Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Just a Few of Many Reasons the "Social Contract" is Illegitimate...

  1. #1

    Just a Few of Many Reasons the "Social Contract" is Illegitimate...

    Just a Few of Many Reasons the "Social Contract" is Illegitimate and Creates Unnecessary and Artificial Divisions Among the Masses



    Section A:

    1. To claim the state is legitimate is to claim you can ethically defend its existence. ALL legal theory is necessarily preceded by ethical theory. You absolutely cannot have a legal theory without first having an ethical theory to decide how, and by what criteria, a law is justified or not. If it is not justified, it is illegitimate, and if it is justified, it is legitimate. The state's very existence is unto itself a legal norm; a product of a prerequisite legal theory, which in turn is the product of an ethical theory. A state is not legitimate or illegitimate until an ethical theory is presented and applied in a logically consistent manner. If the premises of the ethical theory are wrong (the epistemological and metaphysical precepts - that is to say, the nature of knowledge and the nature of reality), OR the logic is invalid or inconsistent, the legal theory that flows from it will also be illegitimate/invalid and inconsistent. There is no getting around any of this. Ethical theory is ALWAYS derived (even when based on mythology) via metaphysical and epistemological precepts (premises) passed through a logical prism. The result will only be as consistent as the logic used, and only as correct as the premises. If you use flawed premises, or inconsistent logic, the theory will be invalid/inconsistent.

    2. First, therefore, one needs to prove ethics even exist in an objective way. That doesn't mean any ethical theory is objective, it just means we're trying disprove the amoralist position that ethics do not exist. I will now endeavor to prove ethics exist...for if they do not, then the state is already deemed illegitimate via its imposition of laws on people (when amoralism claims there is no ethical theory from which to base such legal theory).


    Section B:

    1. What is the nature of reality? As per the "brain in a vat" (or Descartes' "evil demon") thought experiment, it's clear we can't prove reality even exists. Einstein also said mathematics, and therefore science, cannot prove reality...he said: "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one", and: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality". However, as Ayn Rand aptly pointed out, there is no point in discussing anything at all, or doing anything at all, if we do not simply assume an objective reality exists. So we assume an objective reality exists (but we view it subjectively; hence 10 witnesses to a crime will all describe it and the criminal in slightly, or even vastly, different ways).

    2. What is the nature of knowledge? Since reality is assumed objective, but is subjectively viewed, then knowledge can only be attained via logic and reason, and their invention the scientific method (and those things create a filter for the subjective aspects, as to determine what is universally objective). From logic and reason we developed the scientific method, as to test our subjective views to see if we were accurately describing the objective reality we assume we share. Logic, reason, and the scientific method allow us to test our subjective ideas and observations across the globe, apart from each other, to see if they are accurately describing the assumed objective reality, or best known truth. ("Best known truth" refers to scientist and philosopher Karl Popper's idea that our view of objective reality through science is really an ever-increasing and ever-clearer view based on a succession of theories, each less wrong than the last, but none that are perfectly correct simply because they are more correct than the previous theories.)

    3. What is the nature of ethics, given #1 and #2? If reality is assumed objective, but viewed subjectively, and if knowledge is only that which can be filtered through logic and the scientific method (and never in an absolute sense via scientific theory and inquiry), then we can arrive at a Singular Logical Objective Ethical Truth (SLOET). That truth is, no view of reality is perfectly known to be correct without being tested, both conjecturally and critically (the problem of induction and falsifiability), and since subjective ethical views cannot largely be tested in any scientific way, and the logic used to test them has limits on these subjective views, the SLOET is simply that no one single ethical code should be imposed, via law or social norm, on anyone that is not voluntarily agreeing to it. That is to say, the SLOET says that coercion (of those capable of consent, and who haven't first coerced an innocent themselves) into one particular ethical standard is invalid logically, as it has to ignore #1 and #2 above. All coercion of those capable of consent into one particular ethical standard would have to assume an objective reality is perfectly known, and that assumes it can be perfectly tested - both of which are not possible.

    The SLOET is not an ethical code or theory...it's merely an observation of metaphysical, epistemological, and logical truth. (I have an ethical theory, but this is not it. I won't go into my ethical theory here, as it would be off-topic and unnecessary to my points.)


    Section C:

    1. If we can arrive at an objective proof of ethics, but not any objective ethical theory (which, if one existed, would be justified in universal enforcement - which the SLOET seems to show requires consent in order to remain consistent and valid, provided the individual isn't first a victimizer of innocent parties...thereby invalidating universal enforcement), then ethical theories are subjective and all legal theory that follows must respect this subjectivity when applied.

    2. This would preclude the "social contract" from being objectively true, as the social contract theory suggests merely being in an area makes you legitimately subject to its geographically-based law. This ignores the subjective nature of ethical, and thereby legal, theories.

    3. It is logically impossible to both consent implicitly and simultaneously explicitly refuse consent. That's another reason, beyond assumed objectivity of ethical theory and the legal theory that necessarily follows it, that the social contract theory is invalid; it says you simply being in an area implies consent, even as you explicitly refuse to give any such consent due to difference in ethical theory and, as a result, legal theory.

    4. If the social contract is dependent on both an assumption of its objective ethical theory that "validates" or "legitimizes" it (which is a flaw in both logic and premises), AND the illogical claim that one can both refuse consent explicitly while simultaneously implicitly consenting by merely being in an area, then the social contract theory is invalid and illegitimate. It fails on both premises in epistemology and metaphysics, and also fails logically on several counts.


    Section D:

    As an example of this principle (the social contract) being applied consistently, we'll use two scenarios. If the social contract theory is consistent, then its principles in law, which are derived from ethics, will be the same across all applications. An inconsistency in application suggests a flawed or broken theory.

    1. Scenario one: You move into an area or are born in that area. The social contract theory says the state is legitimate (an ethical claim - as there is no other way to prove a legal theory legitimate or illegitimate other than defending the ethical theory it is born from), and that you consent to its legal theory/laws implicitly by your mere presence, even though you are explicitly refusing to consent. The claim is that you agree to the laws in the contract implicitly by merely being there (and possibly by using some form of coercively monopolized/monopsonized/cartelized services they provide you - even as you have no choice in provider or paying them - like defense, roads, or banking system).

    2. Scenario two: You go out to dinner with a male date, and he pays. He then invites you back to his place for a drink. At this point he rapes you. He claims you implicitly consented, although you explicitly refused to give consent, simply because you were in his home (and possibly because you ate the dinner that he purchased for you).

    3. In both scenarios the social contract theory is evenly applied. Both claim implicit consent is legitimate ethically simply because of your current location (and possibly some service provided), and despite your explicit refusal to give consent. Both defend their acts on the same premises and same consistent application of flawed logic. This is the logical conclusion, or result of the theory being applied consistently, to things outside and inside the state apparatus.

    4. If you think the rape case (the second scenario) is weak in justification, and is not a sound argument for ethical legitimacy, then the same must be true of the case in scenario one. They are the same in premises and application of logic.

    5. It is a circular argument to claim the state is legitimate or justified without trying to show the ethical justification or legitimacy (the only way to legitimize or justify any legal theory or legal system based on that legal theory). All that does is say it is "legitimate" because it is in existence, or because it follows its own rules (which it doesn't, but let's assume it does for the sake of argument). The former is an "Is versus Ought" fallacy (saying because it IS, then that shows it OUGHT to be)...you cannot (generally) derive a justification for what OUGHT to be just based on what IS currently, and you cannot claim an IS ought to be, simply because it currently IS. The latter is fallacious because it assumes first the system itself is legitimate, and that its internal mechanisms and processes are only the question...but the system itself is what is being challenged, not the internal process by which it claims "legitimacy". To legitimize the system, the entire concept of a state (a form of coerced monopolization of law and defense, among other monopolies, quasi-monopolies, monopsony, and cartels, specific to a geographic area) must be ethically defended. This requires digging into the ethical theory that attempts to justify the social contract theory (which is a legal theory).

    6. Majority rule as a way to legitimize an ethical theory (which creates a following legal theory) is fallacious (argumentum ad populum - the informal logical fallacy of appealing to majority opinion, or the crowd). If this was a logical justification of ethics, then gang rape should/would be legal, as 5 men can out-vote a woman on a desert island when it comes to sex.

    7. Tradition is also not a logical argument to legitimize an ethical theory (argumentum ad antiquitatem, or the informal logical fallacy of appealing to traditions). If this were a logical justification of ethics, then slavery should/would never have been outlawed (as it was tradition, until it wasn't).

    8. Authority is also not a logical argument to legitimize an ethical theory (argumentum ad verecundiam - or the appeal to authoritative knowledge). This usually means appealing to an authority outside of their specialized field of expertise, but also means the same even if they are an expert. It then can be called "snob appeal", and a form of ad populum. Using this fallacy would result in not finding justification and legitimacy for the social contract, and therefore state, in philosophy (fields of which include epistemology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, and the rather irrelevant for this exercise, aesthetics).


    Section E:

    So, what is the alternative?

    1. Since all legal theory is necessarily derived from a preceding ethical theory, then it stands to reason that if we accept the SLOET as a valid and consistent conclusion from a valid set of premises and a consistent application of logic, then the only legal order that can be legitimate (and consistently argued so, via ethics) is contractual law (law that is voluntarily agreed to by its adherents, and has no necessary reliance on geographic monopolization by legal services or protection).

    2. This form of law preexists statutory (state) law by thousands of years, and in fact in some cases lasted longer than any single state legal regime (stateless Ireland operated in this manner for about 2,100 years, as one example). So, there is no pragmatic argument that is historical, anthropologically correct, or archaeologically correct that suggests this type of law isn't feasible. There is nothing in the modern day that prevents this legal order from working...if anything, modern advances make it easier to apply.

    3. This form of legal order doesn't "force" anyone into any set of laws...if you prefer the current laws, you can retain them provided they are feasible without using force against the innocent (who refuse to consent to those laws) to support them. That means either you or someone else provides these laws and their enforcement on ONLY those who willingly contract for those laws, and with no regard to geographic territory. You can vote, or not, etc...but only with contract-mates who are like-minded, as anything else makes it a state again (which fails legitimacy tests from all the flaws listed above). To deny others their ability to choose their own subjectively preferable ethical theories, and legal arrangements that necessarily follow them, is to assert the SLOET is incorrect logically or in premises. This means your subjective preferences as a consumer of legal services and protection are respected...but others require reciprocation of that respect (which statists do not want to do, hence their flawed and yet forcefully upheld social contract theory).

    4. This form of legal order is called by the following names: polycentric law, customary law, panarchy (not to be confused with the similar concept of anarchy), anarchist law, law without a state, consuetudinary law, contractual society, etc. when in a stateless situation. When international among states (the first international laws) it was/is known as merchant law, or lex mercatoria. When in a state with polycentric legal order, but some form of other coerced monopoly, monopsony, or cartel that makes up a state (like in the Icelandic Commonwealth, for just one example), this is called by some of the names it is in a stateless form, and also by the modern term Functional Overlapping Competing Jurisdictions (or FOCJ).

    5. Because of various laws of economics, coercive monopoly, monopsony, and cartels lead to 4 basic problems: higher costs, lower quality service, less accountability, and less transparency. This isn't avoided when we give those things the name "government". For that reason, the legal orders listed in #4 (directly above) will decrease cost, increase quality of service, increase accountability, and increase transparency due to increased competition and more purely expressed and met consumer preferences. This also gets rid of a lot of division and internal conflict inherent in a state, as no one is fighting with the other to impose their subjective view of ethics into objective standards of law on all of those who disagree (and those who do attempt this are universally labeled criminals, via the SLOET's logical implications for law).

    6. The state is the number one cause of murder in the last 100 years (and that doesn't include a single war fatality), and that eclipsed all other murder in human history by non-state criminals up to that point. There is nothing more dangerous to human life, via unnatural death, than the state. Through democide (genocide, mass murder, and politicide) the states of the world have murdered, not counting a single war (as war came in 2nd as the leading cause of unnatural human death over this period) 250+ million innocents in just one century. In stateless societies, although frequency and intensity varied, war wasn't carried out on a mass scale, and was usually relegated to what we'd consider today "gang fights"; much of which was the probable result of weapons technology being primitive (which decreases incentives for peaceful resolution) and not dispersed in a widespread way per capita (as armed demographics tend to deter violent crime more than unarmed demographics). This would be viewed as criminal behavior when not purely defensive, and those who commit this crime would be tried and convicted in a stateless society. The state, of course, has two different standards of justice...one for the Ruled class (all of us), and one for the Ruler class. If I lied you into a gang fight and people died, and it turned out not to be defensive, I'd be tried and convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. Obama and Bush have no such charges of conspiracy to commit mass murder for Libya and Iraq, respectively. They aren't subject to the same legal system we are, precisely because it is monopolized coercively and therefore those within the monopoly have no reason to apply it to themselves.

    7. Consumer preference concerning legal services and protection cannot be met efficiently or legitimately in a state because A) you pay for this service against your will via taxation, and B) they outlaw any competition in this service - which means, as a result, the state doesn't care much about what the consumer of legal services and protection thinks. They may appease them by token gesture, via small changes to keep riots from growing too large (or into a revolution), but the radical change needed to make the legal order ethical, and thereby justified/legitimate is never considered. And they use the state quasi-monopoly on education to indoctrinate children to love the current system, and feed them horrible arguments for the "justification" and "legitimacy" of the system (like the social contract theory and all its catchphrases, like "price of civilization", "cost of society", "popular sovereignty" and "consent of the governed").

    8. If the governed were consenting, then why would you need laws that force them to pay against their will (taxation)? It is precisely that they refuse to consent en masse that such laws are required to get their funding. "Popular sovereignty" is nonsensical...the only sovereign (someone not subject to laws; someone with supreme authority), in the state's eyes, is those in the Ruling class. If the majority made sovereignty, not only is that argumentum ad populum (logical fallacy), but it also would mean the majority would enjoy the status of a sovereign; they flatly do not. From an anarchist perspective, every individual is a sovereign (NOT every "citizen", as citizen is just a word used in the context of a state, and the "sovereign citizen's movement" are mostly conspiratorially-minded people who want to keep the state, but just "fix" it), and you do not have to follow laws that are unjust (in fact, you have an obligation ethically not to follow such laws when you aren't the only individual harmed by such acquiescence - see Martin Luther King Jr. and the acts of civil disobedience in the Civil Rights Movement, see Gandhi, see Henry David Thoreau, see Germans who hid Jewish neighbors from the Nazis, etc.). There is no way to give over your sovereignty to popular vote unless in a purely voluntary contractual legal situation. That isn't possible in a coercive monopoly on law via the social contract theory. And lastly, they say it is the price and cost of civilization and society, but logically how can that which is an act of uncivil and antisocial behavior, like extortion on the threat of imprisonment (and the same threats used to keep competition out of law provision and enforcement), be what creates, maintains, or enhances society? It logically cannot. Antisocial and uncivilized acts harm and degrade society. Would you give a small Ruling class the legal right to rape, on the pretext that it would keep rape to minimum elsewhere, and thereby make society more rape-free? Of course not...but that is the logic used to justify giving a small minority Ruling class the legal right to extort and make threats against competitors, for them and their cronies, on the pretext it makes us have less extortion and threats against competition. It is, of course, total nonsense.


    Section F:

    I hope I have sufficiently proven my case that social contract theory is illogical and based on flawed premises, and that there is an alternative. I welcome any challenges to my premises or logic, but please stay away from overgeneralized statements. Quote what you want to critique, and then critique it. Otherwise this spins into an out of control discussion. I don't expect people to change their deep-seated beliefs in one post, when it took me years to accept that the only thing keeping me from becoming an anarchist was cognitive dissonance and an unwillingness to deprogram from propaganda I was fed from the time I was child by social and institutional norms. The point is to make you think it through for yourself, and to get you to question authority a little bit more than you're used to. From there, time and internal dialogue will have to take its course. Some will change because they want to be logically consistent and have solid premises on which they base their philosophy in life. Some will be comforted by a pseudo-religious faith in the state and refuse to face up to its illogical nature and bad premises. I can't say what you will do. But as for me, the path I took was one that forever liberated my mind and heart, and there is no turning back once you have accepted that kind of philosophical Truth (not opinion) into your life. Once you have had a taste of, and truly grasped, the ideas of pure liberty and pure justice, there is no substitute that will suffice.

    Thanks for reading this to the end. I appreciate your very valuable time.
    Last edited by ProIndividual; 05-09-2015 at 08:17 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post

    Yes, I want to force consumers to buy trampolines, popcorn, environmental protection and national defense whether or not they really demand them. And I definitely want to outlaw all alternatives. Nobody should be allowed to compete with the state. Private security companies, private healthcare, private package delivery, private education, private disaster relief, private militias...should all be outlawed.
    ^Minimalist state socialism (minarchy) taken to its logical conclusions; communism.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    The Social Contract (so called) isn't worth the paper it's NOT written on.

  4. #3
    From another thread:


    All contracts are valid. If any of the six elements of an agreement is absent, it is not a contract. Let us review the elements:




    1. Offer
    2. Acceptance
    3. Capacity
    4. Intent
    5. Consideration
    6. Lawfulness



    An offer must be made.

    The offer must be accepted.

    There must, on the part of all parties to the agreement, exist the capacity (refers to mental competence, as well as the material ability to fulfill the stipulations of the agreement) to enter into the contact.

    There must exist the explicit intent to enter into a contractual relationship.

    All parties must receive consideration. Therefore, you and I cannot contract for me to give you my car because only you would be in receipt of consideration. We can, however, contract to sell you my car for, say, $5K. There is, however, the notion of equality where consideration is concerned. For example, if we contract to sell you my car for $1, while technically I have received consideration in the exchange, it can be argued that because the considerations were so lopsided in terms of "inherent" (actually really "perceived") value, that no contract in fact exists. So when I think I've lucked out with the old dowager who has in writing agreed to bequeath to me her $100MM estate in exchange for a little of the old "in-out", her previous heirs who are all blood relatives would likely have legs in a civil action contesting whether a contract actually existed based on what they would no doubt claim was the grossly lop-sided considerations in question. Naturally, I would claim that a few rolls in the hay with me is an experience so close to God Himself that I was actually the one who came up short on the deal - and that would be the unvarnished truth of it. However, barring my "doing" every member of the 12-woman jury (sorry, not going there with men, not even for that much cash), chances are that the plaintiffs would prevail, not to mention the additional claims of diminished or nonexistent capacity... after all, only a crazy woman would give up all that in exchange for the thrill of a lifetime.

    The agreement must be lawful in whole and all its parts. I cannot contract with you to knock your wife off because murder is unlawful.

    So, to finally answer your question: no. Plain and simple. That is why the notion of the "social contract" is pure idiocy so far beneath contempt that anyone attempting to press that issue in some materially effective manner merits nothing better than to be beaten rightly with iron bars. The very notion of it is obscenity itself. Holding one to the stipulations of a contract that can in no meaningful way be demonstrated to exist is a high crime that is, IMO, meriting a death sentence because it is literal enslavement through the kidnapping of one's sovereignty. It is treason against the sacred rights of the Individual and I daresay an affront to God's endlessly apparent command as made manifest in the scheme of things. It is one of the saddest things to which I have ever borne witness.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Freedom will be stolen from you in a heartbeat if you do not behave as a wild and ravening beast pursuant to its protection.

    "Government" is naught but a mental construct, a script to which people meekly accept and play out their assigned roles by those with no authority to dictate such.

    Pray for reset.


  5. #4
    Well done, all around! +reps for y'all ^^

    ETA:
    Bonus reading for extra credit: http://freedom-school.com/the-consti...oston-1870.pdf
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 05-10-2015 at 11:14 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  6. #5
    I'm glad to see some folks read this. Thanks. I'm also happy to have received kudos for it. Again, thanks.

    I was rather hoping that someone opposed to the conclusion would come along and try to debate or critique the essay. I think the arguments made are based on clear and simple premises, and that the logic used is consistent, but perhaps an advocate for the state's existence would not (otherwise, why would they believe a state is legitimate?). I don't know if I should assume they read it and dismissed it, refused to read it, or read it, didn't dismiss it, but used cognitive dissonance to ignore the implications for their beliefs.

    At any rate, I was hoping to see some opposition. Why? Because I don't believe their arguments will be any good. If I'm right, it makes the original post even stronger. If I'm wrong, then I can make the OP stronger with further revision (or, if my arguments are fatally flawed, give up on anarchism altogether). (Obviously I don't think the arguments can be shown to be fatally flawed.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post

    Yes, I want to force consumers to buy trampolines, popcorn, environmental protection and national defense whether or not they really demand them. And I definitely want to outlaw all alternatives. Nobody should be allowed to compete with the state. Private security companies, private healthcare, private package delivery, private education, private disaster relief, private militias...should all be outlawed.
    ^Minimalist state socialism (minarchy) taken to its logical conclusions; communism.

  7. #6

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by ProIndividual View Post
    You go out to dinner with a male date
    Well, that is out of the question for me, & hence your whole argument is wrong

    On a serious note though, I think it's a good example, in fact, I think forcing people to pay taxes just because they were born into a particular country is WORSE that the rape situation because with the latter, one chose to go to the guy's house but we don't get to choose where we are born. So, as wrong as the rape situation is, "social contract" is worse; & still, the vast majority of people who will readily accept the rape situation as immoral won't be so ready to concede on the issue of social contract.

    Quote Originally Posted by ProIndividual View Post
    I don't know if I should assume they read it and dismissed it, refused to read it, or read it, didn't dismiss it, but used cognitive dissonance to ignore the implications for their beliefs.
    I assume that some didn't read because of the length of the post but those who did read probably ignored the moral implications. I think most statists value utility over morality. And it makes sense from an evolutionary point of view, considering that throughout most of the human history thus far, survival has been a struggle for most people, & obviously, in that situation, people who sacrifice morality for improved rates of survival will have a greater evolutionary advantage. For example, a man who steals from someone else to feed his starving children improves the chances of furthering his genetic line as opposed to a morally principled guy that might have to see his children starve to death; even socialism, even at tribal levels perhaps helped improve total survival rates, at least in the short-term (of course, at the expense of long-term economic growth of the survivors) so I guess we'll have to evolve as a species before we get to the point, where the majority puts morality above short-term utility, until then cognitive dissonance will continue to rule.
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  9. #8
    If two individuals enter into a contract to commit trespass, theft, robbery or murder upon a third, the contract is unlawful and void, simply because it is a contract to violate natural justice, or men's natural rights.
    “And yet we have what purports, or professes, or is claimed, to be a contract—the Constitution—made eighty years ago, by men who are now all dead, and who never had any power to bind us, but which (it is claimed) has nevertheless bound three generations of men, consisting of many millions, and which (it is claimed) will be binding upon all the millions that are to come; but which nobody ever signed, sealed, delivered, witnessed, or acknowledged; and which few persons, compared with the whole number that are claimed to be bound by it, have ever read, or even seen, or ever will read, or see.”
    Lysander Spooner
    Last edited by Henry Rogue; 05-17-2015 at 07:11 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by BuddyRey View Post
    Do you think it's a coincidence that the most cherished standard of the Ron Paul campaign was a sign highlighting the word "love" inside the word "revolution"? A revolution not based on love is a revolution doomed to failure. So, at the risk of sounding corny, I just wanted to let you know that, wherever you stand on any of these hot-button issues, and even if we might have exchanged bitter words or harsh sentiments in the past, I love each and every one of you - no exceptions!

    "When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will." Frederic Bastiat

    Peace.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Oh yes, the purport that the Constitution is an implied contract fails quite fully.

    Example of implied contract: you go to a restaurant and order dinner. By so doing, you have implicitly agreed to pay for the meal, all else equal. I am not saying that this strictly meets the six criteria and I believe it could be capably argued that it does not. Therefore, I am thinking that there can be no such thing as an implied contract. Contracts, but their very definition, must be explicit. Therefore, perhaps "implied contract" is a misnomer for the thing to which it ostensibly refers. Perhaps a new jargon is required, but I would not hold my breath for the courts on that because it is to their advantage to maintain the current scheme.

    But if we grant the existence if implied contracts, the Constitution still makes no cut as such. Going into a restaurant is presumably voluntary. That is, there is nobody forcing you at gunpoint. If you do not want the contract that involves payment for a meal, you walk on by. The purport of authority of the Constitution respects no such right. The absence of free will invalidates the Constitution as contract, prima facie. Nothing more is required to destroy the social contract argument.

    The Constitution is a well intended study in philosophical $#@!ing-up. There is no way around that fact. It engenders many correct things and proceeds to dismember them in effect by installing gratuitous language of Congresses and powers of taxation and so forth. I could have written the Constitution as it now exists in one page. We need nothing more. State the basic principles of proper human relations and declare those to be the law of the land. Done. The rest is up to people and their willingness to kill or otherwise put off tyrants and tyranny. We see how eager the mean American are to do that.
    Last edited by osan; 05-17-2015 at 12:52 PM.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Freedom will be stolen from you in a heartbeat if you do not behave as a wild and ravening beast pursuant to its protection.

    "Government" is naught but a mental construct, a script to which people meekly accept and play out their assigned roles by those with no authority to dictate such.

    Pray for reset.


  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by ProIndividual View Post
    ..................................

    Section D:

    As an example of this principle (the social contract) being applied consistently, we'll use two scenarios. If the social contract theory is consistent, then its principles in law, which are derived from ethics, will be the same across all applications. An inconsistency in application suggests a flawed or broken theory.

    1. Scenario one: You move into an area or are born in that area. The social contract theory says the state is legitimate (an ethical claim - as there is no other way to prove a legal theory legitimate or illegitimate other than defending the ethical theory it is born from), and that you consent to its legal theory/laws implicitly by your mere presence, even though you are explicitly refusing to consent. The claim is that you agree to the laws in the contract implicitly by merely being there (and possibly by using some form of coercively monopolized/monopsonized/cartelized services they provide you - even as you have no choice in provider or paying them - like defense, roads, or banking system).



    .
    CERTAINLY the consent should be explicit. Move into an area and refuse to consent you are a trespasser and maybe be removed by whatever force necessary. Born into a community YES somewhere between age 16 and 21 (when you are considered no longer a ward of your parents) you get a Choice- Consent or immediate exile.


    If you cannot be trusted to play by the community's rules they have every right to withdraw the perks of association from you.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by paleocon1 View Post
    CERTAINLY the consent should be explicit. Move into an area and refuse to consent you are a trespasser and maybe be removed by whatever force necessary. Born into a community YES somewhere between age 16 and 21 (when you are considered no longer a ward of your parents) you get a Choice- Consent or immediate exile.


    If you cannot be trusted to play by the community's rules they have every right to withdraw the perks of association from you.
    Trespassing would apply to privately owned land; & public land is certainly not privately owned.
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  14. #12
    I owe rep to Osan and Paul or Nothing II for the last two comments.

    An implied contract CAN exist insofar as it is voluntary, like any explicit contract can exist provided it is voluntary. The ability to consent is also essential, as we don't hold kids to contracts, implicit or explicit, due to the fact they cannot understand the agreements to which they agree or do not agree. This would also apply to people who are severely mentally handicapped or severely mentally disturbed.

    So, yeah, you could, by my judgment anyways, call a restaurant example an "implicit contract"....the stipulation being I can consent and indeed do. If at any time before services are rendered I have shown I cannot consent, or I explicitly refuse to, then the contract is void. If they continue to serve someone not capable of consent, after they have made it clear by words or actions they are not capable, or someone who has already explicitly said they do not consent, then that is not the problem of the person served, but of the fool serving them hoping for remuneration after-the-fact.

    The trespassing idea is covered in Section D, #5, #6, #7, and #8.

    Private land is attained contractually, via trade or homestead. State territory is not. Thereby, you must use circular logic (fallacy) to say its claim over me is legitimate ethically and legally. I never agreed to their rules. The claim the "community" has rules I need to follow is argumentum ad populum when I did not contract with them for those rules. Tradition and authority are also fallacious arguments to this end. A coercive monopoly on laws can't be justified ethically, and thereby cannot be justified legally (via logically consistent ethical or legal theories - I'm not referring to the fallacious reasoning in Section D, #5 for justification without consideration to what justification actually means, which necessarily refers to ethics AND THEN law). That means every person capable of full consent should be given the choice on an open, free, and competitive market for law to choose their own legal contractual arrangements. This should have no territorial relation, except the incidental, anymore than choosing a phone company with which to contract is. You should have choice in service provider and which service provider to pay...the idea the state's coercive monopoly of both service in a territory and the legal right to extort the unwilling consumer on the threat of violence within that territory can be in any way justified using legal, and thereby ethical, theory of a logically consistent nature is defeated in Section D, #5, #6, #7, and #8. I go into other arguments in other parts of the essay.

    Thank you, Paleocon1, for the attempt though. As I didn't intend an echo chamber, your feedback is welcome, even if we do not agree.
    Last edited by ProIndividual; 05-20-2015 at 07:38 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post

    Yes, I want to force consumers to buy trampolines, popcorn, environmental protection and national defense whether or not they really demand them. And I definitely want to outlaw all alternatives. Nobody should be allowed to compete with the state. Private security companies, private healthcare, private package delivery, private education, private disaster relief, private militias...should all be outlawed.
    ^Minimalist state socialism (minarchy) taken to its logical conclusions; communism.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by paleocon1 View Post
    If you cannot be trusted to play by the community's rules they have every right to withdraw the perks of association from you.
    What if the rules are essentially secret?

  16. #14
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Dr. Ron Paul. "Stand up for what you believe in, even if you are standing alone." - Sophie Magdalena Scholl
    "War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne "Freedom is the answer. ... Now, what's the question?" - Ernie Hancock.



Similar Threads

  1. Anyone have experience arguing against a statist the "social contract"?
    By Lord Xar in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 07-17-2013, 01:20 AM
  2. The "Social Contract" is a fraud
    By heavenlyboy34 in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-03-2013, 04:39 PM
  3. the "social contract"
    By heavenlyboy34 in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-02-2012, 02:48 PM
  4. "Social" Contract???
    By Truth Warrior in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 06-12-2008, 04:18 PM
  5. "Mr. Libertarian" on Gingrich, Armey and "The Contract with America"
    By LastoftheMohicans in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-01-2007, 02:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •