ceruleanhansen Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 As Libertarians we are often confronted with the non-argument of "the government can do this because of the social contract", as though the social contract was some kind of philosophy dust you can sprinkle onto an injustice to make it moral. Anyway, I've written a critique of social contract theory on my blog that has a lot of counter arguments to social contract theory that some of you might find useful. If not, I would love to hear some flaws with my critique. My blog post can be found here: http://maxwellhansen.com/blog/?p=79.
Rick Horton Posted February 27, 2013 Posted February 27, 2013 Thanks for the link to your article. I liked it a lot. I kind of think whenever 2 people confront each other, and decide to comprimise on a thing, a social contract is what that decision is called. So in a stateless society there would still be social contracts, thus there would still be a stifling of mobility of will.
ceruleanhansen Posted February 27, 2013 Author Posted February 27, 2013 Thanks for the link to your article. I liked it a lot. I kind of think whenever 2 people confront each other, and decide to comprimise on a thing, a social contract is what that decision is called. So in a stateless society there would still be social contracts, thus there would still be a stifling of mobility of will. There may be contracts that are social, but that is not quite the same as the ethical theory developed by Rousseau that is incidentally called "The Social Contract". Rousseau's social contract refers to something much more specific that the kind of social contract you describe. I'm glad you enjoyed it!
Rick Horton Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 Thanks for the link to your article. I liked it a lot. I kind of think whenever 2 people confront each other, and decide to comprimise on a thing, a social contract is what that decision is called. So in a stateless society there would still be social contracts, thus there would still be a stifling of mobility of will. There may be contracts that are social, but that is not quite the same as the ethical theory developed by Rousseau that is incidentally called "The Social Contract". Rousseau's social contract refers to something much more specific that the kind of social contract you describe. I'm glad you enjoyed it! Thanks. I'm watching this now, and it looks like it may help this conversation:
Rick Horton Posted February 28, 2013 Posted February 28, 2013 Yes. I see what you mean, now. I can see the seduction of the Social Contract, as it was sold. But it really doesn't have anything to do with freedom does it..... It's kind of a nice way to justify giving up your will under the guise of somehow increasing it. It doesn't make sense but it sounds so civil. The problem is that giving yourself to a contract doesn't have anything to do with morality. It has to do with duty, sure, but morality? No. Hitler's SS gave themselves to "that" social contract. I'd call that duty, but not individuality, nor morality. Being in a social contract makes it easier to survive and impose will, but that will isn't necessarily moral, OR individual. at, all... It's (in a big way) just any other gang. But I'm still watching the whole lecture to see what I'm not getting.
Recommended Posts