with government?

No, you claimed that you didnt have any real choice. Your "evidence" was that you didn't like the choices available, an argument that does not mean that you had no choice

And to answer your question, the govt is not an individual.

 

[haymarket]

What about people who don't want the services and don't want to be taxed at all? You know as well as I do that they have no choice.

Every day you rise as an American citizen you have a choice. The fact that you decide that you do not want to pay the price necessary to exercise that choice is also your choice. And in doing so you make another choice. And that choice is to stay here and be subject to the laws of the land and to the greater society of which you are but one individual among over 300 million.

Your choices are unlimited as each day gives you more and more.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

And I've already shown why that's coercion.

And I've already explained that the presence of coercion does not imply the absence of choice.