I think a good argument could actually be made, even if you hadn't threatened force to begin with; can a person sell themselves into slavery, or is such a contract void by definition? I'd strongly tend toward the latter.
@fab006 "can a person sell themselves into slavery, or is such a contract void by definition? I'd strongly tend toward the latter."
I'm undecided about that. We currently recognise the legitimacy of contracts in which we permit force to be used against our 'future selves' for breaching the agreement we sig in the present, it's not immediately obvious to me how selling oneself into slavery, despite being a frightening prospect, is a qualitatively different situation.
@bitbutter Well let me see if I can come up with an argument right on the spot...
Well, I think we'd have to define slavery. If we define a slave as having no rights whatsoever, then the contract contradicts itself; once the slave signs, he has no rights anymore, including no right to uphold a contract, so his signature on a contract would not mean anything, yet it is a contract that makes this so, yet without the right to uphold a contract (whether it's good or bad for him)...and so on (cont'd
As you can see, ordering food is a Verbal Contract.
A man cannot stop making use of Goods and Services, when the State holds a monopoly on the provision of those Goods and Services . The argument is circular.
@skunkwerksrc "A man cannot stop PAYING for Goods and Services, when the State holds a monopoly."
Is this always true? I'm not sure. In principle at least it's possible for a state to hold a coercive monopoly over all the usual things, but 'tolerate' someone living entirely off the grid, self sustainably, somewhere in the territory it claims to own.
@bitbutter But would it still be a "social contract" in the normal sense, if it tolerated people to opt out without moving out of the state's terrority?
@fab006 depends who you ask. I think the guy I was making this reply to would contend that what he calls the social contract is compatible with people living this way.
These 'thought experiments' are silly. Hypothetically, if these bandits came in and murdered people, then I hypothetically go Rambo on them with a hunting knife and green beret skills, hypothetically of course. It's just silly, isn't it?
Why not just start with ethics and go from there? Can't we just come to some agreement that basic human needs will be met and there will be some kind of division of labor, accountability, rules against violence, etc? Why bend over backwards to avoid this?
@SBRslacker00 "These 'thought experiments' are silly."
Then you haven't understood its purpose or what it demonstrates. The idea is to find common moral ground. Insofar as you're interested in persuasion, this is a sensible thing to do.
"Why not just start with ethics and go from there?"
That's exactly what though experiments like these attempt to do: establish ethical agreement, and extrapolate from that basis.
I guess I'm not interested in persuasuion as much as examining the best solutions getting down to the truth. Persuasion is for politicians, which I think is the core of the problem. If one has real answers and real solution, persuasion should be the least worry that one would be thinking about.
You don't need to tell me a story for me to agree that murder, coersion, etc is wrong. I worry about the ones that need a story.
'Given that they need a story, don't you think its then a good idea to give them a story?'
A pedophile needs little kids, which I feel no need to provide to him. A drug addict needs a drug, but it's not my job to supply it unless I wanted to capitalize on another's weakness. Humanity, in general, has a variety of needs which go unfulfilled, but I feel no responsibility to feed the hungry or administer to the sick. In fact, it might be a very bad idea to do any of the above.
@SBRslacker00 Since you dumped an important part of the context. Let me rephrase, Given that they need a story _in order to realise that the initiation of aggression is always unnaceptable_, isn't it a good idea to give them a story?
'Given that they need a story _in order to realise that the initiation of aggression is always unnaceptable_, isn't it a good idea to give them a story?'
That was my original point, that if someone needs a story to establish such an obvious fact, I worry. The same as the heroin addict, if I need to constantly supply this heroin fix, is there a authentic exchange of ideas? I guess I'm not a fan of deception, which is always inherent in any story. To be honest, I speak plain.
@SBRslacker00 "That was my original point, that if someone needs a story to establish such an obvious fact, I worry."
By all means, worry away. But notice that that's not an answer to the question. Here it is again: Given that they need a story _in order to realise that the initiation of aggression is always unnaceptable_, isn't it a good idea to give them a story?
"I guess I'm not a fan of deception, which is always inherent in any story."
'Given that they need a story _in order to realise that the initiation of aggression is always unnaceptable_, ...'
I don't think this is a 'given'. Does a drug addict 'realize' his addiction?
'But notice that that's not an answer to the question.'
I've answered your question twice, but I imagine you'll keep reframing, reasking and reasserting your question until I demonstrate some type of complicity or agreement.
You: "if someone needs a story to establish such an obvious fact, I worry."
Me: "Given that they need a story _in order to realise that the initiation of aggression is always unnaceptable_"
Notice that I'm still talking about that someone, or 'someones' who need a story. That is the 'given' in this context. Assuming that these people exist, who cause you to 'worry', why not tell them the story that will make them realise that they support coercive institutions?
'why not tell them the story that will make them realise ...'
I'm rejecting this premise based on lack of evidence.
I'm not very familiar with your channel, so I'm not sure if you are a theist, but I lean towards atheism. Atheism, at it's core, is a rejection of these so-called 'stories'. Your argument sounds like a theist argument which claims that without God (or at least the faith in a theology story), that morality cannot exist. This is the claim which I'm rejecting.
lol he mentions "property is theft" one of the most retarded things I've ever heard. how do you even conceptualize theft without some previously established ideas of legitimate property claims?
I think you're saying that the bandits are holding the villagers' ability to eat bread "to ransom?" Any valid contract has to be entered voluntarily I'd guess. The fact that there is coercion to sign the contract seems to illegitimise the contract, I'd suggest.
By violating the property rights of villagers (ability to use their bodies to make bread), in order to get them to sign a contract nullifies the contract. Well, sounds like that to me anyway. - Nice vid - thanks
@zalida100 I Watched video again - Under the threat of being killed? So, if anyone dares to make bread, then the bandit will presumably trespass on your property to come and kill you? If he comes to town and just makes a fiat land claim over the village, then that claim is illegitimate too. Nah. It just sounds like a suspension of property rights of the villagers in favour of fiat nonsensical claims of the bandit. Any right can only exist if it doesn't conflict with any prior rights - fun stuff
@zalida100 Yes. I think the general mistake that social contract advocates like this one make is they entirely ignore that the 'agreement' (lets say, and explicit contract) is signed against a background of coercion. The 'weak' case against this argument: The legitimacy of a contract signed under duress needs to be established. The stronger claim is: Contracts signed under duress are not legitimate or binding.
@bitbutter I think one required component of any contract is that there must be full disclosure of the terms of the contract. Since I haven't knowingly signed any contract, then I dont believe I can be held to one. If there was a "social contract" then the guy's argument would be better supported if he could produce one for everyone to see, as an example.
e.g. I think people in usa still aren't permitted to see their so-called income tax law. If it exists.
@zalida100 "I think one required component of any contract is that there must be full disclosure of the terms of the contract."
That sounds reasonable to me.
"Since I haven't knowingly signed any contract, then I dont believe I can be held to one."
The statist response to this will be the restaurant example: a customer doesn't sign a contract, or even promise, to pay for the meal they order and eat. But we typically hold that an implicit agreement exists.
@bitbutter Yes - I've heard the restaurant thing. This has to be weighed against buying a house. i.e. we ensure that something so important as buying a house is all written down and agreed by contract etc. so surely something as important as deciding who will control your life will be made fairly obvious to you, and written down etc.
Also - I'm aware of an implicit contract in a restaurant. I may not be aware of an implicit social contract
@zalida100 The guy was talking mainly about explicit contracts that get signed stating words to the effect of 'i will obey the rules while i live here'. I think the strongest approach is to demonstrate that even this sort of explicit contract is not necessarily valid or binding.
@bitbutter "..even this sort of explicit contract is not necessarily valid or binding..." As long as you can show that it was made under duress or something - yes I think that's fine.
Is this social contract only for a term of 5 yrs or is it for life? Surely a lifeterm contract must be able to be renegotiated every now and then. I wouldn't sign anything that committed me to perform for the rest of my life, I don't think
In every nation, there's the political sphere, and the civil sphere. Even if everybody has political freedom - has the right to vote, is equal to everybody else - there isn't real equality in the civil sphere, where it's messy, there's egoism.
It is not true that anybody can become the president of the USA. It is so on paper, but not in real life. Only if you have money, education and good connections, you stand a chance, and not everybody has those things.
Even if one accepts the contract is agreed to by most people living in the Banditonia, I don't see why some people think that dissenters should get out/volunteer to leave rather than object to the status quo, work to show other citizens the flaws and change the situation to better suit their views of a fairer country.
I think a good argument could actually be made, even if you hadn't threatened force to begin with; can a person sell themselves into slavery, or is such a contract void by definition? I'd strongly tend toward the latter.
fab006 11 months ago
@fab006 "can a person sell themselves into slavery, or is such a contract void by definition? I'd strongly tend toward the latter."
I'm undecided about that. We currently recognise the legitimacy of contracts in which we permit force to be used against our 'future selves' for breaching the agreement we sig in the present, it's not immediately obvious to me how selling oneself into slavery, despite being a frightening prospect, is a qualitatively different situation.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter Well let me see if I can come up with an argument right on the spot...
Well, I think we'd have to define slavery. If we define a slave as having no rights whatsoever, then the contract contradicts itself; once the slave signs, he has no rights anymore, including no right to uphold a contract, so his signature on a contract would not mean anything, yet it is a contract that makes this so, yet without the right to uphold a contract (whether it's good or bad for him)...and so on (cont'd
fab006 11 months ago
@fab006 (cont'd) not sure how logically sound this argument really is, but it's the best I can come up with right now.
fab006 11 months ago
There is NO social contract.
All contracts must have full disclosure. Who here has seen the various clauses?
All contracts must be agreed to in writing or verbally. Who here has given their consent verbally or in writing?
How may a contract be "agreed to" by the as-yet-unborn? ... yet we commit them to lives of debt slavery in order to pay for our lifestyles.
All contracts may be broken ... how do the parties extricate themselves from the supposed Social Contract?
It's a fiction.
skunkwerksrc 11 months ago
@skunkwerksrc I agree that there is no valid contract. But there are ready statist responses to your questions/claims:
"All contracts must be agreed to in writing or verbally."
Statist: implicit but binding agreements do exist eg. ordering food in a restaurant.
"All contracts may be broken ... how do the parties extricate themselves from the supposed Social Contract?"
Statist: You stop making use of the goods and services provided by the state with which the agreement exists.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter
As you can see, ordering food is a Verbal Contract.
A man cannot stop making use of Goods and Services, when the State holds a monopoly on the provision of those Goods and Services . The argument is circular.
skunkwerksrc 11 months ago
@skunkwerksrc "A man cannot stop making use of Goods and Services, when the State holds a monopoly on the provision of those Goods and Services."
Why not?
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter
You're correct. He could quit using monopoly services. He could forego medical care, road use, educational services, Old-age pensions and such-like.
What I should have said was this, "A man cannot stop PAYING for Goods and Services, when the State holds a monopoly."
skunkwerksrc 11 months ago
@skunkwerksrc "A man cannot stop PAYING for Goods and Services, when the State holds a monopoly."
Is this always true? I'm not sure. In principle at least it's possible for a state to hold a coercive monopoly over all the usual things, but 'tolerate' someone living entirely off the grid, self sustainably, somewhere in the territory it claims to own.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter But would it still be a "social contract" in the normal sense, if it tolerated people to opt out without moving out of the state's terrority?
fab006 11 months ago
@fab006 depends who you ask. I think the guy I was making this reply to would contend that what he calls the social contract is compatible with people living this way.
bitbutter 11 months ago
These 'thought experiments' are silly. Hypothetically, if these bandits came in and murdered people, then I hypothetically go Rambo on them with a hunting knife and green beret skills, hypothetically of course. It's just silly, isn't it?
Why not just start with ethics and go from there? Can't we just come to some agreement that basic human needs will be met and there will be some kind of division of labor, accountability, rules against violence, etc? Why bend over backwards to avoid this?
SBRslacker00 11 months ago
@SBRslacker00 "These 'thought experiments' are silly."
Then you haven't understood its purpose or what it demonstrates. The idea is to find common moral ground. Insofar as you're interested in persuasion, this is a sensible thing to do.
"Why not just start with ethics and go from there?"
That's exactly what though experiments like these attempt to do: establish ethical agreement, and extrapolate from that basis.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter
'Insofar as you're interested in persuasion ...'
I guess I'm not interested in persuasuion as much as examining the best solutions getting down to the truth. Persuasion is for politicians, which I think is the core of the problem. If one has real answers and real solution, persuasion should be the least worry that one would be thinking about.
You don't need to tell me a story for me to agree that murder, coersion, etc is wrong. I worry about the ones that need a story.
SBRslacker00 11 months ago
@SBRslacker00 "Persuasion is for politicians"
Nah. Persuasion is for anyone that wants to influence another persons opinion on a topic.
"I worry about the ones that need a story."
Given that they need a story, don't you think its then a good idea to give them a story?
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter
'Given that they need a story, don't you think its then a good idea to give them a story?'
A pedophile needs little kids, which I feel no need to provide to him. A drug addict needs a drug, but it's not my job to supply it unless I wanted to capitalize on another's weakness. Humanity, in general, has a variety of needs which go unfulfilled, but I feel no responsibility to feed the hungry or administer to the sick. In fact, it might be a very bad idea to do any of the above.
SBRslacker00 11 months ago
@SBRslacker00 Since you dumped an important part of the context. Let me rephrase, Given that they need a story _in order to realise that the initiation of aggression is always unnaceptable_, isn't it a good idea to give them a story?
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter
'Given that they need a story _in order to realise that the initiation of aggression is always unnaceptable_, isn't it a good idea to give them a story?'
That was my original point, that if someone needs a story to establish such an obvious fact, I worry. The same as the heroin addict, if I need to constantly supply this heroin fix, is there a authentic exchange of ideas? I guess I'm not a fan of deception, which is always inherent in any story. To be honest, I speak plain.
SBRslacker00 11 months ago
@SBRslacker00 "That was my original point, that if someone needs a story to establish such an obvious fact, I worry."
By all means, worry away. But notice that that's not an answer to the question. Here it is again: Given that they need a story _in order to realise that the initiation of aggression is always unnaceptable_, isn't it a good idea to give them a story?
"I guess I'm not a fan of deception, which is always inherent in any story."
Nonsense.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter
'Given that they need a story _in order to realise that the initiation of aggression is always unnaceptable_, ...'
I don't think this is a 'given'. Does a drug addict 'realize' his addiction?
'But notice that that's not an answer to the question.'
I've answered your question twice, but I imagine you'll keep reframing, reasking and reasserting your question until I demonstrate some type of complicity or agreement.
'Nonsense.'
You say 'Nonsense.', I say 'Truth.'.
SBRslacker00 11 months ago
@SBRslacker00
You: "if someone needs a story to establish such an obvious fact, I worry."
Me: "Given that they need a story _in order to realise that the initiation of aggression is always unnaceptable_"
Notice that I'm still talking about that someone, or 'someones' who need a story. That is the 'given' in this context. Assuming that these people exist, who cause you to 'worry', why not tell them the story that will make them realise that they support coercive institutions?
bitbutter 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bitbutter
'why not tell them the story that will make them realise ...'
I'm rejecting this premise based on lack of evidence.
I'm not very familiar with your channel, so I'm not sure if you are a theist, but I lean towards atheism. Atheism, at it's core, is a rejection of these so-called 'stories'. Your argument sounds like a theist argument which claims that without God (or at least the faith in a theology story), that morality cannot exist. This is the claim which I'm rejecting.
SBRslacker00 11 months ago
lol he mentions "property is theft" one of the most retarded things I've ever heard. how do you even conceptualize theft without some previously established ideas of legitimate property claims?
MOONDOGGIESWTF 11 months ago 2
I think you're saying that the bandits are holding the villagers' ability to eat bread "to ransom?" Any valid contract has to be entered voluntarily I'd guess. The fact that there is coercion to sign the contract seems to illegitimise the contract, I'd suggest.
By violating the property rights of villagers (ability to use their bodies to make bread), in order to get them to sign a contract nullifies the contract. Well, sounds like that to me anyway. - Nice vid - thanks
zalida100 11 months ago
@zalida100 I Watched video again - Under the threat of being killed? So, if anyone dares to make bread, then the bandit will presumably trespass on your property to come and kill you? If he comes to town and just makes a fiat land claim over the village, then that claim is illegitimate too. Nah. It just sounds like a suspension of property rights of the villagers in favour of fiat nonsensical claims of the bandit. Any right can only exist if it doesn't conflict with any prior rights - fun stuff
zalida100 11 months ago
@zalida100 Yes. I think the general mistake that social contract advocates like this one make is they entirely ignore that the 'agreement' (lets say, and explicit contract) is signed against a background of coercion. The 'weak' case against this argument: The legitimacy of a contract signed under duress needs to be established. The stronger claim is: Contracts signed under duress are not legitimate or binding.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter I think one required component of any contract is that there must be full disclosure of the terms of the contract. Since I haven't knowingly signed any contract, then I dont believe I can be held to one. If there was a "social contract" then the guy's argument would be better supported if he could produce one for everyone to see, as an example.
e.g. I think people in usa still aren't permitted to see their so-called income tax law. If it exists.
zalida100 11 months ago
@zalida100 "I think one required component of any contract is that there must be full disclosure of the terms of the contract."
That sounds reasonable to me.
"Since I haven't knowingly signed any contract, then I dont believe I can be held to one."
The statist response to this will be the restaurant example: a customer doesn't sign a contract, or even promise, to pay for the meal they order and eat. But we typically hold that an implicit agreement exists.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter Yes - I've heard the restaurant thing. This has to be weighed against buying a house. i.e. we ensure that something so important as buying a house is all written down and agreed by contract etc. so surely something as important as deciding who will control your life will be made fairly obvious to you, and written down etc.
Also - I'm aware of an implicit contract in a restaurant. I may not be aware of an implicit social contract
zalida100 11 months ago
@zalida100 The guy was talking mainly about explicit contracts that get signed stating words to the effect of 'i will obey the rules while i live here'. I think the strongest approach is to demonstrate that even this sort of explicit contract is not necessarily valid or binding.
bitbutter 11 months ago
@bitbutter "..even this sort of explicit contract is not necessarily valid or binding..." As long as you can show that it was made under duress or something - yes I think that's fine.
Is this social contract only for a term of 5 yrs or is it for life? Surely a lifeterm contract must be able to be renegotiated every now and then. I wouldn't sign anything that committed me to perform for the rest of my life, I don't think
zalida100 11 months ago
In every nation, there's the political sphere, and the civil sphere. Even if everybody has political freedom - has the right to vote, is equal to everybody else - there isn't real equality in the civil sphere, where it's messy, there's egoism.
It is not true that anybody can become the president of the USA. It is so on paper, but not in real life. Only if you have money, education and good connections, you stand a chance, and not everybody has those things.
dewinthemorning 11 months ago
well said
LibertarianOnline 11 months ago
It's clear, as usual.
Even if one accepts the contract is agreed to by most people living in the Banditonia, I don't see why some people think that dissenters should get out/volunteer to leave rather than object to the status quo, work to show other citizens the flaws and change the situation to better suit their views of a fairer country.
Thanks again.
SpookyFan 11 months ago
Oh bollocks. Video glitches. I hope the jist is still clear.
bitbutter 11 months ago