"Social Contract" rebuttals

[mick_towe]

I was in a discussion in another forum and came across the dreaded "social contract" argument. I was just curious if anyone had any whoppers for this particular argument. In case you are not familiar what I am speaking of, it goes like this:

 

"By living here you agree to a social contract which means you have a responsibility to the rest of us bla bla, and if you don't like it you can leave."

 

I think the social contract argument has SOME validity in that there are some things (like common law) that are generally accepted by the population that are justified by that acceptance. This is why I am finding difficulty in rebutting it.

 

I am aware of Stef's "Zoo metaphor" and it is a valid argument, but not super strong in my opinion. I was just wondering if anyone had anything better or different. I have been racking my brain about it, and have not come up with anything that satisfies me yet.

 

Thanks!

[greekredemption]

Which brand of social contract? There are many types arguing from many views. It could even be argued that the NAP is a type of social contract.

[Mike Fleming]

How about 

 

"So just by being born I now have to accept what a small group of people say and obey everything they say?  And pay them whatever they want?"

 

Social contract, in regards to common law, is fine, because common law basically treats everyone as equals.   Everybody has the same rights and you can't violate someone's else's rights and they can't violate yours.  ie.  no theft allowed equals no taxation allowed.

 

That's not government.  People in government have special rights above and beyond the rest of society and can (and do) change the rules arbitrarily.   As Stef has pointed out, this makes society effectively lawless.  It's all about the strong (in this case the well-connected and often well off) abusing the rest.  

 

There is no Social Contract in today's society.  Just a gang telling everybody what they can and can't do.

[Magnus]

The defining features of a contract are (a) mutual agreement to (b) specific terms. 

 

The "social contract" has neither feature.  No one ever agreed to anything, and its terms keep changing all the time whenever the State declares new ones. 

 

The State is, of course, something of a trading partner with the public -- a small amount of what it provides consist of the traditional governmental services (police, military, courts, mail), it added some more in the 19th century (roads, schools), a few more from the Progressive Era (labor laws, utilities, central banking), which paved the way for the mid-20th century governmental functions (massive wealth-redistribution payments, plus all the price-fixing and "regulatory" controls left over from the New Deal and Great Society). 

 

It's this superficial relationship of exchange (tax money for government services) that leads people to believe there is some kind of "contract" between people and the State, because superficially, it is similar to your relationship with your cell phone company. 

 

So, from the perspective of the person who acquiesces in this relationship, and agrees to pay taxes, and wants to receive these services, it feels as though there is a kind of contract in place. 

 

Of course, the illusion of a contract disappears the instant you disagree, or want to be released from the bargain.  Then, you see the true nature of the relationship is more like livestock and plantation owner.  If they decide they want to record all of your telecommunications without a warrant, they will.  They will send you to die in a war, without a second thought. 

 

The true believer in the State can't accept these facts, so he feels the need to hide behind a twisted definition of "agreement" in order to rationalize his support of the State.  The idea that "you agreed by breathing" exists nowhere else in the law or daily life.  The idea that you accepted the benefit of these "services" is not equivalent to agreement.  If someone gives you services you don't want, you have the right to decline them.  You have the right to opt out.  But with the State, if you choose not to pay, they won't just shut off your services.  They will literally kill you.

 

As for specific terms, the true believer will point to the stautes and regulations and the case law.  But no one can actually read all of that.  And the State rarely follows its own rules anyway, even the most fundaental ones.  For example, one of the main structural features, in the Constitution, was that the federal government had no power to control commercial activities inside a state, and only had authority when goods crossed state lines.  The purpose of this rule was to make the USA a free trade zone, and prevent any particular state from collecting import taxes on goods entering a state.  But the modern US government rubber-stamped itself a completely new, broad power, in the 1930s, to basically enact any legislation on any economic or commercial topic, if it concerns anything that touches or affects interstate commerce (which is everything).  A generation earlier, it created a central bank, for crying out loud!  Based on no authority at all!  (By the way, the power to "regulate the value of money" is not the power to charter a central bank.  It's the power to set standards for the weight and metallic purity of coins.)

 

The terms of this "social contract" can clearly be changed unilaterally.  No real contract does that. 

 

To call the State a "contract" is an attempt to co-opt the moral and economic credibility of the idea of contracts.  But it's just a label.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Remind them that the social contract makes everyone a soldier. Civilians pay for all the military actions and whether they agree to those actions or not, they voluntary choose to fund them. If they chose not to fund it they would leave. So all supporters of the social contract are complicit in the wrong-doings of their government. Only those who reject the social contract are not morally complicit.

[mick_towe]

Nice! Thank you all!

[Jorell]

That was an exquisite breakdown Magnus - thank you as well.

[dsayers]

The phrase "social contract" is a contradiction in terms. A contract is a private agreement between specific people. We do not allow children to enter into contracts, yet the social contract (according to those who argue for it) binds even the unborn.

 

"Social contract" begs the question. In the consideration of whether or not government is valid, saying that somebody can leave assumes the claim to be evaded is valid. Punching me in the face isn't moral just because I can choose to be at greater than arm's length from you.

 

"Social contract" is internally inconsistent. In order for the claim to be valid, the country would have to own everything and everybody within it. However, if this were the case, it wouldn't need permission or agreement.

 

"Social contract" is ex post facto justification. I don't get to throw a sandwich at you and then say that you now owe me money. Similarly, I don't get to take your money without your consent and then throw a sandwich at you as if that could alter the moral identity of stealing your money beforehand.

 

"Social contract" is a baldfaced falsehood. People can NOT leave. Not without permission. Not without having to go to another inflicted "contract." Not without risking extreme theft of their belongings in the process.

[mick_towe]

Nice nice nice!

[Benjammin]

As the term is popularly used would it not be more truthfully said as social subjugation?

[Pepin]

I am at the point where the concept doesn't make any sense. The more I progress intellectually, the less and less I understand what people are claiming.

 

I had a conversation with a friend who claimed that it would be fairer if the salary of a CEO was tied to the lowest wage worker. I don't even know what that means, let alone how to argue against it. Spent about half an hour with him defining terms, refining the claim, finding implications, establishing a null-hypothesis, and so on and it was a great and productive conversation. I prefer to not argue against someone's theory, but rather to help them make it better... And as a result, most realize that they aren't making much sense.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

"By living here you agree to a social contract which means you have a responsibility to the rest of us bla bla, and if you don't like it you can leave."

 

I see this person has never tried to move to another country.

 

Rebuttal: "So then where exactly is the place I can go with no social contracts?"

[Magenta]

[greekredemption]

It's worth bearing in mind that for most social contract theories, the agreement is between people, not between people and state.

[tjt]

The defining features of a contract are (a) mutual agreement to (b) specific terms. 

 

The "social contract" has neither feature.  No one ever agreed to anything, and its terms keep changing all the time whenever the State declares new ones. 

 

 

Good stuff! Not to mention, persons under the age of 18 cannot be legally bound to a contract. So a "social contract" that you entered into upon birth through the act of being born is illegal (or unenforceable, not sure which is the right word).

 

(Although, this 18+ contract law is created and enforced by the state, so I don't know if my argument is solid enough. Am I making any sense? I like your points though, Magnus.)