Social Contract

[Madly_Sane]

Are you for or against the Social contract? If you are for it, what changes do you think need to be made to the US govt.
No bashing, please. :D

[JoshLowry]

Contractualism is based on the notion that rights are agreed upon in order to further our interests: each individual subject is accorded individual rights, which may or may not be inalienable

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract) doesn't sound very good.

I see you found out how to make polls. :)

[low preference guy]

i don't know. i might consider signing it after i read it. then i'll be able to say whether it's good.

[Madly_Sane]

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract) doesn't sound very good.

I see you found out how to make polls. :)

haha, yes. tyvm

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract) doesn't sound very good.

I see you found out how to make polls. :)

Is this where I plug Lysander Spooners 'No Treason: Constitution of no Authority'?

I think his essays are perhaps the most eloquent and best laid out attack against social contracts. I think it is somewhat ridiculous that as soon as I am born because of the social contract I am indebted in the tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is nothing more or less than being a slave to the State. No thanks.

[Madly_Sane]

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract) doesn't sound very good.


Well, I forgot to type in Rousseau... the Social Contract you linked to wasnt what I was talking about :(

[low preference guy]

Is this where I plug Lysander Spooners 'No Treason: Constitution of no Authority'?


i heard good things about that treaty. i haven't read it because the idea of social contract is just absolutely ridiculous. the best argument against it is reading the theory from the proponents, which also exposes them as psychos.

ETA:



No bashing, please. :D

oops

[youngbuck]

The idea is collectivist in nature. I am apposed to it.

[Promontorium]

I don't know what you guys are talking about, but I like Locke's social contract idea.

I have written a constitution where there is a federal government that is restricted to only the protection of individual rights, and a voluntary system of literal social contracts for statehood.

The problem with Locke's contract, and the US method of statehood is that as soon as an agreement is made, it can never be undone. My constitution demands explicit individual contract agreements.

Each person may voluntarily agree to contract with a state, to follow their laws. Each person may choose not to contract with anyone, and thus the only laws that they agree with will be applicable. And if someone doesn't agree with individual rights, they can just leave the country, or secede the land. Absolute 100% voluntary. Voluntary citizenship, voluntary participation in government, no federal taxes.

If a person wants a theocracy, they can buy up some land, write up a theocratic contract, and anyone that agrees with that person can join them. If people don't agree, they can stay out, unless the state allows otherwise, but if a person doesn't literally contractually agree to a social system, it won't apply to them.

In this way, people can live peacefully in the government they desire, without violating the rights of others. The federal government will exist only to preserve the rights of individuals, from enemies foreign or domestic, and to engage in diplomacy as well as keep track of the contracts in case of disputes. Every government will exist solely by the literal consent of the governed, not an implied consent, not a de facto consent, but by each and every single person literally consenting. In my opinion (as I'm the one who invented this) is that the only arguments against it, are appeals to authoritarianism. This is as far as I can figure, the true libertarian ideal.

Edit: Just as another teaser, my sections on Individual Rights, and Federal Restrictions and Limitations are together about as long as the entire US Constitution.

[JoshLowry]

Well, I forgot to type in Rousseau... the Social Contract you linked to wasnt what I was talking about :(

Make a new thread and poll if you meant to be specific.

No need to be sad. ;)

[BuddyRey]

Is this where I plug Lysander Spooners 'No Treason: Constitution of no Authority'?

I think his essays are perhaps the most eloquent and best laid out attack against social contracts. I think it is somewhat ridiculous that as soon as I am born because of the social contract I am indebted in the tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is nothing more or less than being a slave to the State. No thanks.

I'd like to second your plug for No Treason. It's an extraordinary book that I recommend to everybody - even those who believe in government - because of its logical clarity and ability to provoke thought. :)

[Travlyr]

Define social contract. I am in favor of property ownership and rights, and it would be difficult to own land absent a social contract. I am not in favor of a debtor society.

[Madly_Sane]

Define social contract. I am in favor of property ownership and rights, and it would be difficult to own land absent a social contract. I am not in favor of a debtor society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Du contrat social (1762)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau) (1712–1778), in his influential 1762 treatise The Social Contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract), outlined a different version of social contract theory, based on popular sovereignty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty). Although Rousseau wrote that the British were perhaps at the time the freest people on earth, he did not approve of their representative government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_government). Rousseau believed that liberty was possible only where there was direct rule by the people as a whole in lawmaking, where popular sovereignty was indivisible and inalienable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable). Citizens must, in at least some circumstances, be able to choose together the fundamental rules by which they would live, and be able to revise those rules on later occasions if they choose to do so - something the British people as a whole were unable to do.
Rousseau's political theory has some points in common with Locke's individualism, but departs from it in his development of the "luminous conception" (which he credited to Diderot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diderot)) of the general will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_will). Rousseau argues a citizen can be an egoist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism) and decide that his personal interest should override the collective interest. However, as part of a collective body, the individual citizen puts aside his egoism to create a "general will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_will)", which is popular sovereignty itself. Popular sovereignty (i.e., the rule of law), thus decides what is good for society as a whole, and the individual (including the administrative head of state, who could be a monarch) must bow to it, or be forced to bow to it:

[The social contract] can be reduced to the following terms: Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will; and in a body we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#cite_note-1)
Rousseau's striking phrase that man must "be forced to be free"[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#cite_note-2) should be understood this way: since the indivisible and inalienable popular sovereignty decides what is good for the whole, then if an individual lapses back into his ordinary egoism and breaks the law, he will be forced to listen to what they decided as a member of the collectivity (i.e. as citizens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen)). Thus, the law, inasmuch as it is voted by the people's representatives, is not a limitation of individual freedom, but its expression; and enforcement of law, including criminal law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_law), is not a restriction on individual liberty, as the individual, as a citizen, explicitly agreed to be constrained if, as a private individual, he did not respect his own will as formulated in the general will. Because laws represent the restraints of civil freedom, they represent the leap made from humans in the state of nature into civil society. In this sense, the law is a civilizing force, and therefore Rousseau believed that the laws that govern a people helped to mold their character.

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's individualist social contract (1851)
While Rousseau's social contract is based on popular sovereignty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty) and not on individual sovereignty, there are other theories espoused by individualists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist), libertarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarians) and anarchists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism), which do not involve agreeing to anything more than negative rights and creates only a limited state, if any.
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon) (1809–1865) advocated a conception of social contract which didn't involve an individual surrendering sovereignty to others. According to him, the social contract was not between individuals and the state, but rather between individuals themselves refraining from coercing or governing each other, each one maintaining complete sovereignty upon oneself:

What really is the Social Contract? An agreement of the citizen with the government? No, that would mean but the continuation of [Rousseau’s] idea. The social contract is an agreement of man with man; an agreement from which must result what we call society. In this, the notion of commutative justice[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#cite_note-3), first brought forward by the primitive fact of exchange, …is substituted for that of distributive justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributive_justice) … Translating these words, contract, commutative justice, which are the language of the law, into the language of business, and you have commerce, that is to say, in its highest significance, the act by which man and man declare themselves essentially producers, and abdicate all pretension to govern each other.

[Travlyr]

Social contracts are as ancient as society itself and cannot be denied ... only ignored. Written agreements are superior to assumed agreements, for it is easier to verify the facts.

Wealth can be defined as: abundance of valuable material possessions or resources (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wealth)
Wealth provides opportunity to pursue happiness beyond the necessities of life while lack of wealth is mere survival. Also, wealth can be progressive if one is allowed to invest, keep, and build upon previous efforts which promotes security. Wealthy secure individuals have more capacity to provide comfort and compassion to those less fortunate. The world would be a better place if the "wealth (individual land ownership) was spread around a little bit."


All wealth comes from the earth; therefore, landowners can produce wealth.
Sovereign title to property promotes liberty, prosperity, and security.
Natural rights are inherent.

Therefore, a social contract can be a most valuable instrument in documenting property ownership and providing justice for violations of rights; thereby, creating opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Well written social contracts are essential.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Social Contract = Original Sin.

No thanks. I believe divorce is a perfectly logical resolution to a relationship that has turned poisonous. Saying you believe in The Social Contract means you can never favour divorce (ie - secession) under any circumstance.