Bandit bakers and the social contract

'George' sequel campaign: http://www.indiegogo.com/Edgar-the-exploiter
Tune in to Agora I/O this weekend: http://agora.io/

Category:

Education

Tags:

• social
• contract
• libertarianism
• liberty
• agreement
• taxation
• theft

[fab006]

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.

[bitbutter]

@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.

[fab006]

@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]

@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

[bitbutter]

@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.

[fab006]

@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?

[bitbutter]

@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.

[skunkwerksrc]

@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."

[bitbutter]

@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?