14 Questions to Critique Social Contract Theory

[masonman]

Amidst a debate I created 14 questions that I asked a proponent of the social contract theory, it may be useful to you, I don't know:

 

1.) If there is no clear written contract between a citizen and every politician that makes decisions that require that citizen to pay for certain services, is there a limit to how much they can charge me? If they request my (dismembered) left hand, would they be justified in doing so?

2.) If I wish to reject my "implicit agreement" to the social contract, who do I go to for arbitration, and who would be the person I bring the issue against?

3.) What are the explicit terms of the contract? Is there anything those within the state must abide by, or is it entirely obligations on the part of non state employed citizens?

4.) When Obama took office was he no longer under the social contract (at least the one from the Federal Government), since he would, in essence, be forming a contract with himself?

5.) If I do a favor for you like returning a lost cell phone or cooking you some bacon, can I justly attempt to kidnap you or assault you because I claim you owe me 8,000 dollars as understood in the implied contract? (I will say that I could make the claim that there was an implied contract, but would it be valid for me to immediately assault you or rob you on the assertion that I am correct in my assumption and you are not?)

6.) If I DO in fact build my icy little encampment in Antarctica, but tune in to PBS on my in-tent TV, would the government be perfectly justified in sending police out to require payment or jail me?

7.) If a woman is abused by her husband for years but never moves out of the house, is she implicitly consenting to the abuse?

8.) If I vote for a politician that promises to do "x," but then doesn't do "x," can I demand compensation or at least render the social contract void since he didn't hold up his end of the deal?

9.) If a Chinese citizen goes on a cross country trip across America, is the federal government (or the different state governments) justified in requiring him to pay whatever amount of money they see fit for his use of their services?

10.) When does the actual agreement take place? At conception? At birth? When one is 3 years old? (I imagine some would call this a stupid question, but otherwise I'm unsure how there could be a contract that has no starting point. That can't be the case.)

11.) Do you support or do you oppose exit taxes?

12.) Is it valid that the U.S. enforces the social contract as a result of the use of services it prevents competitors from entering into (Air travel, roads, power, etc)? Would that not make it involuntary, in that they maintain a monopoly on the services by punishing any competitor (see Lysander Spooner attempting to compete with the post office), yet require you to pay for something where choice has been violently prevented from existing?

13.) How is there a social contract that requires one to pay for services one doesn't even use? Why is it all or nothing? If the social contract is implied consent to pay for services as a result of their direct use, why do you have to pay for all the other things that you didn't receive any benefit from? Is that not blatant thievery? Being forced to pay money for something you had nothing to do with as a consumer?

14.) Do property rights start and end only by what you can defend with physical force? Do you own yourself? Is the human will inalienable? (I ask this in curiosity if you believe a voluntary slavery contract could be ethically enforced)

[Guest darkskyabove]

I would like to add:

15. Does this social contract include politicians borrowing money "they" don't have and expecting "me" and "my descendants" to pay it back?

See http://mises.org/daily/1423 for a discussion on the immorality of "public" debt.

[masonman]

 

 

15. Does this social contract include politicians borrowing money "they" don't have and expecting "me" and "my descendants" to pay it back?

 

 

Thats a really good one I didn't think of that [Y]. Its also a great question because "my descendants" by any definition are incapable of signing a contract since they don't even exist! So even if one does accept "use of government services" as an implicit agreement to the social contract, they still have no basis for claiming that the unborn owe the government their labor.

[masonman]

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=tykzAyISnNk]

[Metric]

Just wanted to mention that I like what you're doing, here.  The "social contract" is one very common excuse that we should be able to absolutely destroy in the simplest, clearest way, and I do think the objection that "I didn't sign any contract" is starting to creep into the awareness of the public.  I noticed a while ago that Obama had started referring to it as a "social compact" for slight rhetorical advantage (wtf is a "compact" and how is it different than a "contract?") -- you can tell when you're winning the argument when the opposition starts resorting to pure rhetorical smoke-screens.

 

[Metric]

Also, I wanted to mention as a general principle, I think arguments like these aren't clearly won in the mind of the public until Forrest Gump could win the argument after hearing it one time.  We've got to keep it really, really simple and not be afraid to say "that doesn't matter" if they try to stray off the few central, powerful points.  Imagine arguing over the morality of slavery as a template.