Just curious about the social contract: Why does it have to involve governments? Why does it have to involve money? Why does it have to involve coercion? Is it not possible to say that, in a society, for it to function, there is implied set of rights and responsibilities that society needs to have or humans are not able to function together? Like it is presumed, and unwritten, people will keep their word and do no harm.
You can of course incorporate within the social contract basic political rights including the right to dissent, to refuse and resist unjust laws and unjust govt. This is a core aspect of the Social Contract theorists, and used in the US Declaration of Independence, in fact. So to simply define it to mean 'obey the state" is a misleading distortion at best of the concept--but it does make for an easy straw man to debunk. :)
This is completely within acceptability for libertarians, btw, although they have a very limited view of it, i.e. protection from violence or other forms of harm from others. It could be widened to the granting/enforcing of certain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others. In truth any society of people together have some sort of social contract that defines the nature of their society.
The problem is with his definition of the social contract. Its not that people must obey the state. Its a theory that political authority must be derived from the consent of the governed, and that common public interests in the common interests of everyone are legitimate compromises on what individuals are free to do.
One more thing Bro. Social Contract is the base for our culture.It's simply a Community of people who try to come to some agreement on how we organize ourselves by deliberating on standards,morals,laws,etc.Its the developing our Sovereignty within a Domestic Jurisdiction, that's all.We then promote people either indefinitely(i.e. Monarchies) or for a limited Term of Office,to protect those interests. What we call Government.There is no such thing as social contract between people and Government.
Really. Are you promulgating that piece of miseducation intentionally? If you can imagine people or any living creature bonding together for protection and survival, you just understood Social Contract. Social Contract comes out of the need to bond for protection, but at the same time trying to sort out the rules and the laws to make it stable. Especially when the need for trade arise, The need for government(management) arise.
C'mon man, you over thinking it. Social Contract is part of the Law of Nature. A Social Contract, just like any thing else we do naturally to respond to potential threats of repression and property deprivation. SOCIAL: a exchange of information for Mutual Advantage. CONTRACT: A consent of Mutual Agreement.
You fail in your analogy of force because our state is very careful in its application of force, especially violent force. You also conflate enforcing a contract with the enforcement actions being only good. A contract may allow undesirable or conditional actions. In the case of not paying taxes, you allow the government to collect them from you.
Your attack on this is a misunderstanding of contracts, what the social contract is, and what you would want the state to be rather than what it is.
@kDest I think Stef's argument here is weak, in part for reasons you alluded to, but you _must_ be joking when you say that "our state is very careful in its application of force, especially violent force."
>>you _must_ be joking when you say that "our state is very careful in its application of force, especially violent force."
Even a very cynical person must admit that the violent force used by our police is much better controlled and subject to reprisal than most developing nations and indeed anarchies. Here you can effectively sue the police force. However in central Africa there is no recourse after being victimized by a death squad, and in Brazil the police act with impunity.
@kDest Hey, I remember you, we had an extremely long PM conversation going a while back about the necessity of a state. I was considering responding to your last message, but the conversation didn't seem to be going anywhere (and I've been busy). Also, you didn't seem to understand everything I typed. You typed some very absolutist things, and when I suggested that birth in a territory shouldn't automatically make one a citizen in a state, you apparently though I meant they had to be an alien.
Yeah, you were touchy about your age as most teenagers are. Your personal bias entered the topic, because you wanted to be treated like an adult you denied the basic fact that age is what primarily governs mental maturity. You also substituted someone else's argument for your own, which generally isn't a very good thing to do.
You had a fundamental misunderstanding of what a society is based upon, and fell prey to the narcissism of libertarianism.
@kDest I didn't even deny it was what primarily governed mental maturity, I just said that it didn't automatically determine whatever it was (as in, there is variation). You see, that's just it, you misinterpreted almost everything I said. I never said anything about what society is based upon, and you told me I was confusing how state's function with how I wish they functioned, which didn't make sense because I not only don't want states to exist, but I was describing how they work accurately.
>>You see, that's just it, you misinterpreted almost everything I said
Maybe you simply have trouble articulating what you mean. I read and reread what you said, and I still find it says what I believed it did.
>>you told me I was confusing how state's function with how I wish they functioned
I probably misspoke and was trying to say that you confuse how you wish things were, with how things ought to be. You have a poor understanding of social politics for example.
@kDest The other thing I did was give examples of how stateless societies could function. I don't know exactly how everything would function in a stateless society, but that doesn't mean the state is the only way for it to be non-chaotic. Yes I have grown, maybe not a lot, but some. I didn't really want to be treated like an adult, I just didn't want an idea I had dismissed because of who or what I was. Maybe I could respond to last message and just drop the thing about age. But not right now.
>>I don't know exactly how everything would function in a stateless society
When you don't know, just look to history. History says that without special planning an anarchy turns into rule by force by the powerful.
>>that doesn't mean the state is the only way for it to be non-chaotic
In politics order comes from balanced powers. An anarchy is rarely balanced, but instead is a grab for power. That is why it almost always descends into chaos, violence and bloodshed.
>>I didn't really want to be treated like an adult, I just didn't want an idea I had dismissed because of who or what I was.
You feel enlightened but are dismissed, this is normal. So is rebelling by subscribing to ideologies like anarchism. This is so common, it's typical.
People my age act smugly because we've been through all that and have grown substantially. It's hard to take anarchism seriously because I know it's just the product of naivety. You'll grow out of it.
@kDest I also remember linking you a video and you responded telling me that you didn't even watch it, and just read the text, which made me not want to continue our conversation. You told me I was incapable of understanding certain topics because of my age, you responded to one of my points with "You get what you vote for," even though I can't vote, and I really just get what the majority votes for. I have a response to pretty much everything in that last PM, but I doubt it would do anything.
Your example would not have legal sanction, therefore the state would find you "unjust" (in other words it fulfilled its duty to the governed). You fail to follow the social contract because you never submitted a contract for these people to sign, and neither did you provide a way for them to break their contract. You simply asserted authority without consent of those whom you attempted to govern.
It is also not state->citizen, in that citizens may (in most modern, democratic states) dictate laws back to the state.
The government claims authority from the consent of its governed body (in the United States, at least. Some states claim authority from god). It does not claim morality, but simply authority and ethical enforcement. Therefore an anarchist rebelling against the state would be unethical for not following its laws, and would have no legal authority for his claims.
You begin with a strawman of the social contract: The social contract does not say you must obey the state (the state constitutes the government, and the governed, when in actuality you must follow THE LAW, which everyone within the state is subject to), what qualifies you for this is variable. It may be formal process if you are an immigrant, or it may be implicit if you are born within borders (which is done for convenience by the way, and you can formally renounce your citizenship).
@mojorhythm I didn't read all of it because it was just wrong in so many ways in the first 12 or so paragraphs. He's saying things like "you agree to the social contract by agreeing to live in society with us," something that he doesn't substantiate at all (and a lame version of love it or leave it), he said that one's life, liberty, and property can only survive when there is a "social system" in place to protect them. Not sure what he means by social system, but he hasn't made an actual (cont)
case for needing a monopolistic extortion racket. He also called anarchy an "uncivilized use of force," and implied that constitutional democracy and law enforcement (something most anarchists actually want) aren't because there are "shared benefits" from them (he also doesn't substantiate this, or at least hasn't yet). He says "the" alternative to government means wholly unregulated force, and that the government's force is regulated by the constitution (something frequently ignored that (cont)
can be interpreted to mean just about anything (What is "general welfare" anyway?) and that can be changed, and has been). Among the "rights" he says the constitution grants are free speech and the right to complain, so when we complain that we don't like the state he says "we" (whoever that is) have the right to kick "you" out of if you don't comply with the state because that would make us thieves because we'd be using stuff we didn't pay for (very little of what my taxes go to are (cont)
I'm not against paying for what I use, I wouldn't define "peace" as a joint resource, but if not paying taxes is stealing the absence of war, then I guess you should pay for my showers because if you don't you're stealing my resource of the absence of foul odor, and besides I don't even get the option of not having some of the tax funded things: the EPA has to regulate my tap). When saying voting wasn't the initiation of force, he ignored how it influenced a policy that took people's shit (cont)
at the threat of imprisonment, and put it to something they didn't want it spent on. He compared joint ownership of a company (something you would get into with the kind of contract you actually get to sign and that you don't have to pool your resources in based on where you live, as opposed to the state's contract less than 50 people actually signed, and are instead born into, or are said to agree to for living on some gigantic landmass) to democracy (you're born into it, everyone has (cont)
the same power (in theory), it influences the rules you and everyone else must live by, you have no way out without moving, et cetera), and so much other stupid crap. He seemed to be arguing the use of force was inevitable as though the position was against that (me and other anti-statists want to minimalize the use of aggressive force). Seriously, everything I read so far has been refuted thousands of times, and quite thoroughly. Maybe sometime later I can read it all, but most of what (cont)
This definition of the SC doesn't include "consensus". If the most folks agreed the Car Dealership SC was fair - and it is clearly outrageous - saying otherwise would viewed as provocatory "rocking the boat". It does bring up the important and complex question regarding an individuals duties and responsibilities when ones opinions / beliefs differ from consensus opinions / beliefs. Adapt? Relocate? Evangelise? There are so many options and variables.
It's nice that there is someone out there that proves that the SC is a bad system. But I think most people already knows this? Do you have a better system in mind?
The social contract isnt something inforced on people by governments, it is the general will of the people, allowing them to create a society which progresses their freedoms and benefits further than those they experienced in the natural state (not a civil state). It is what the majority of the people conclude to be in the majority's interest, and as a large country, they cannot govern themselves so they choose representatives to enact the general will of the people - the social contract.
@Sreeve94 Please cite for me when the "majority" now present in our society ever agreed on any "social contract." I am aware of no such momentous event. Even if did happen, so what? Majoritarianism is nothing more than "might makes right" -- might equalling strength in numbers. Free people are exempt from majority preferences.
Stef is 100% correct in this vid. The social contract is just a myth used to legitimize violence/tax slavery.
The very idea of imprisoning people and then not restoring their rights once their sentence has been served if an attempt at freezing laws and leadership in their current corrupt form. We have had 3 recent presidents who smoked reefer and snorted cocaine but the "war on drugs"(a for profit industry) is still going full steam. Corporate prisons full of people who never stole anything or physically harmed anyone. The USA outs more of it's citizens in prison than any nation earth...FOR PROFIT!
the difference between the car dealer and the government is the government work for everyone (in theory) and for the common goods, while the dealer work for himself only.
Everyone gain from a functioning infrastructure, and no private company would build something that his competitor can use to be competitive with it. that why it's done by government.
@jeffiek and your point being ? You dislike incentive and subsidize . start by studying economics, then get in politics, or get you rep aware of your position. Sometimes, subsidize is good business, sometimes not.
to influence research and new tech, fine, to make old business richer, not fine. To temporary save jobs in a sector, from big company failing to all the small enterprise depending on the big one, fine. to continue support a failing business without a path to self-sustaining,not.
My point? The government did essentially the same thing as the car dealer.
You dislike logic and analogies. Start by studying them. Then, you will not need to waste your time getting into politics or making your rep aware of your position.
@jeffiek you are making us aware of your lack of logic by not understanding the difference between the two situation.
Yet, even as your example is NOT A BAD example of governance. If you had found an actual valid example, it would not invalidate what I said.
IE: When the government do bad thing : you change your rep and fix it, you don't ABOLISH the whole government for that, because there still many thing it does right.
The sheeple validate government's claim (that a "social contract" exists) by voting for someone to govern them. Those who believe the message proffered by Mr Molyneux should not participate in any political election, lest they contradict their own belief. Withdrawling support of any kind will eventually put gov't out of business. Then they can print their SC on toilet paper and use it appropriately.
I think it's also worth noting that even U.S. jurisprudence dictates that any contract is voidable if one of the parties agrees to the terms only because of coercion by the other party. If people do not consent, whether they obey the laws or not, they do not accept the contract, and the contract is only forced through coercion and is thereby VOID.
@qtutoringhelps It's a cyclical argument. the Car Dealership can say it's aim is to provide cars for everyone while it is really in business to make money and stimulate production for car companies. Same with our government, they represent corporations, banks and special interests as often as they do individual voters. ALL GOVERNMENTS KILL PEOPLE, car dealerships don't. A government that kills people does not represent my interests in any way and is fundamentally evil regardless of stated intent
@FromanMD if YOUR government only represent corp and bankers,it is YOUR jobs to replace it. But abolishing it is not a solution, it will just get worst.
@moestietabarnak Hahahahaha! You believe in a fantasy concocted by criminal murderers. The entire paradigm is a baited hook and you swallowed it. It is not MY government in any way shape or form and I refuse to swallow the bait and lend my tacit endorsement to their bullying, compulsion,theft and murder any longer. Let them go on doing these things(I can't stop them) but never let it be said that it was done in my name or that I in any way endorsed this vile fascist scam.
I think he could of expressed his argument in less time than 5 mins. It basically boils down to: why can a social contract be formed between the government and the people, whilst I am prevented from making my own competing, identical, compulsory social contract? Well, contracts work on concensus, not on one man's choice. If we go back to the car dealership analogy, it was the choice of the people to elect a car dealer who charges people for cars they didn't order, so it was up to them.
The rational liberal social contract is more-or-less this: 1. Don't commit crimes against your fellow man, 2. Don't support tyrannical gov't against him, 3. Don't lie to him, if he's a pretty good person, and 4. Be generally loyal and sympathetic towards him, if he's a halfway decent guy.
@PureLiberalFire but what is a "tyrannical government"? Rush Limbaugh thinks that a tyrannical government is one who takes more than x% out of his paycheck and nationalizes healthcare. Michael Moore thinks that a tyrannical government is one that outlaws drugs, "UNDERtaxes" the rich, and does NOT nationalize healthcare. The word 'tyrannical' can be an opinionated one, varying from person to person, the concept often being mutually exclusive from person to person.
@nurbSoldier A tyrannical gov't is one which initiates force. The individual's right to life, liberty, property, and privacy is untouchable and infinite. No person, group, or gov't is allowed to trespass individual freedom -- unless that person violated someone else's freedom first.
@nurbSoldier NO individual, group, or gov't EVER has the right to initiate force. You seem to have a mistaken notion of the concept of gov't and rights. Gov't exists for one reason only: to PROTECT rights i.e. to prevent and punish those who initiate force.
@PureLiberalFire and participate in government and cost of protecting and improving the common good, the society. ie: taxes allowed A LOT of thing that wouldn't be possible if left to the private sector.
Mainly because when there is no profit, there is not private capitalist company that will do anything (beside small token of charity for image. ie: profit motive))
BTW: 1, 2, 3 and 4 are emotionally charged to elicit a response that have nothing to do with social contract.
@moestietabarnak In many respects my understanding of the universal Social Compact IS the Golden Rule. But it needs to be elaborated on, which I did.
Society NEVER needs or wants "the common good" or "the greater good", etc. -- these are collectivist, tyrannical, self-sacrificial, self-destroying notions and ideals. What society always needs is the INDIVIDUAL good.
What do taxes fund which the private sector can't produce (except freedom and justice via gov't)? I can't think of any.
@PureLiberalFire army, police, health-care (look at socialized medicine in other country,it works. don't fall for the propaganda.) and FUCK the individual good. you cannot survive alone. If you think everything gravitate around you, then you are a sociopath. look the meaning of this word. the USA is the perfect example of the failure of privatization of the wrong thing. IE: privatize war and you get MORE war for profit, privatize prison, and you get more imprisonment for petty crime.
@moestietabarnak If you think the private sector doesn't produce police, military, and healthcare, I have to wonder if you know your history.
The only reason the draft is legal is because the citizenry as a whole is "The militia", and private security is almost invariably superior to taxpaid cops. Nobody is saying you have to survive alone, there's a difference between society and government. A HUGE one.
@Seravat7 I never said that, what I said is those when they are privatized, are done for profit. and profit incentive ask to get more of those. NOT what you actually want. or YOU didn't learn the lesson of history.
want current example ? : judge Michael Conahan (bribed by private prison to increase their profit) they don't want to rehabilitate, they want more inmate ..for profit.
another: blackwater, too many stuff to list here, google it.
@moestietabarnak The underlying assumption is that "government" doesn't do these things for a profit, but "government" doesn't exist. Government EMPLOYEES are all human beings though, and collect a paycheck for the same jobs. The only difference? They don't get fired when they fail. Which system do you think will produce better results?
Consider this: Wars are resource drains. In a privatized society, who would be able to afford one?
your judge, Conahan? He was a government employee, right?
@Seravat7 "your judge, Conahan? He was a government employee, right?" yes, but corrupted by a private corporation, if the prison Jailer get paid the same whether i has more or less inmate, it doesn't get incentive to bribe to get more. Actually he have incentive to get less to lighten his jobs. So that, and maybe some civic duty, will incite the jailer to facilitate rehabilitation. whereas a corporation had most interest to get more inmate or make them stay longer for profit. (screw rehab )
@moestietabarnak "yes, but corrupted by a private corporation"...so is the taker of a bribe or the giver of it more guilty? My stance is that the one who was elected to the "public trust" is held to a higher standard, and thus can be punished more harshly. I'd be curious to know how he was ACTUALLY punished...
@moestietabarnak "if the prison Jailer get paid the same whether i has more or less inmate, it doesn't get incentive to bribe to get more. Actually he have incentive to get less to lighten his jobs."
Having been inside a private AND a 'public' penitentiary in Texas, I can tell you that the private omes cut corners, and offered jobs to some inmates that paid a bit of money. Also that they both put the inmates to work RUNNING the prison, and thus it really didn't cost any more per inmate.
@moestietabarnak These people live in a fantasy land and are deluded utopians, it's like Marxism - sounds really nice on paper but would be horrific in practice. They are also ahistorical. The voluntary nature of the Articles of Confederation is why it failed. Congress could only request funds from states, but had no power to levy taxes. Congress could make decisions, but had no power to enforce those decisions. It didn't work out so well.
@Seravat7 I stated that the Articles of Confederation failed b/c of its voluntary nature. Congress could only request money from states, had no power to levy taxes, the government could not pay debts as a result b/c the states wouldn't honor those requests for money. Congress's decisions and legislation was ignore because the gov had no power to enforce those decisions so they were ignored by the states. It was a mess and that is the reason the Articles of Confederation were done away with.
@xexixk Repeating your summary the way you understood events does not qualify as an example. DO you have an EXAMPLE of the things you assert, a time when they actually happened, or just a belief that it did? On a related note, perhaps it's just that you're the only one between us who would see that as a bad thing. Time was, the states took care of themselves perfectly well without a "federal" overseer. You might not realize this but the original name was 'the united States'. ie. Nation-states.
@Seravat7 Pick up a history book and you can read all about the Articles of Confederation and the failure it was. You must forget the supremacy clause of the constitution. Perhaps we should just get rid of the fed gov and beome 50 little independent countries. Nation-state = a state that is built around a people who share a common ethnic origin, language and culture. The US was never a nation state - it was and is made up of people from many diverse ethnic backgrounds.
@xexixk Lacking the ability to enforce your will on sovereign individuals or sovereign states does not a failure make. It makes LIBERTY. So your basis is that it is not a sovereign state if they have differing origins? That fails various tests, including any where a nation has been conquered by another. It would also disqualify the WHOLE USA as a "state" for your own reasons.
As far as picking up history books, perhaps it's good advice, and you should take it. Try to avoid the public school ones
@Seravat7 Sovereign individuals? Did you negotiate a treaty with the state giving you sovereignty over your property? Similar to the treaties that exist between some Indian tribes and the federal government? The Articles of Confederation was indeed an absolute failure b/c the federal government could not raise any revenue nor enforce any decisions. You view of each state just being able to do whatever it is wishes is a fantasy. In that case we should just disolve the union.
@xexixk Seravat7 is another one of those pathetic crybabies who screams unfair unfair whenever they do not get everything exactly their way or are required to do things they do not want to do. Then they scream they are living under tyranny. Such people have no idea what real tyranny is.
@Seravat7 1) Why would you "defend" a country you wish to disolve? 2) Like all ideological fundamentalist you have incredibly thin skin 3) Nothing in my comment meets the definition of slander or libel (like most of your type you enjoy making up your own definitions for words)
@MaryJo1950 1) Because I was barely 18, and I signed a contract. They promised to pay me, I promised to follow orders. I learned quite a few things in those 8 years, including how broken the system was.
2) Eat shit again.
3) "like most of your type" you love throwing things into categories so that you can stick them in your blind spot and pretend that they don't exist. So far you've had nothing but a string of fallacies and personal attacks, so basically
@xexixk I see. Failure to negotiate is your argument?
If you're confronted by a mugger in an alley, he has a gun, and you're unarmed... Do you only maintain legitimacy if he stops and negotiates with you??
" In that case we should just dissolve the union."
@Seravat7 The mugger has no legitimate claims to authority - the state does. The Unites States has existed for over two centuries now, it's right to exist as a sovereign state is legitimate, your wish to abolish it is not. You contract by agreeing to remain living in the territory of a sovereign state. As for disolving the union, no thanks. Many states don't even have the industry to support an independent economy. The 50 states are much better off together than as little independent countries.
@xexixk Your claim is that age confers legitimacy? Demonstrably false.
The legitimacy of the federal government is dependent upon one thing, and it's delineated in writing: They derive their right to exist FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
"You contract by agreeing to remain living in the territory of a sovereign state" -This is a falsehood already debunked by the above video. I do not 'contract' to anything simply by accident of birth location. Contracts have a definition. This fails it.
@Seravat7 He has debunked nothing. You are not held here by force or in bondage. You have an option to leave and find someplace that is more to your liking. "from the consent of the governed" is a phrase contained in the Declaration of Independence. The D of I is not a legal document, it's a historical document that announced the breaking away of the colonies, that's all it is. No court has every cited the D of I as a source of law nor is it given such status in the constitution.
@xexixk "You are not held here by force or in bondage. You have an option to leave and find someplace that is more to your liking." I am held to EARTH and its habitable zones. Places that were very much to my liking used to exist, and no longer do: the culprit is the scope-creep of governments.
Explain this: People who do not desire to follow oppressive rules are charged with crimes for them, even with no victim, and a felon CANNOT leave this country. Does this register with you?
@Seravat7 I suspect that you define "oppression" as not being allowed the absolute freedom to do anything you wish or paying taxes. It isn't the US that would prevent a felon from leaving, it is the other country that would deny the felon entry - depending on the circumstances, the rules vary by country.
@xexixk " It isn't the US that would prevent a felon from leaving, it is the other country that would deny the felon entry - depending on the circumstances, the rules vary by country."
@Seravat7 I've read the info regarding passports on the State Dept's site just to see if I've missed something. It clearly states that criminal convictions do not automatically disqualify someone from obtaining a passport. Now if you are on parole or probation you may not be able to get one until your parole or probation is over.
@xexixk Government is ~ a business in this regard: They put 'does not "automatically" disqualify you', cuz people would raise a stink about that... But then they 'review each applicant on an individual basis' to avoid that "automatically", and disqualify them at their discretion, or other nations' refusal to admit US felons. And yes, parole and probation prevent you from leaving the state that you're in without permission, which implies national borders as well. Is "parole" limited by time?
@Seravat7 No court of law has ever cited the D of I as a source of law, nor does is it given such status in the constitution. As for the "social contract" that is the set of laws we live by and the responsibilities each citizen has and the responsibilites the state has to the citizenery.
@Seravat7 Read up on implied consent and consent by conduct. Again you aren't held by force, you choose to stay. If you are being held by force or someone has a gun to your head forcing you to be here then call the police.
@xexixk Consent by conduct does not allow me to say "If you don't shut your mouth I'll put a bullet hole in it". It has limits. Government does not respect those, and thus it is illegitimate.
" If you are being held by force"
You mean the armed guards on the border?
"or someone has a gun to your head forcing you to be here then call the police."
@xexixk continuing: "Many states don't even have the industry to support an independent economy" This isn't a deterrent, there are many things that countries don't produce enough of. This encourages trade.
The EU is a modern enactment of the US, it's a trade agreement and governmental compromise to form an overarching body. Do you thereby consider Germany to not be a sovereign nation if it accepts the EU? Do you worry that they don't produce enough oil to survive? They import tons, after all
@Seravat7 Germany is a country of 82 million people. The EU states do indeed subvert much of their sovereignty to the EU. Heard of the EU Courts? Many states wouldn't even be able to import the resources they need but lack b/c independently they wouldn't be able to afford to. What if some state inacted tarriffs against others? All things that are not an issue with the states being united. How about conflicts or outright wars between or among states over resources?
@xexixk Those issues were all covered as matters of course during the creation of the US Government, but there was no real threat of war between states. My point remains: You worry that each state is individually incompetent, and I ask if you consider European signatories which have been nations for centuries to be likewise incompetent. My answer should be easy to predict: The free market takes care of import/export nicely, without worrying about governmental tiers.
@Seravat7 Your analogy with the EU fails. Each of those is a sovereign state - they may also withdraw from the EU if they wish. A comparison to the EU would be if the US, Canada and the Latin American states were to form such a union as the EU. What you suggest of disolving the US and each state being independent would be akin to disolving Germany and each German state becoming independent, each Italian state, each French department, etc.
@xexixk "Your analogy with the EU fails. Each of those is a sovereign state - they may also withdraw from the EU if they wish. "
This was ALSO true of the US. There's a reason old documents were specifically capitalized: "united States". Just because Lincoln refused to honor the VOLUNTARY union, you cannot solve a matter of constitutional law with war, to do such would legitimize "might makes right". Your analogy fails, since you would be breaking down each State to its constituent counties.
@Seravat7 You analogy still fails. The constitution doen't specifically say a state can or can not leave the union, each state was not a completely sovereign state either - read the constitution - remember that supremacy clause. As for LIncoln and war. All property right - that includes private property as well as the territorial integrity of a country - are backed up with threat of force.
@xexixk Constitution? No. Read the Bill of Rights again though. Amdt. 10. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It reflects the Articles of Confederation: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence..."
Are you actually advocating might making right? Maybe if I go punch you a few times, you'll admit I'm right then. :P
@Seravat7 Nothing can "reflect" the Articles of Confederation, it's no longer a source of law. Are you suggestion the 10th amendment somehow undoes the supremacy clause?
@xexixk Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase "in pursuance thereof" in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself.
And what was the Bill of Rights? It was the limitation of federal powers. You don't have to "undo" something to put a leash on it.
@Seravat7 I don't need to 'think' about what will produce better result. I 'KNOW' because we have historical and empirical facts. You just go by ideology and guts, have you ever stopped to study reality ?
let our elderly die in the street, they just had to save for their old days, let not get food regulation so another selfish like you can make more profit selling contaminated food. (and flee to a nice tropical island before people find you. etc ..
Rousseau wrote of two different social contracts one between individuals and the other between individuals and a government. You fail to distinguish between the two.
This is embarrassing, it doesn't even mention game theory and the possibility that we can enhance our own interests in the long term better through cooperation (embodied by a social contract) rather than through no cooperation.
@tomdbeevers1 One can cooperate and compete at the same time. The military encourages competitiveness within its own ranks for the increase in motivation to do better overall. It's a cooperative competitiveness, and as nurbSoldier says, you cannot connect cooperation to a contract which does not exist and was never agreed to.
You all talk about the book and whether he has read/understood it is not the issue. I don't think he is talking about the book but rather a general concept of the social contract as it is applied today. Granted I've never read Rousseau, but even if stef is talking about the book none of you complaining that he hasn't read the book have explained why he is wrong.
this guy did not read the book AT ALL. he is trying to pass himself off as an educated person when all he probably did was use sparknotes. sir, people like you are the reason this world cannot have a wholesome society
Is anyone really listening to what he's saying? Did he, or any of you, even READ the social contract? By Rousseau? Are we talking about the same book? The PEOPLE always have the ultimate right of abolishing the government should it no longer conform to the sovereign's will.
@thewritingwriterof89 I had a similar initial response, i.e., that Stef's got it all wrong. He fails to properly define the social contract from the start. Then, he goes through a convoluted, nonsensical mess of what is purported to be logic only to arrive at an unsound conclusion. On a side note: Rousseau was the last of the Contractarian philosophers. Hobbes first proposed it, then Locke later ran with, and then even later Rousseau offered his conception in, as you noted, The Social Contract.
@falicore89 True. He didn't propose the contract, but since he titled his treatise "The Social Contract" and goes into such depth, it's the first thing I think of. Oh, and glad to see a fellow skeptic haha
@thewritingwriterof89 Yeah, this dude didn't actually read the book. He must've SparkNotesed it. This guy is trying to turn Rousseau into a Machiavelli, which is the complete opposite. He doesn't understand that the government follows the gathering of the people. Government isn't a pre-existing condition to which we all must bow. Very, Very, Very bad reading.
@Ematched does not matter. What he addressed is the chief justification for the social contract as well as its nature. No need to schlep through all the sophistry.
@Ematched "Government isn't a pre-existing condition to which we all must bow" -I wish this were still true, but finding a case which matches this belief is proving difficult.
I thought originally you were going to outright demolish the SC; not simply show the modern day gov'ts don't partake in this. I would not say the government is inherently evil as you say. It simply is too large and awkward to know what harm it is capable of. Sort of like a bull in a china shop.
The SC does have some inherent flaws but it is generally a good idea. The gov't however doesn't know how to apply it correctly and thus can occasionally be a detriment to its citizens.
Fourthly, you mention fallacious reasoning, yet you fall victim to it yourself: you're misrepresenting your opponent's views and refuting those misrepresentations, i.e. straw man. The question is not whether the State's monopoly on force is legitimate. The issue over this entire video was whether or not Stefan Molyneux validly and soundly "defines and destroys" the Social Contract. He does not. See my older posts for an explanation.
@falicore89 The State has never been created by a "social contract"; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation. The classic paradigm was a conquering tribe pausing in its time honored method of looting and murdering a conquered tribe, to realize that the time-span of plunder would be longer and more secure, and the situation more pleasant, if the conquered tribe were allowed to live and produce, with the conquerors settling among them as rulers exacting a steady annual tribute...
@ErikLiberty "If the land itself was part of a state, the border of the state would never move."
False. Wars, secessions, annexations, cessions, etc. all result in land losses and gains. However, there is major force behind all of these. In your individual secession, you have the power of one and, thus, no real power at all.
There is no third party involved , no interest groups which guide the might of the majority or any government. only you enter the social contract (like anyone else in the political body you chose to partizipate in with the SC) by giving up your RIGHT TO ACHIEVE EVERYTHING NO MATTER WHAT THE CONSEQUENSES FOR ALL MIGHT BE and gain the security that your property is legally secured by the LAWS YOU PARTIZIPATED IN MAKING. that introduces a decency of people to not overstep each others lines (Kant)
because citizens are not a government unless they become a part of the ruling party of the state they have no right to impose obligations because in return they give no rights without rights going out there is no reason for obligations to come in thus only the government->citizen social contract can exist to legitimize the government while citzens can give no rights so citizen->citizen or citizen->government SC cannot exist.
@theawesome300 There is no such thing as a citizen. See Marc Stevens for more on that. And saying that a ruling group gives rights is a contradiction and creates moral hazard in that the majority gets to decide which rights citizens have. There is no check on majority power that the majority cannot overcome. Theoretically and in practice, this leads to predation and exploitation of minority classes who have no recourse. This has many detrimental economic and moral consequences.
Your argument that the social contract goes both ways, a->b therfore b->a is wrong because thats not what the SC implies. the SC has the government giving away and protecting rights like life liberty and property to the citiezens in return the citizen has obligations like taxes. the government has to not infringe on these rights and to protect the rights of each citizen. the reason the SC doesnt go both ways is because a ruling group gives rights while a subject of that group givesobligations
@nurbSoldier Legal contracts can occur BECAUSE they have the force of law, i.e. the State, whereas the social contract occurs within the state of nature, where there is no State, only sovereign individuals. There is NO comparison to be made. Since this crucial premise is false, his conclusion that "the social contract invalidates the social contract" is also wrong.
@ErikLiberty Correct, a State is not necessary to make or enforce a contract. However, there needs to be something, someone, or some system to enforce it, and that, as far as I know, is always the State or something or someone delegated authority therefrom.
@ErikLiberty Also, if you listen closely to that video you recommended, the narrator says (at 2:41 to 2:47), "The next step is...that you agree on [an] arbitrator...." Thus: "If you want to do safe business with anyone, contract us to guarantee it, OR take your chances with other sovereigns." Sounds a lot like the Social Contract: "If you want to live safely, contract a government to guarantee it, OR take your chances with other sovereigns." Make no mistake: either way, both form a State.
@falicore89 Thanks for watching the video. A social contract is nothing like a real contract though. A social contract creates a government monopoly of arbitration. No competition is allowed. Supposedly "We the People" agreed to this in the social contract, but "We the People" is a lie. How? Blacks, women, and white males that didn’t own enough property weren’t allowed to vote. The Constitution barely passed and if blacks had voted there is no way they would have agreed to a slavery contract.
@ErikLiberty You just stated that "A social contract is nothing like a real contract...." Obviously, this is so. [My most recent reply to you was a stretch of a comparison and seeks merely to point out the virtual compulsivity, an attribute of every State, of even the scenario given in the video you recommended.] In fact, I stated that point earlier against Stef's comparison of the two right when you joined the debate. Please re-read my post you originally commented on.
@falicore89 ...Nor is secession to be confused with the mere right to emigrate, even when one is allowed to take one’s property out of the country. Secession means the right to stay put, on one’s own property, and either to shift alliance to another political entity, or to set up shop as a sovereign on one’s own account. Why should the man who wishes to secede from a government have to vacate his land? For surely, even under the philosophy of statists, it was the people who came first...
@ErikLiberty You ask, "Why should the man who wishes to secede from a government have to vacate his land?" We must differentiate here between government and State. The government is merely one part of the State--the administrative part. So your question then becomes, "Why should the man who wishes to secede from the State have to vacate his land?"
@ErikLiberty Well, let's now turn to Weber for his definition of State: "a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within A CERTAIN TERRITORY." The land itself is part of the State, and, unless the State allows you to leave with the property, declaring independence/sovereignty is an act of war.
@ErikLiberty Thus the answer to your question is simple: the man who leaves the State but resides on his former property without the State's permission should have to vacate the land because it's no longer his. Moreover, he's in the State of Nature, wherein his rights, if any, are not protected.
@falicore89 First, the dictionary definition is incorrect. It should say a state is "a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that ATTEMPTS TO MAINTAIN a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory." Proof of this can easily be seen by the simple fact that states have come and gone, expanded and contracted, since the beginning of time. If the land itself was part of a state, the border of the state would never move.
@ErikLiberty Firstly, states, WHILE IN EXISTENCE (figured that was a given), generally do successfully maintain their monopolies on force. E.g., Western nations maintain their monopolies on force. Secondly, when a state loses one of its necessary attributes (government, governed, monopoly on force, territory, etc), it ceases to be a state. If it loses territory, it's still a state; it is just geographically smaller. E.g., the State of the Vatican City.
@falicore89 ...transformed into the lawful nobility of the realm. End quote. Or another way to put it: Looter+1: Don't kill everyone, leave some alive to loot again later.
Looter+2: Plan to scare, rather than kill, your victims, so that they can continue farming and provide for your needs later. Dead victims can't work...
@ErikLiberty Thirdly, for most most of human existence, people have lived in stateless societies. States have not been existence since the "beginning of time" as you stated, for they lacked the crucial quality of monopoly on force. The Social Contract gave primitive "government" that power and thereby formed the State.
@falicore89 ...One method of the birth of a State may be illustrated as follows: in the hills of southern "Ruritania," a bandit group manages to obtain physical control over the territory, and finally the bandit chieftain proclaims himself "King of the sovereign and independent government of South Ruritania"; and, if he and his men have the force to maintain this rule for a while, lo and behold! a new State has joined the "family of nations," and the former bandit leaders have been...
@falicore89 The question is whether the States monopoly of force is legitimate. The problem with the "love it or leave it" argument is that it is circular. You're trying to prove that the State is justified. You then assume that State is justified, and say that you can leave if you don't like it. So you just assume what you are trying to prove.
In other words...
1-Government is justified
2-If you don't like it, you can move to a different country
@falicore89 "I think that the person who makes this argument is already assuming that the government has some legitimate jurisdiction over this territory. And then they say, well, now, anyone who is in the territory is therefore agreeing to the prevailing rules. But they're assuming the very thing they're trying to prove — namely that this jurisdiction over the territory is legitimate. If it's not, then the government is just one more group of people living in this broad general geographical...
Just curious about the social contract: Why does it have to involve governments? Why does it have to involve money? Why does it have to involve coercion? Is it not possible to say that, in a society, for it to function, there is implied set of rights and responsibilities that society needs to have or humans are not able to function together? Like it is presumed, and unwritten, people will keep their word and do no harm.
richardhutnik 4 days ago
You can of course incorporate within the social contract basic political rights including the right to dissent, to refuse and resist unjust laws and unjust govt. This is a core aspect of the Social Contract theorists, and used in the US Declaration of Independence, in fact. So to simply define it to mean 'obey the state" is a misleading distortion at best of the concept--but it does make for an easy straw man to debunk. :)
Giovanni1972 4 weeks ago
This is completely within acceptability for libertarians, btw, although they have a very limited view of it, i.e. protection from violence or other forms of harm from others. It could be widened to the granting/enforcing of certain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others. In truth any society of people together have some sort of social contract that defines the nature of their society.
Giovanni1972 4 weeks ago
The problem is with his definition of the social contract. Its not that people must obey the state. Its a theory that political authority must be derived from the consent of the governed, and that common public interests in the common interests of everyone are legitimate compromises on what individuals are free to do.
Giovanni1972 4 weeks ago
One more thing Bro. Social Contract is the base for our culture.It's simply a Community of people who try to come to some agreement on how we organize ourselves by deliberating on standards,morals,laws,etc.Its the developing our Sovereignty within a Domestic Jurisdiction, that's all.We then promote people either indefinitely(i.e. Monarchies) or for a limited Term of Office,to protect those interests. What we call Government.There is no such thing as social contract between people and Government.
solid7gld 1 month ago
Did you see billburn2 reply to this video? I think you might want respond
mjbarrowful 1 month ago
Really. Are you promulgating that piece of miseducation intentionally? If you can imagine people or any living creature bonding together for protection and survival, you just understood Social Contract. Social Contract comes out of the need to bond for protection, but at the same time trying to sort out the rules and the laws to make it stable. Especially when the need for trade arise, The need for government(management) arise.
solid7gld 1 month ago
C'mon man, you over thinking it. Social Contract is part of the Law of Nature. A Social Contract, just like any thing else we do naturally to respond to potential threats of repression and property deprivation. SOCIAL: a exchange of information for Mutual Advantage. CONTRACT: A consent of Mutual Agreement.
solid7gld 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is the most idiotic thing i have ever listened, good job on that i guess.
DrGonzo56 2 months ago
Wait you fucked up the definition of social contract. That literally invalidates half of the stated purpose of your shitty video. What an eyesore.
Crezth 2 months ago
"The idea that those citizens who live in a country must obey the state"
Way to set up a straw man in 10 seconds, moron.
Bayview05 3 months ago
You fail in your analogy of force because our state is very careful in its application of force, especially violent force. You also conflate enforcing a contract with the enforcement actions being only good. A contract may allow undesirable or conditional actions. In the case of not paying taxes, you allow the government to collect them from you.
Your attack on this is a misunderstanding of contracts, what the social contract is, and what you would want the state to be rather than what it is.
kDest 3 months ago
@kDest I think Stef's argument here is weak, in part for reasons you alluded to, but you _must_ be joking when you say that "our state is very careful in its application of force, especially violent force."
momerath42 3 months ago
@momerath42
>>you _must_ be joking when you say that "our state is very careful in its application of force, especially violent force."
Even a very cynical person must admit that the violent force used by our police is much better controlled and subject to reprisal than most developing nations and indeed anarchies. Here you can effectively sue the police force. However in central Africa there is no recourse after being victimized by a death squad, and in Brazil the police act with impunity.
kDest 3 months ago
@kDest Hey, I remember you, we had an extremely long PM conversation going a while back about the necessity of a state. I was considering responding to your last message, but the conversation didn't seem to be going anywhere (and I've been busy). Also, you didn't seem to understand everything I typed. You typed some very absolutist things, and when I suggested that birth in a territory shouldn't automatically make one a citizen in a state, you apparently though I meant they had to be an alien.
1000g2g3g4g800999 3 months ago
@1000g2g3g4g800999
Yeah, you were touchy about your age as most teenagers are. Your personal bias entered the topic, because you wanted to be treated like an adult you denied the basic fact that age is what primarily governs mental maturity. You also substituted someone else's argument for your own, which generally isn't a very good thing to do.
You had a fundamental misunderstanding of what a society is based upon, and fell prey to the narcissism of libertarianism.
Have you grown since then?
kDest 3 months ago
@kDest I didn't even deny it was what primarily governed mental maturity, I just said that it didn't automatically determine whatever it was (as in, there is variation). You see, that's just it, you misinterpreted almost everything I said. I never said anything about what society is based upon, and you told me I was confusing how state's function with how I wish they functioned, which didn't make sense because I not only don't want states to exist, but I was describing how they work accurately.
1000g2g3g4g800999 3 months ago
@1000g2g3g4g800999
>>You see, that's just it, you misinterpreted almost everything I said
Maybe you simply have trouble articulating what you mean. I read and reread what you said, and I still find it says what I believed it did.
>>you told me I was confusing how state's function with how I wish they functioned
I probably misspoke and was trying to say that you confuse how you wish things were, with how things ought to be. You have a poor understanding of social politics for example.
kDest 3 months ago
@kDest The other thing I did was give examples of how stateless societies could function. I don't know exactly how everything would function in a stateless society, but that doesn't mean the state is the only way for it to be non-chaotic. Yes I have grown, maybe not a lot, but some. I didn't really want to be treated like an adult, I just didn't want an idea I had dismissed because of who or what I was. Maybe I could respond to last message and just drop the thing about age. But not right now.
1000g2g3g4g800999 3 months ago
@1000g2g3g4g800999
>>I don't know exactly how everything would function in a stateless society
When you don't know, just look to history. History says that without special planning an anarchy turns into rule by force by the powerful.
>>that doesn't mean the state is the only way for it to be non-chaotic
In politics order comes from balanced powers. An anarchy is rarely balanced, but instead is a grab for power. That is why it almost always descends into chaos, violence and bloodshed.
kDest 3 months ago
@1000g2g3g4g800999
>>I didn't really want to be treated like an adult, I just didn't want an idea I had dismissed because of who or what I was.
You feel enlightened but are dismissed, this is normal. So is rebelling by subscribing to ideologies like anarchism. This is so common, it's typical.
People my age act smugly because we've been through all that and have grown substantially. It's hard to take anarchism seriously because I know it's just the product of naivety. You'll grow out of it.
kDest 3 months ago
@kDest I also remember linking you a video and you responded telling me that you didn't even watch it, and just read the text, which made me not want to continue our conversation. You told me I was incapable of understanding certain topics because of my age, you responded to one of my points with "You get what you vote for," even though I can't vote, and I really just get what the majority votes for. I have a response to pretty much everything in that last PM, but I doubt it would do anything.
1000g2g3g4g800999 3 months ago
@kDest Anyway, how's life treating you?
1000g2g3g4g800999 3 months ago
As to your personal example, it fails because:
Your example would not have legal sanction, therefore the state would find you "unjust" (in other words it fulfilled its duty to the governed). You fail to follow the social contract because you never submitted a contract for these people to sign, and neither did you provide a way for them to break their contract. You simply asserted authority without consent of those whom you attempted to govern.
kDest 3 months ago
It is also not state->citizen, in that citizens may (in most modern, democratic states) dictate laws back to the state.
The government claims authority from the consent of its governed body (in the United States, at least. Some states claim authority from god). It does not claim morality, but simply authority and ethical enforcement. Therefore an anarchist rebelling against the state would be unethical for not following its laws, and would have no legal authority for his claims.
kDest 3 months ago
You begin with a strawman of the social contract: The social contract does not say you must obey the state (the state constitutes the government, and the governed, when in actuality you must follow THE LAW, which everyone within the state is subject to), what qualifies you for this is variable. It may be formal process if you are an immigrant, or it may be implicit if you are born within borders (which is done for convenience by the way, and you can formally renounce your citizenship).
kDest 3 months ago
Provide proof of claim for something your alleging i cannot do.
JOINTHERESISTANCE1 4 months ago
Stef you seemed a bit disgusted when you mentioned mortgages, bad experience?
Yoni89 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
richardcarrier dot blogspot dot com / 2011/01/factual-politics-4.html?showComment=1316294866320#c8349418329341267345
mojorhythm 4 months ago
@mojorhythm For all reading this thread: check out the above URL. It totally refutes and embarrasses Stefbot's sorry ass with respect to this video.
mojorhythm 4 months ago
@mojorhythm Sorry, but that article doesn't refute anything.
1000g2g3g4g800999 4 months ago
@1000g2g3g4g800999 That's because you didn't read it.
mojorhythm 4 months ago
@mojorhythm I didn't read all of it because it was just wrong in so many ways in the first 12 or so paragraphs. He's saying things like "you agree to the social contract by agreeing to live in society with us," something that he doesn't substantiate at all (and a lame version of love it or leave it), he said that one's life, liberty, and property can only survive when there is a "social system" in place to protect them. Not sure what he means by social system, but he hasn't made an actual (cont)
1000g2g3g4g800999 4 months ago
case for needing a monopolistic extortion racket. He also called anarchy an "uncivilized use of force," and implied that constitutional democracy and law enforcement (something most anarchists actually want) aren't because there are "shared benefits" from them (he also doesn't substantiate this, or at least hasn't yet). He says "the" alternative to government means wholly unregulated force, and that the government's force is regulated by the constitution (something frequently ignored that (cont)
1000g2g3g4g800999 4 months ago
can be interpreted to mean just about anything (What is "general welfare" anyway?) and that can be changed, and has been). Among the "rights" he says the constitution grants are free speech and the right to complain, so when we complain that we don't like the state he says "we" (whoever that is) have the right to kick "you" out of if you don't comply with the state because that would make us thieves because we'd be using stuff we didn't pay for (very little of what my taxes go to are (cont)
1000g2g3g4g800999 4 months ago
I'm not against paying for what I use, I wouldn't define "peace" as a joint resource, but if not paying taxes is stealing the absence of war, then I guess you should pay for my showers because if you don't you're stealing my resource of the absence of foul odor, and besides I don't even get the option of not having some of the tax funded things: the EPA has to regulate my tap). When saying voting wasn't the initiation of force, he ignored how it influenced a policy that took people's shit (cont)
1000g2g3g4g800999 4 months ago
at the threat of imprisonment, and put it to something they didn't want it spent on. He compared joint ownership of a company (something you would get into with the kind of contract you actually get to sign and that you don't have to pool your resources in based on where you live, as opposed to the state's contract less than 50 people actually signed, and are instead born into, or are said to agree to for living on some gigantic landmass) to democracy (you're born into it, everyone has (cont)
1000g2g3g4g800999 4 months ago
the same power (in theory), it influences the rules you and everyone else must live by, you have no way out without moving, et cetera), and so much other stupid crap. He seemed to be arguing the use of force was inevitable as though the position was against that (me and other anti-statists want to minimalize the use of aggressive force). Seriously, everything I read so far has been refuted thousands of times, and quite thoroughly. Maybe sometime later I can read it all, but most of what (cont)
1000g2g3g4g800999 4 months ago
I've read so far was refuted as far back as Lysander Spooner's essay "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority".
1000g2g3g4g800999 4 months ago
On another note, I'm very tired, dizzy, and I have a lot of work to do.
1000g2g3g4g800999 4 months ago
@1000g2g3g4g800999 Er....you could have sent me a PM you know.
mojorhythm 4 months ago
@mojorhythm You're right, I could have. I think I made my point though.
1000g2g3g4g800999 4 months ago
A science is not only judged by its own principles, but also those of a superior science. e.g.: Empirical science is founded in philosophy.
greatbookie 4 months ago
This definition of the SC doesn't include "consensus". If the most folks agreed the Car Dealership SC was fair - and it is clearly outrageous - saying otherwise would viewed as provocatory "rocking the boat". It does bring up the important and complex question regarding an individuals duties and responsibilities when ones opinions / beliefs differ from consensus opinions / beliefs. Adapt? Relocate? Evangelise? There are so many options and variables.
lordopen 4 months ago
So if A is X, then by definition not-A is not-X?
>All husbands are male. Therefore, all bachelors are not male.
>All triangles are shapes. Therefore everything that isn't a triangle isn't a shape.
>All heterosexuals have a brain. Therefore all non-heterosexuals do not have a brain.
>Socrates was a man. Therefore, everything that is not Socrates is not a man.
>Money is used for trading goods. Therefore, everything that is not money is not used for trading goods.
mojorhythm 5 months ago
what a fallacy!
DrKovalski 5 months ago
It's nice that there is someone out there that proves that the SC is a bad system. But I think most people already knows this? Do you have a better system in mind?
SamiNami 5 months ago
@SamiNami It's not a system. It's a belief, which happens to be false. The idea was established by political philosophers of the past.
eulercircles 5 months ago
The social contract isnt something inforced on people by governments, it is the general will of the people, allowing them to create a society which progresses their freedoms and benefits further than those they experienced in the natural state (not a civil state). It is what the majority of the people conclude to be in the majority's interest, and as a large country, they cannot govern themselves so they choose representatives to enact the general will of the people - the social contract.
Sreeve94 6 months ago
@Sreeve94 Looks like they've got you then....
Marronisince1990 6 months ago
@Sreeve94 Please cite for me when the "majority" now present in our society ever agreed on any "social contract." I am aware of no such momentous event. Even if did happen, so what? Majoritarianism is nothing more than "might makes right" -- might equalling strength in numbers. Free people are exempt from majority preferences.
Stef is 100% correct in this vid. The social contract is just a myth used to legitimize violence/tax slavery.
wjkathman 6 months ago
The very idea of imprisoning people and then not restoring their rights once their sentence has been served if an attempt at freezing laws and leadership in their current corrupt form. We have had 3 recent presidents who smoked reefer and snorted cocaine but the "war on drugs"(a for profit industry) is still going full steam. Corporate prisons full of people who never stole anything or physically harmed anyone. The USA outs more of it's citizens in prison than any nation earth...FOR PROFIT!
FromanMD 7 months ago
the difference between the car dealer and the government is the government work for everyone (in theory) and for the common goods, while the dealer work for himself only.
Everyone gain from a functioning infrastructure, and no private company would build something that his competitor can use to be competitive with it. that why it's done by government.
if the gov is evil, YOU are the watchdog, fix it.
moestietabarnak 8 months ago
@moestietabarnak
Cash for clunkers
jeffiek 7 months ago
@jeffiek and your point being ? You dislike incentive and subsidize . start by studying economics, then get in politics, or get you rep aware of your position. Sometimes, subsidize is good business, sometimes not.
to influence research and new tech, fine, to make old business richer, not fine. To temporary save jobs in a sector, from big company failing to all the small enterprise depending on the big one, fine. to continue support a failing business without a path to self-sustaining,not.
moestietabarnak 7 months ago
@moestietabarnak
My point? The government did essentially the same thing as the car dealer.
You dislike logic and analogies. Start by studying them. Then, you will not need to waste your time getting into politics or making your rep aware of your position.
jeffiek 7 months ago
@jeffiek you are making us aware of your lack of logic by not understanding the difference between the two situation.
Yet, even as your example is NOT A BAD example of governance. If you had found an actual valid example, it would not invalidate what I said.
IE: When the government do bad thing : you change your rep and fix it, you don't ABOLISH the whole government for that, because there still many thing it does right.
moestietabarnak 7 months ago
@DanteMcSparda no, what make it ok it to take money from EVERYONE according to same rules. for the benefit of EVERYONE.
moestietabarnak 8 months ago
The sheeple validate government's claim (that a "social contract" exists) by voting for someone to govern them. Those who believe the message proffered by Mr Molyneux should not participate in any political election, lest they contradict their own belief. Withdrawling support of any kind will eventually put gov't out of business. Then they can print their SC on toilet paper and use it appropriately.
jdx41 8 months ago
@jdx41 you withdraw your support, and they will have power by default, because their supporter wont withdraw. you are the loser.
moestietabarnak 7 months ago
@DanteMcSparda If you actually cared about the situtation, you wouldn't use such reductivism.
Ematched 9 months ago
I think it's also worth noting that even U.S. jurisprudence dictates that any contract is voidable if one of the parties agrees to the terms only because of coercion by the other party. If people do not consent, whether they obey the laws or not, they do not accept the contract, and the contract is only forced through coercion and is thereby VOID.
Philhelm 9 months ago
@Philhelm try that in regard to taxes.. i will not send you orange in jail.
moestietabarnak 7 months ago
But a car dealership (to use your example) does not have the same social aims as society's will as represented by the state!
qtutoringhelps 9 months ago
@qtutoringhelps It's a cyclical argument. the Car Dealership can say it's aim is to provide cars for everyone while it is really in business to make money and stimulate production for car companies. Same with our government, they represent corporations, banks and special interests as often as they do individual voters. ALL GOVERNMENTS KILL PEOPLE, car dealerships don't. A government that kills people does not represent my interests in any way and is fundamentally evil regardless of stated intent
FromanMD 9 months ago
@FromanMD if YOUR government only represent corp and bankers,it is YOUR jobs to replace it. But abolishing it is not a solution, it will just get worst.
moestietabarnak 7 months ago
@moestietabarnak Hahahahaha! You believe in a fantasy concocted by criminal murderers. The entire paradigm is a baited hook and you swallowed it. It is not MY government in any way shape or form and I refuse to swallow the bait and lend my tacit endorsement to their bullying, compulsion,theft and murder any longer. Let them go on doing these things(I can't stop them) but never let it be said that it was done in my name or that I in any way endorsed this vile fascist scam.
FromanMD 7 months ago
I think he could of expressed his argument in less time than 5 mins. It basically boils down to: why can a social contract be formed between the government and the people, whilst I am prevented from making my own competing, identical, compulsory social contract? Well, contracts work on concensus, not on one man's choice. If we go back to the car dealership analogy, it was the choice of the people to elect a car dealer who charges people for cars they didn't order, so it was up to them.
nozero1 9 months ago
The rational liberal social contract is more-or-less this: 1. Don't commit crimes against your fellow man, 2. Don't support tyrannical gov't against him, 3. Don't lie to him, if he's a pretty good person, and 4. Be generally loyal and sympathetic towards him, if he's a halfway decent guy.
That's it! :-)
PureLiberalFire 10 months ago
@PureLiberalFire but what is a "tyrannical government"? Rush Limbaugh thinks that a tyrannical government is one who takes more than x% out of his paycheck and nationalizes healthcare. Michael Moore thinks that a tyrannical government is one that outlaws drugs, "UNDERtaxes" the rich, and does NOT nationalize healthcare. The word 'tyrannical' can be an opinionated one, varying from person to person, the concept often being mutually exclusive from person to person.
Also, you missed the point.
nurbSoldier 9 months ago
@nurbSoldier A tyrannical gov't is one which initiates force. The individual's right to life, liberty, property, and privacy is untouchable and infinite. No person, group, or gov't is allowed to trespass individual freedom -- unless that person violated someone else's freedom first.
PureLiberalFire 9 months ago
@PureLiberalFire A government by definition has the right to initiate force.
nurbSoldier 9 months ago
@nurbSoldier NO individual, group, or gov't EVER has the right to initiate force. You seem to have a mistaken notion of the concept of gov't and rights. Gov't exists for one reason only: to PROTECT rights i.e. to prevent and punish those who initiate force.
PureLiberalFire 9 months ago
@nurbSoldier Special pleading. Where does the government get the validation to use force?
Dirge987 8 months ago
@Dirge987 check out the big brain on Dirge
nurbSoldier 8 months ago
@PureLiberalFire and participate in government and cost of protecting and improving the common good, the society. ie: taxes allowed A LOT of thing that wouldn't be possible if left to the private sector.
Mainly because when there is no profit, there is not private capitalist company that will do anything (beside small token of charity for image. ie: profit motive))
BTW: 1, 2, 3 and 4 are emotionally charged to elicit a response that have nothing to do with social contract.
It's the golden rules
moestietabarnak 7 months ago
@moestietabarnak In many respects my understanding of the universal Social Compact IS the Golden Rule. But it needs to be elaborated on, which I did.
Society NEVER needs or wants "the common good" or "the greater good", etc. -- these are collectivist, tyrannical, self-sacrificial, self-destroying notions and ideals. What society always needs is the INDIVIDUAL good.
What do taxes fund which the private sector can't produce (except freedom and justice via gov't)? I can't think of any.
PureLiberalFire 7 months ago
@PureLiberalFire army, police, health-care (look at socialized medicine in other country,it works. don't fall for the propaganda.) and FUCK the individual good. you cannot survive alone. If you think everything gravitate around you, then you are a sociopath. look the meaning of this word. the USA is the perfect example of the failure of privatization of the wrong thing. IE: privatize war and you get MORE war for profit, privatize prison, and you get more imprisonment for petty crime.
moestietabarnak 7 months ago
@moestietabarnak If you think the private sector doesn't produce police, military, and healthcare, I have to wonder if you know your history.
The only reason the draft is legal is because the citizenry as a whole is "The militia", and private security is almost invariably superior to taxpaid cops. Nobody is saying you have to survive alone, there's a difference between society and government. A HUGE one.
Seravat7 7 months ago
@Seravat7 I never said that, what I said is those when they are privatized, are done for profit. and profit incentive ask to get more of those. NOT what you actually want. or YOU didn't learn the lesson of history.
want current example ? : judge Michael Conahan (bribed by private prison to increase their profit) they don't want to rehabilitate, they want more inmate ..for profit.
another: blackwater, too many stuff to list here, google it.
private police ? a.k.a rich's thugs
moestietabarnak 7 months ago
@moestietabarnak The underlying assumption is that "government" doesn't do these things for a profit, but "government" doesn't exist. Government EMPLOYEES are all human beings though, and collect a paycheck for the same jobs. The only difference? They don't get fired when they fail. Which system do you think will produce better results?
Consider this: Wars are resource drains. In a privatized society, who would be able to afford one?
your judge, Conahan? He was a government employee, right?
Seravat7 7 months ago
@Seravat7 "your judge, Conahan? He was a government employee, right?" yes, but corrupted by a private corporation, if the prison Jailer get paid the same whether i has more or less inmate, it doesn't get incentive to bribe to get more. Actually he have incentive to get less to lighten his jobs. So that, and maybe some civic duty, will incite the jailer to facilitate rehabilitation. whereas a corporation had most interest to get more inmate or make them stay longer for profit. (screw rehab )
moestietabarnak 7 months ago
@moestietabarnak "yes, but corrupted by a private corporation"...so is the taker of a bribe or the giver of it more guilty? My stance is that the one who was elected to the "public trust" is held to a higher standard, and thus can be punished more harshly. I'd be curious to know how he was ACTUALLY punished...
Seravat7 7 months ago
@moestietabarnak "if the prison Jailer get paid the same whether i has more or less inmate, it doesn't get incentive to bribe to get more. Actually he have incentive to get less to lighten his jobs."
Having been inside a private AND a 'public' penitentiary in Texas, I can tell you that the private omes cut corners, and offered jobs to some inmates that paid a bit of money. Also that they both put the inmates to work RUNNING the prison, and thus it really didn't cost any more per inmate.
Seravat7 7 months ago
@moestietabarnak These people live in a fantasy land and are deluded utopians, it's like Marxism - sounds really nice on paper but would be horrific in practice. They are also ahistorical. The voluntary nature of the Articles of Confederation is why it failed. Congress could only request funds from states, but had no power to levy taxes. Congress could make decisions, but had no power to enforce those decisions. It didn't work out so well.
xexixk 7 months ago
@xexixk Not wure what you mean by "didn't work out so well". Vague. Do you have any examples of a way in which it was "inadequate" or "failing"?
Seravat7 6 months ago
@Seravat7 I stated that the Articles of Confederation failed b/c of its voluntary nature. Congress could only request money from states, had no power to levy taxes, the government could not pay debts as a result b/c the states wouldn't honor those requests for money. Congress's decisions and legislation was ignore because the gov had no power to enforce those decisions so they were ignored by the states. It was a mess and that is the reason the Articles of Confederation were done away with.
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk Repeating your summary the way you understood events does not qualify as an example. DO you have an EXAMPLE of the things you assert, a time when they actually happened, or just a belief that it did? On a related note, perhaps it's just that you're the only one between us who would see that as a bad thing. Time was, the states took care of themselves perfectly well without a "federal" overseer. You might not realize this but the original name was 'the united States'. ie. Nation-states.
Seravat7 6 months ago
@Seravat7 Pick up a history book and you can read all about the Articles of Confederation and the failure it was. You must forget the supremacy clause of the constitution. Perhaps we should just get rid of the fed gov and beome 50 little independent countries. Nation-state = a state that is built around a people who share a common ethnic origin, language and culture. The US was never a nation state - it was and is made up of people from many diverse ethnic backgrounds.
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk Lacking the ability to enforce your will on sovereign individuals or sovereign states does not a failure make. It makes LIBERTY. So your basis is that it is not a sovereign state if they have differing origins? That fails various tests, including any where a nation has been conquered by another. It would also disqualify the WHOLE USA as a "state" for your own reasons.
As far as picking up history books, perhaps it's good advice, and you should take it. Try to avoid the public school ones
Seravat7 6 months ago
@Seravat7 Sovereign individuals? Did you negotiate a treaty with the state giving you sovereignty over your property? Similar to the treaties that exist between some Indian tribes and the federal government? The Articles of Confederation was indeed an absolute failure b/c the federal government could not raise any revenue nor enforce any decisions. You view of each state just being able to do whatever it is wishes is a fantasy. In that case we should just disolve the union.
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk Seravat7 is another one of those pathetic crybabies who screams unfair unfair whenever they do not get everything exactly their way or are required to do things they do not want to do. Then they scream they are living under tyranny. Such people have no idea what real tyranny is.
MaryJo1950 6 months ago
@MaryJo1950 I spent 8 years defending this country, so you could slander me in a free media. Eat shit.
Seravat7 5 months ago
@Seravat7 1) Why would you "defend" a country you wish to disolve? 2) Like all ideological fundamentalist you have incredibly thin skin 3) Nothing in my comment meets the definition of slander or libel (like most of your type you enjoy making up your own definitions for words)
MaryJo1950 4 months ago
@MaryJo1950 1) Because I was barely 18, and I signed a contract. They promised to pay me, I promised to follow orders. I learned quite a few things in those 8 years, including how broken the system was.
2) Eat shit again.
3) "like most of your type" you love throwing things into categories so that you can stick them in your blind spot and pretend that they don't exist. So far you've had nothing but a string of fallacies and personal attacks, so basically
4) Troll
5) cry more.
6) buhbye now.
Seravat7 4 months ago
@xexixk I see. Failure to negotiate is your argument?
If you're confronted by a mugger in an alley, he has a gun, and you're unarmed... Do you only maintain legitimacy if he stops and negotiates with you??
" In that case we should just dissolve the union."
NOW you're getting it!
Seravat7 5 months ago
@Seravat7 The mugger has no legitimate claims to authority - the state does. The Unites States has existed for over two centuries now, it's right to exist as a sovereign state is legitimate, your wish to abolish it is not. You contract by agreeing to remain living in the territory of a sovereign state. As for disolving the union, no thanks. Many states don't even have the industry to support an independent economy. The 50 states are much better off together than as little independent countries.
xexixk 5 months ago
@xexixk Your claim is that age confers legitimacy? Demonstrably false.
The legitimacy of the federal government is dependent upon one thing, and it's delineated in writing: They derive their right to exist FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
"You contract by agreeing to remain living in the territory of a sovereign state" -This is a falsehood already debunked by the above video. I do not 'contract' to anything simply by accident of birth location. Contracts have a definition. This fails it.
Seravat7 5 months ago
@Seravat7 He has debunked nothing. You are not held here by force or in bondage. You have an option to leave and find someplace that is more to your liking. "from the consent of the governed" is a phrase contained in the Declaration of Independence. The D of I is not a legal document, it's a historical document that announced the breaking away of the colonies, that's all it is. No court has every cited the D of I as a source of law nor is it given such status in the constitution.
xexixk 5 months ago
@xexixk "You are not held here by force or in bondage. You have an option to leave and find someplace that is more to your liking." I am held to EARTH and its habitable zones. Places that were very much to my liking used to exist, and no longer do: the culprit is the scope-creep of governments.
Explain this: People who do not desire to follow oppressive rules are charged with crimes for them, even with no victim, and a felon CANNOT leave this country. Does this register with you?
Seravat7 5 months ago
@Seravat7 I suspect that you define "oppression" as not being allowed the absolute freedom to do anything you wish or paying taxes. It isn't the US that would prevent a felon from leaving, it is the other country that would deny the felon entry - depending on the circumstances, the rules vary by country.
xexixk 5 months ago
@xexixk " It isn't the US that would prevent a felon from leaving, it is the other country that would deny the felon entry - depending on the circumstances, the rules vary by country."
Nice try, but go read a passport application.
Seravat7 4 months ago
@Seravat7 Actually you need to go read one. Being a felon doesn't automatically disqualify someone from getting a passport.
xexixk 4 months ago
@xexixk Hi. I'm a Felon. Want to bet I haven't become intimately familiar with these laws?
Go on then: Bet me.
Seravat7 3 months ago
@Seravat7 I've read the info regarding passports on the State Dept's site just to see if I've missed something. It clearly states that criminal convictions do not automatically disqualify someone from obtaining a passport. Now if you are on parole or probation you may not be able to get one until your parole or probation is over.
xexixk 3 months ago
@xexixk Government is ~ a business in this regard: They put 'does not "automatically" disqualify you', cuz people would raise a stink about that... But then they 'review each applicant on an individual basis' to avoid that "automatically", and disqualify them at their discretion, or other nations' refusal to admit US felons. And yes, parole and probation prevent you from leaving the state that you're in without permission, which implies national borders as well. Is "parole" limited by time?
Seravat7 3 months ago
@xexixk the declaration of independence has a greater legal standing than the "social contract" in that it actually has signatories.
No court can accurately cite the Social Contract as a source of law either, but it doesn't stop mouthpieces like you.
Seravat7 5 months ago
@Seravat7 No court of law has ever cited the D of I as a source of law, nor does is it given such status in the constitution. As for the "social contract" that is the set of laws we live by and the responsibilities each citizen has and the responsibilites the state has to the citizenery.
xexixk 5 months ago
@xexixk Clearly you're ignorant as to what forms a valid contract. Mere existence is NEVER sufficient to base consent on.
Seravat7 4 months ago
@Seravat7 Read up on implied consent and consent by conduct. Again you aren't held by force, you choose to stay. If you are being held by force or someone has a gun to your head forcing you to be here then call the police.
xexixk 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xexixk Consent by conduct does not allow me to say "If you don't shut your mouth I'll put a bullet hole in it". It has limits. Government does not respect those, and thus it is illegitimate.
" If you are being held by force"
You mean the armed guards on the border?
"or someone has a gun to your head forcing you to be here then call the police."
And it's the police with the gun.
Seravat7 4 months ago
@xexixk continuing: "Many states don't even have the industry to support an independent economy" This isn't a deterrent, there are many things that countries don't produce enough of. This encourages trade.
The EU is a modern enactment of the US, it's a trade agreement and governmental compromise to form an overarching body. Do you thereby consider Germany to not be a sovereign nation if it accepts the EU? Do you worry that they don't produce enough oil to survive? They import tons, after all
Seravat7 5 months ago
@Seravat7 Germany is a country of 82 million people. The EU states do indeed subvert much of their sovereignty to the EU. Heard of the EU Courts? Many states wouldn't even be able to import the resources they need but lack b/c independently they wouldn't be able to afford to. What if some state inacted tarriffs against others? All things that are not an issue with the states being united. How about conflicts or outright wars between or among states over resources?
xexixk 5 months ago
@xexixk Those issues were all covered as matters of course during the creation of the US Government, but there was no real threat of war between states. My point remains: You worry that each state is individually incompetent, and I ask if you consider European signatories which have been nations for centuries to be likewise incompetent. My answer should be easy to predict: The free market takes care of import/export nicely, without worrying about governmental tiers.
Seravat7 5 months ago
@Seravat7 Your analogy with the EU fails. Each of those is a sovereign state - they may also withdraw from the EU if they wish. A comparison to the EU would be if the US, Canada and the Latin American states were to form such a union as the EU. What you suggest of disolving the US and each state being independent would be akin to disolving Germany and each German state becoming independent, each Italian state, each French department, etc.
xexixk 5 months ago
@xexixk "Your analogy with the EU fails. Each of those is a sovereign state - they may also withdraw from the EU if they wish. "
This was ALSO true of the US. There's a reason old documents were specifically capitalized: "united States". Just because Lincoln refused to honor the VOLUNTARY union, you cannot solve a matter of constitutional law with war, to do such would legitimize "might makes right". Your analogy fails, since you would be breaking down each State to its constituent counties.
Seravat7 4 months ago
@Seravat7 You analogy still fails. The constitution doen't specifically say a state can or can not leave the union, each state was not a completely sovereign state either - read the constitution - remember that supremacy clause. As for LIncoln and war. All property right - that includes private property as well as the territorial integrity of a country - are backed up with threat of force.
xexixk 4 months ago
@xexixk Constitution? No. Read the Bill of Rights again though. Amdt. 10. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It reflects the Articles of Confederation: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence..."
Are you actually advocating might making right? Maybe if I go punch you a few times, you'll admit I'm right then. :P
Seravat7 3 months ago
@Seravat7 Nothing can "reflect" the Articles of Confederation, it's no longer a source of law. Are you suggestion the 10th amendment somehow undoes the supremacy clause?
xexixk 3 months ago
@xexixk Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase "in pursuance thereof" in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself.
And what was the Bill of Rights? It was the limitation of federal powers. You don't have to "undo" something to put a leash on it.
Seravat7 3 months ago
@Seravat7 I don't need to 'think' about what will produce better result. I 'KNOW' because we have historical and empirical facts. You just go by ideology and guts, have you ever stopped to study reality ?
moestietabarnak 7 months ago
@moestietabarnak You have historical and empirical evidence (facts?) telling you how a privately and voluntarily run society would be like?
I'd love to see your source.
Citation needed?
Seravat7 7 months ago
Comment removed
xexixk 7 months ago
@moestietabarnak Collectivism, servitude to others, and socialism is raw evil. Individualism, self-interest, and capitalism is infinitely good.
PureLiberalFire 7 months ago
@PureLiberalFire raw evil and infinitely good. no nuance.
let our elderly die in the street, they just had to save for their old days, let not get food regulation so another selfish like you can make more profit selling contaminated food. (and flee to a nice tropical island before people find you. etc ..
troll,
moestietabarnak 7 months ago
you sir are amazing thank you for your help :)
ramdawgy 10 months ago
Rousseau wrote of two different social contracts one between individuals and the other between individuals and a government. You fail to distinguish between the two.
nhwdk 10 months ago
This is embarrassing, it doesn't even mention game theory and the possibility that we can enhance our own interests in the long term better through cooperation (embodied by a social contract) rather than through no cooperation.
tomdbeevers1 10 months ago
@tomdbeevers1 cooperation and social contract is not the same thing.
nurbSoldier 9 months ago
@tomdbeevers1 One can cooperate and compete at the same time. The military encourages competitiveness within its own ranks for the increase in motivation to do better overall. It's a cooperative competitiveness, and as nurbSoldier says, you cannot connect cooperation to a contract which does not exist and was never agreed to.
Seravat7 6 months ago
You all talk about the book and whether he has read/understood it is not the issue. I don't think he is talking about the book but rather a general concept of the social contract as it is applied today. Granted I've never read Rousseau, but even if stef is talking about the book none of you complaining that he hasn't read the book have explained why he is wrong.
kindkayne 10 months ago
this guy did not read the book AT ALL. he is trying to pass himself off as an educated person when all he probably did was use sparknotes. sir, people like you are the reason this world cannot have a wholesome society
yayboogers 11 months ago
@yayboogers Who said anything about books? what Stef addressed is the core arguments for the social contract, debunked them and avoided the chaff
nurbSoldier 9 months ago
Is anyone really listening to what he's saying? Did he, or any of you, even READ the social contract? By Rousseau? Are we talking about the same book? The PEOPLE always have the ultimate right of abolishing the government should it no longer conform to the sovereign's will.
thewritingwriterof89 11 months ago
@thewritingwriterof89 I had a similar initial response, i.e., that Stef's got it all wrong. He fails to properly define the social contract from the start. Then, he goes through a convoluted, nonsensical mess of what is purported to be logic only to arrive at an unsound conclusion. On a side note: Rousseau was the last of the Contractarian philosophers. Hobbes first proposed it, then Locke later ran with, and then even later Rousseau offered his conception in, as you noted, The Social Contract.
falicore89 11 months ago
@falicore89 True. He didn't propose the contract, but since he titled his treatise "The Social Contract" and goes into such depth, it's the first thing I think of. Oh, and glad to see a fellow skeptic haha
thewritingwriterof89 11 months ago
@thewritingwriterof89 Yeah, this dude didn't actually read the book. He must've SparkNotesed it. This guy is trying to turn Rousseau into a Machiavelli, which is the complete opposite. He doesn't understand that the government follows the gathering of the people. Government isn't a pre-existing condition to which we all must bow. Very, Very, Very bad reading.
Ematched 11 months ago
@Ematched does not matter. What he addressed is the chief justification for the social contract as well as its nature. No need to schlep through all the sophistry.
nurbSoldier 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ematched "Government isn't a pre-existing condition to which we all must bow" -I wish this were still true, but finding a case which matches this belief is proving difficult.
Seravat7 5 months ago
I thought originally you were going to outright demolish the SC; not simply show the modern day gov'ts don't partake in this. I would not say the government is inherently evil as you say. It simply is too large and awkward to know what harm it is capable of. Sort of like a bull in a china shop.
The SC does have some inherent flaws but it is generally a good idea. The gov't however doesn't know how to apply it correctly and thus can occasionally be a detriment to its citizens.
therookie93 1 year ago
Fourthly, you mention fallacious reasoning, yet you fall victim to it yourself: you're misrepresenting your opponent's views and refuting those misrepresentations, i.e. straw man. The question is not whether the State's monopoly on force is legitimate. The issue over this entire video was whether or not Stefan Molyneux validly and soundly "defines and destroys" the Social Contract. He does not. See my older posts for an explanation.
falicore89 1 year ago
@falicore89 The State has never been created by a "social contract"; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation. The classic paradigm was a conquering tribe pausing in its time honored method of looting and murdering a conquered tribe, to realize that the time-span of plunder would be longer and more secure, and the situation more pleasant, if the conquered tribe were allowed to live and produce, with the conquerors settling among them as rulers exacting a steady annual tribute...
ErikLiberty 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ErikLiberty "If the land itself was part of a state, the border of the state would never move."
False. Wars, secessions, annexations, cessions, etc. all result in land losses and gains. However, there is major force behind all of these. In your individual secession, you have the power of one and, thus, no real power at all.
falicore89 1 year ago
There is no third party involved , no interest groups which guide the might of the majority or any government. only you enter the social contract (like anyone else in the political body you chose to partizipate in with the SC) by giving up your RIGHT TO ACHIEVE EVERYTHING NO MATTER WHAT THE CONSEQUENSES FOR ALL MIGHT BE and gain the security that your property is legally secured by the LAWS YOU PARTIZIPATED IN MAKING. that introduces a decency of people to not overstep each others lines (Kant)
Stofffelinus 1 year ago
because citizens are not a government unless they become a part of the ruling party of the state they have no right to impose obligations because in return they give no rights without rights going out there is no reason for obligations to come in thus only the government->citizen social contract can exist to legitimize the government while citzens can give no rights so citizen->citizen or citizen->government SC cannot exist.
theawesome300 1 year ago
@theawesome300 There is no such thing as a citizen. See Marc Stevens for more on that. And saying that a ruling group gives rights is a contradiction and creates moral hazard in that the majority gets to decide which rights citizens have. There is no check on majority power that the majority cannot overcome. Theoretically and in practice, this leads to predation and exploitation of minority classes who have no recourse. This has many detrimental economic and moral consequences.
ErikLiberty 1 year ago
Your argument that the social contract goes both ways, a->b therfore b->a is wrong because thats not what the SC implies. the SC has the government giving away and protecting rights like life liberty and property to the citiezens in return the citizen has obligations like taxes. the government has to not infringe on these rights and to protect the rights of each citizen. the reason the SC doesnt go both ways is because a ruling group gives rights while a subject of that group givesobligations
theawesome300 1 year ago
@nurbSoldier Legal contracts can occur BECAUSE they have the force of law, i.e. the State, whereas the social contract occurs within the state of nature, where there is no State, only sovereign individuals. There is NO comparison to be made. Since this crucial premise is false, his conclusion that "the social contract invalidates the social contract" is also wrong.
falicore89 1 year ago
@falicore89 Actually, you don't need a state to make a legal contract. Legal contracts can be made by sovereign individuals without the state. See:
youtube . com/watch?v=tE9dZATrFak
ErikLiberty 1 year ago
@ErikLiberty Correct, a State is not necessary to make or enforce a contract. However, there needs to be something, someone, or some system to enforce it, and that, as far as I know, is always the State or something or someone delegated authority therefrom.
falicore89 1 year ago
@ErikLiberty Also, if you listen closely to that video you recommended, the narrator says (at 2:41 to 2:47), "The next step is...that you agree on [an] arbitrator...." Thus: "If you want to do safe business with anyone, contract us to guarantee it, OR take your chances with other sovereigns." Sounds a lot like the Social Contract: "If you want to live safely, contract a government to guarantee it, OR take your chances with other sovereigns." Make no mistake: either way, both form a State.
falicore89 1 year ago
@falicore89 Thanks for watching the video. A social contract is nothing like a real contract though. A social contract creates a government monopoly of arbitration. No competition is allowed. Supposedly "We the People" agreed to this in the social contract, but "We the People" is a lie. How? Blacks, women, and white males that didn’t own enough property weren’t allowed to vote. The Constitution barely passed and if blacks had voted there is no way they would have agreed to a slavery contract.
ErikLiberty 1 year ago
@ErikLiberty You just stated that "A social contract is nothing like a real contract...." Obviously, this is so. [My most recent reply to you was a stretch of a comparison and seeks merely to point out the virtual compulsivity, an attribute of every State, of even the scenario given in the video you recommended.] In fact, I stated that point earlier against Stef's comparison of the two right when you joined the debate. Please re-read my post you originally commented on.
falicore89 1 year ago
@falicore89 ...Nor is secession to be confused with the mere right to emigrate, even when one is allowed to take one’s property out of the country. Secession means the right to stay put, on one’s own property, and either to shift alliance to another political entity, or to set up shop as a sovereign on one’s own account. Why should the man who wishes to secede from a government have to vacate his land? For surely, even under the philosophy of statists, it was the people who came first...
ErikLiberty 1 year ago
@ErikLiberty You ask, "Why should the man who wishes to secede from a government have to vacate his land?" We must differentiate here between government and State. The government is merely one part of the State--the administrative part. So your question then becomes, "Why should the man who wishes to secede from the State have to vacate his land?"
falicore89 1 year ago
@ErikLiberty Well, let's now turn to Weber for his definition of State: "a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that maintains a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within A CERTAIN TERRITORY." The land itself is part of the State, and, unless the State allows you to leave with the property, declaring independence/sovereignty is an act of war.
falicore89 1 year ago
@ErikLiberty Thus the answer to your question is simple: the man who leaves the State but resides on his former property without the State's permission should have to vacate the land because it's no longer his. Moreover, he's in the State of Nature, wherein his rights, if any, are not protected.
falicore89 1 year ago
@falicore89 First, the dictionary definition is incorrect. It should say a state is "a compulsory political organization with a centralized government that ATTEMPTS TO MAINTAIN a monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a certain territory." Proof of this can easily be seen by the simple fact that states have come and gone, expanded and contracted, since the beginning of time. If the land itself was part of a state, the border of the state would never move.
ErikLiberty 1 year ago
@ErikLiberty Firstly, states, WHILE IN EXISTENCE (figured that was a given), generally do successfully maintain their monopolies on force. E.g., Western nations maintain their monopolies on force. Secondly, when a state loses one of its necessary attributes (government, governed, monopoly on force, territory, etc), it ceases to be a state. If it loses territory, it's still a state; it is just geographically smaller. E.g., the State of the Vatican City.
falicore89 1 year ago
@falicore89 ...transformed into the lawful nobility of the realm. End quote. Or another way to put it: Looter+1: Don't kill everyone, leave some alive to loot again later.
Looter+2: Plan to scare, rather than kill, your victims, so that they can continue farming and provide for your needs later. Dead victims can't work...
ErikLiberty 1 year ago
@ErikLiberty Thirdly, for most most of human existence, people have lived in stateless societies. States have not been existence since the "beginning of time" as you stated, for they lacked the crucial quality of monopoly on force. The Social Contract gave primitive "government" that power and thereby formed the State.
falicore89 1 year ago
@falicore89 ...One method of the birth of a State may be illustrated as follows: in the hills of southern "Ruritania," a bandit group manages to obtain physical control over the territory, and finally the bandit chieftain proclaims himself "King of the sovereign and independent government of South Ruritania"; and, if he and his men have the force to maintain this rule for a while, lo and behold! a new State has joined the "family of nations," and the former bandit leaders have been...
ErikLiberty 1 year ago
@ErikLiberty I did, in fact, list a second point.
falicore89 1 year ago
@falicore89 Oh, you're right. Nevermind then.
ErikLiberty 1 year ago
@falicore89 The question is whether the States monopoly of force is legitimate. The problem with the "love it or leave it" argument is that it is circular. You're trying to prove that the State is justified. You then assume that State is justified, and say that you can leave if you don't like it. So you just assume what you are trying to prove.
In other words...
1-Government is justified
2-If you don't like it, you can move to a different country
3-Therefore, government is justified.
ErikLiberty 1 year ago
@falicore89 "I think that the person who makes this argument is already assuming that the government has some legitimate jurisdiction over this territory. And then they say, well, now, anyone who is in the territory is therefore agreeing to the prevailing rules. But they're assuming the very thing they're trying to prove — namely that this jurisdiction over the territory is legitimate. If it's not, then the government is just one more group of people living in this broad general geographical...
ErikLiberty 1 year ago