voting and the social contract

[petermiller1986]

i have been discussing voluntaryism with a friend in some detail lately. i am a voluntaryist and he is a statist. the debate inevitably comes back to the social contract. originally my understanding of this social contract was that all members of the "country" were automatically under the contract by virtue of their location. however after further discussion it occured to me that maybe people actually do literally sign a social contract - when they vote. i'm not sure if any of the social contract theorists have made this claim before, but it seems to make sense.

 

when you sign a contract, you agree to its terms, and this seems analogus with voting - if you vote (which i'm sure nobody on this forum does) then you are effectively saying "i agree that the system of democracy is fair, and i agree to be bound by its terms". voting is clearly not just an agreement that if your chosen candidate wins then you will agree to let him/her make commands on your life. if this were the case there would be no need to vote - you could just pledge your allegiance to your favourite candidate straight away. no - voting seems to me to be some kind of consent of the very process of democracy.

 

and democracy itself is an incredibly open ended thing to give your consent to! someone engaging in the democratic process is effectively saying:

1) i agree to follow the commands of the ruler, as defined by the person who gets the most votes

2) i acknolwledge that this ruler shall have literally no imposed restraints. anything the ruler can think of can be make law (before or after the fact) and then be undertaken without legal backlash.

 

i know voters may think that documents such as constitutions protect them from tyranny, but this would seem to be very naive - for at least a couple of reasons:

1) constitutions are far from watertight! gaping holes exist for tyranny to freely flow through. weasel words like "reasonable", "well regulated", "time of peace", etc basically allow the ruler of the day to do as he pleases. for example, the wording of the 16th amendment of the american constitution already allows government to levy a 100% tax on everybody. the wording of the 2nd amendment already allows anybody that the government wishes to be stripped of their defensive weapons (guns or other) - simply declare that the military IS the well regulated militi and voila. and many, many more.

2) even the small protections from tyranny that constitutions may offer, can be changed by the government of the day. this is common knowledge and is part of the democractic process. people are certainly aware of this when they cast their vote.

and i'm sure there are many other factors which essentially render constitutions meaningless.

 

anyway, my thinking was that if voting can indeed be shown (philosophically) to be the moment when the governed give their consent, then this may be good news for the liberty movement. maybe it offers a way out of the oppressive system of democracy - just don't vote. of couse i realise that the government doesn't care whether or not you have given them explicit consent; they will hunt you down for breaching any of their arbitrary laws, regardless of whether you voted or not. however, if the population at large came to agree that those who do not vote are not bound by tyranical laws, then this would be a huge milestone on the way towards liberty i think.

 

comments and (friendly) criticism welcome...

[aerocabin]

 

when you sign a contract, you agree to its terms, and this seems analogus with voting - if you vote (which i'm sure nobody on this forum does) then you are effectively saying "i agree that the system of democracy is fair, and i agree to be bound by its terms". voting is clearly not just an agreement that if your chosen candidate wins then you will agree to let him/her make commands on your life. if this were the case there would be no need to vote - you could just pledge your allegiance to your favourite candidate straight away. no - voting seems to me to be some kind of consent of the very process of democracy.

 

I don't think voting in an election is the same thing as a contract. Elections are imposed on voters, no one explicitly consented to have a vote held where they would be bound to the outcome. The election is an aggression against those who do not consent to be bound to it. If a mugger gives you two choices on how he will mug you, and you make a choice, it doesn't mean you consented to be mugged.

They say they make laws on my behalf because they claim to have the consent of the people, but they never bother to prove, with the kind of scrutiny one would apply to a contract, that anyone has consented at all. They make laws because no one or group is powerful enough to stop them.

[Wesley]

I do not agree from the perspective of the many people I have talked to and even voluntaryists who still vote. They know the system sucks and that nothing really will change.

The goal is that you are forced to be a slave. Now every 4 years you get to choose who is going to whip you. Many will try to pick the guy who they think will whip the a little bit less often or less hard. This, however, is starkly different from being able to choose to not be a slave.

I no longer vote, but I do not see those who vote as consenting to some sort of social contract only for holding onto a small dellusion of less pain in the coming years.

[tasmlab]

I like all three posts are pretty good!

I think the original premise might have some marginal utility in talking to an R or D who didn't succeed in electing whom they voted for, especially when they are complaining about the outcome.

It's like "Well you agreed that it was a 'winner-take-all' situation and that you might have someone in charge who you don't want making rules for you." and get them to begin nitpicking democracy instead of holding it as some supreme and awesome virtue.

[prohexa]

I agree with the OP; participating in voting does legitimize the system of voting. It's a stamp of approval that whoever wins the most votes gets to impose his rules and ideas on the others. That could very well be called "signing a social contract", if we assume that the contract only binds you until the next voting takes place, when you again can choose to participate in the game or not.

On the other hand, signing a contract requires you to be aware of the actual terms of the contract - otherwise it would be considered a fraudelent contract and thus not legally binding. As such, very few of the currently "signed social contracts" could be considered valid.

 

Elections are imposed on voters, no one explicitly consented to have a vote held where they would be bound to the outcome. The election is an aggression against those who do not
consent to be bound to it. If a mugger gives you two choices on how he
will mug you, and you make a choice, it doesn't mean you consented to be
mugged.

 

Since there is no penalty for not voting I think it's wrong to say that elections are imposed on voters - rather, elections are offered to the voters. However, any voluntaryist should of course strongly decline such offers, or else he would implicitly consent to participate in the whole scheme. The fact that the statists completely ignore that you have explicitly declared to not take part in their schemes, in the only way possible - by not voting - is in itself a proof that there is no such thing as a "social contract".

To come back to the point the OP was trying to make; when a statist claims that there is a social contract in place, he might be right - if that contract is directly tied to the very act of voting. Thus, by not voting, I am not bound by any social contract.

 

[aerocabin]

 

Since there is no penalty for not voting I think it's wrong to say that elections are imposed on voters - rather, elections are offered to the voters.

 

I'm surprised you think there is no penalty for not voting and that elections aren't imposed. Isn't being bound to laws that you didn't consent to a penalty? The so-called representatives pass laws, supposedly, on your behalf regardless of whether you vote or not. I'd call that an imposition. I would agree with you if only the people who voted were bound to government laws and "representation", and non-voters were not bound.

[prohexa]

 

I'm surprised you think there is no penalty for not voting and that elections aren't imposed. Isn't being bound to laws that you didn't consent to a penalty?

 

Do you really mean that "if you vote, you will only be bound by the laws you actually consent to?" What laws would you be bound to as a non-voter that wouldn't equally apply to a voter?

If you read my post again, I think you'll find that we agree on the real issue here.

[petermiller1986]

aerocabin[/url]"]

I don't think voting in an election is the same thing as a contract.

imagine if it were a voluntary election - say between a group of neighbors who have decided to vote on something. if they have all voluntarily agreed that the election is the process whereby they will decide how to take action then this seems to me to be like a contract. each marks a piece of paper with their choice, each is aware of the "rules of the contract" before entering it, etc. of course there is a vast difference between such an arrangement and that which the state imposes on its "citizens" - with democracy the vote may or may not be voluntary depending on your perspective. however, it seems to me that people who vote have some faith in the democratic process. they know from past experience that their preffered candidate may not get in, they know the types of things that any candidate is permitted to do (literally anything), and they know that this candidate will use the statistics of voter turnout and the election to "prove" his right to govern.

aerocabin[/url]"]

Elections are imposed on voters, no one explicitly consented to have a vote held where they would be bound to the outcome.

i was going to say that this is true, but on closer consideration, i'm not sure if it is. it is true that the democratic process was set up without the consent of the voters, but my point is that actually using this democratic process may be an indication of consent. actually casting a vote is not mandatory in any democracy that i know of. even here in australia you can cast a blank ballot, or write some words of protest on the ballot and not tick any boxes, if you want to. of course it doesn't exempt you from the state's clutches, but the actual aspect of voting itself is voluntary. i hear a lot of libertarians say, "social contract? i didn't sign shit!" but my response would be "if you voted then you did indeed sign the social contract". that's not to say that ANY contract has the right to impose terms on someone who did not sign it, but it seems to me that at least the signing part should be avoided by us voluntaryists, otherwise statists may call us hypocrites.

aerocabin[/url]"]

The election is an aggression against those who do not consent to be bound to it.

totally agree with you there. the only thing electoral candidates do with your vote is impose violence against peaceful people, so in that sense one would be committing an immoral act by voting to support them. i will come back to this below regarding defensive voting.

aerocabin[/url]"]

If a mugger gives you two choices on how he will mug you, and you make a choice, it doesn't mean you consented to be mugged.

i don't quite agree here. this is because even though the mugger gives you two choices on how to be mugged there is also the third choice of falling dumb and refusing to make a choice. i know in a true mugging scenario this may not be advisable - for example the mugger may start beating you until you make a choice. but somehow physical pain seems different to me than emotional pain. nobody that i have ever heard of has been physically beaten until they correctly submitted a democratic ballot. in all democracies countries i know of, the details of the ballot are anonymous. so it seems to me that there is no immediate danger from botcotting the vote.

Snipes777[/url]"]

I do not agree from the perspective of the many people I have talked to and even voluntaryists who still vote. They know the system sucks and that nothing really will change.

The goal is that you are forced to be a slave. Now every 4 years you get to choose who is going to whip you. Many will try to pick the guy who they think will whip the a little bit less often or less hard. This, however, is starkly different from being able to choose to not be a slave.

I no longer vote, but I do not see those who vote as consenting to some sort of social contract only for holding onto a small dellusion of less pain in the coming years.

voting in self defensive. hmm....

i think your point may have some validity, but it depends on the circumstances of the particular election. in western countries there are no major differences between parties - at least not on the level that a voluntaryist would care about. any candidate who wins the election is going to continue taxing, starting wars with foriegn countries, and generally imposing literal violence, or the threat thereof, on peaceful people. i have never come accross a "disband the government" party, but maybe if one were to be founded then this would invalidate my point.

however, given the current choice of candidates that i am aware of, even if you think you are voting defensively, you are actually only prolonging the life of the democratic beast. politicians will take the voter turnout figures as an indication of a "stable" democracy and will publicise them until people think that everybody is largely happy with the current political system, except for a few "bad eggs".

in other countries where exteme violations of liberty (eg genocide) are common, maybe you have a point about defensive voting... then again, maybe not.... there is never any guarantee as to what a politician may do with their newfound power. politicians are notorious liars, so there should really be no expectation that anything they promise before the election will be implemented after they get into power. this is well known, and i think only the most naive of voters would be unaware of this fact. i think this is what you mean by "holding onto a small dellusion of less pain".

i think your analogy with a slave getting to chose their master is similar to aerocabin's analogy with the mugger giving you the option of how to be mugged. but i think both are slightly innacturate in that they imply physical pain, whereas the pain in democratic systems is largely emotional, or in the form of threats. true there may be some physical pain due to inferior medical reigimes or police forces, and if this is the case then i agree that the analogy fits, but generally the state governs with the threat of violence, rather than violence itself. it would be completely understandable for the slave, and the guy being mugged, to make a choice under duress. but it seems to me that it is not so understandable for voters in a democracy. for example, slavery would never have been ended by all slaves deciding to simply stop working. this is it would be certain death to do so, and most would prefer to live as slaves than to die. i don't think this would be the case for me, but i would guess that i am in the minority. but with the state, i get the impression that it could be ignored out of existence if enough people woke up. but maybe i'm naive.

tasmlab"]

I think the original premise might have some marginal utility in talking to an R or D who didn't succeed in electing whom they voted for, especially when they are complaining about the outcome.

It's like "Well you agreed that it was a 'winner-take-all' situation and that you might have someone in charge who you don't want making rules for you." and get them to begin nitpicking democracy instead of holding it as some supreme and awesome virtue.

yes! and since that is probably 80% of america, that would be some big utility!

prohexa"]

To come back to the point the OP was trying to make; when a statist claims that there is a social contract in place, he might be right - if that contract is directly tied to the very act of voting. Thus, by not voting, I am not bound by any social contract.

yep - that is exacly what i meant. and my reasoning was that by getting the statist to agree that voting = signing the social contract, it might be possible to convince them that those who do not vote should be exempt. i know it would never fly with government's desires and laws, but for the average voter, this could be a very useful and productive philosophical discussion.

aerocabin[/url]"]

I would agree with you if only the people who voted were bound to government laws and "representation", and non-voters were not bound.

yeah, you are correct. statists will generally argue that the social contract is signed implicitly - if this were the case then voting would not be the signing of the social contract. however, very few statists like to think that they live in a tyrannical dictatorship, and that is definitely what they are saying if they say that you sign the social contract implicitly. hopefully this repulsion of tyranny would nudge a statist into conceding that the social contract really ought to be signed by the act of voting.