The legalities of the social contract (vid I plan to do)

[AnCap Dave]

Hey kids, you know what time it is? That's right, it's time for more social contract lunacy!

Except the social contract doesn't exist. It is completely made up. Provide evidence that the social contract exists. Not to mention, that is a false dichotomy. The "social contract" isn't the only philosophy that believes in property rights. In fact, it can be argued that the social contract philosophy abrogates those very rights.

Of course it does. If we consider the definition in Webster

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20contract

Then the social contract is inseparable from the existence of any type of society or organizational structure, ranging from families to nations. What is different is the manner in which the social contract is set. 

Now you're just delving into whether or not democracy is a good thing. As far as that goes, I think the idea of democracy is nothing more than mob rules (full democracy) or popularity contests (representative democracy.) I don't believe everyone else has a right to make decisions for you in regards of who gets to rule over you or how you should live your life. And before someone creates the false dichotomy that you either have to have democracy or a totalitarian dictatorship, no, I don't support that either.

Not quite. I am merely using democracy as a representative sample of a social contract, and the reason why I have chosen democracy and not a totalitarian dictatorship is because democracy is uniquely structured to dynamically unravel the positive and negative aspects of the concept of social contract. While technically, social contract can be found in any society, in totalitarian dictatorships the contract is unilateral and stems from the existence of force. This makes it the same in nature, if not in structure, to naturalistic ownership, where physical presence and force determines the relationship between subject and object. One could delve deeper as to what the social contract is between the military subjects and their commanders, but this would merely muddy the waters, and drive us away from the regulating factors that control the social contract.

The country can detain me if I simply refuse to be scanned or molested by the TSA.

No, they can simply refuse to utilize the means of transport, on the grounds of security. I don't support the TSA at all, but what I am essentially saying is that if you are willing to enter into the social contract and reap its benefits, you cannot complain if the contract sometimes is not in your favor. And the social contract stipulates that at times, the many may make a decision that is not in your favor, to maintain a system from which you obtain greater benefits than the ones you sacrificed.

Also, if you don't have the means to leave, then what right do you really have?

I sense that we are discussing two separate issues. If the government chooses to eliminate the means of transport for the sole purpose of detaining people, then I agree, there is no qualitative difference from the government stipulating that no one can leave.

However, what I was referring to was the difference between right and means, which are 2 separate things. If the government prevents me from leaving on the basis of security and shuts down the airport, that still allows me, for example, to take a boat, or try and swim the Atlantic. If it is a law, then I cannot leave by any circumstance. And that is essentially the difference: "means" restricts in one specific aspect for a specific reason; "right" restricts in all aspects. I would say that it certainly a big difference.

Except it is a monopoly game because it's something they made up to explain why they own the land and why you have to pay them.

As I explained previously, nations essentially employ naturalistic ownership (in the most crude sense, ignoring international agreements, so on, so forth) over a particular set of land. It is the constituents of those nations that collectively determine the nature of the social contract.   

So if government debt is a choice, then that means paying taxes is a choice, since after all, government debt is paid for by the taxpayer.

Correct. But as I stated in my previous post, government debt and taxation cannot be separated from the social contract.

Sorry, but when someone else borrows money, it is not up to you or me to pay their debt off for them, and yet for some reason people don't want to apply that to governments. Not to mention this also implies that people are held to a contract before they are even born!

It is, since it is stipulated in the social contract, or in other words, you cannot selectively choose what parts of the contract you will apply, and which you will not on the basis of circumstances. You can choose to act in favor of changing it or removing yourself from it, but the social contract is applied. To present it more clearly, the social contract, as it is now, states that if you are a citizen of a certain country, you are obligated to pay takes. If you do not wish to pay taxes, then you can leave the country and revoke your citizenship. Pure and simple.

And how does it implies that people are held to the contract before they are born? The government may plan on you being a participant before you were born, but it certainly does not force you to. And if you define "being forced" as the government assuming that you will pay taxes in order to cover the deficit, then what would be the government intervening in domestic abuse of children? And this is even more serious issue then the one you mentioned. Before you are born, the government can merely assume that you will pay taxes, but in domestic abuse, the government acts as if the child is a tax payer and has agreed to the social contract (ignoring issues related to morality, of course).

The fact of the matter is, the government assumes on the principle of practicality, not strict logical legality. If the people had to apply for citizenship when the turned 21, and the results of not applying is deportation, you would get 100 our of 100 people applying. So while stating that they hold people to a certain contract before they are born may be over the top, it is more proper to say that the government assumes on the basis of experience and societal structure.

Correlation/causation fallacy.All that aside, it still stems from the principle that while some people may be well educated, that doesn't mean they should be making decisions for other people. It implies that they are property of the mob, and I simply do not agree with that.

Yes, I mentioned that in my response, albeit in more words. However, one can hardly argue against the statement that educated people make educated decisions, which is especially important in a democracy.

[SPOILER]You also have countries like Cuba, Kazakhstan,where the political situation was influenced by outside factors, yet with a very high educational index, which is influenced by far less factors. So when you have both democratic and non democratic influencing education in a similar manner, yet most countries have similar democratic and educational index (with few exceptions, of course), I think we can see where the correlation and where the causation is, as well as research being made

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/want-a-stronger-democracy-invest-in-education/

But I digress, the issue here is not the correlation between democracy and education, which is why I placed it in the spoiler section[/SPOILER]

Also, what I was referring to is not a group of educated people making decisions. What I am saying is that you cannot have a functioning democracy without have all people educated about the choices they make, and this is the reason why democracy shows cracks, and why ultimately, the social contract is being manipulated through the misinformation and manipulation of the uninformed and uneducated by a special interest, corporate minority.

[Goaticus]

"    The country can detain me if I simply refuse to be scanned or molested by the TSA."

"No, they can simply refuse to utilize the means of transport, on the grounds of security."

This is wildly untrue and definitely a good example of fail. If you are in line at an airport or other federally secured area and attempt to leave it after looking at its security you will almost certainly be detained. They will assume you are trying to smuggle something on to the plane and balked when you saw the security is too tough.

[AnCap Dave]

This just gets more painful as we keep going.

Really? That's your evidence? A definition in a dictionary counts as evidence that something actually exists? Well shit. I guess leprechauns and unicorns exist too. I'm trying to not sound like a total dick here, but you should know better than this.

Let me reiterate my argument again. The term "social contract" applies to an aspect of society that already exists, unlike unicorns or leprechauns. According to the definition, the term is defined by elements such as "agreement", "organized society", "community", "ruler", "rights", "duties". According to your argument, I equate these terms with terms like "elf" (in leprechauns), and I really can't see in what manner I do that. As I said, the social contract is inseparable from any organized society, and it is one of its founding aspects. The definition of the concept is clear enough, and if you believe that the term "social contract" has a different definition, then you can present your own as well. But if you require specifics, then those specifics are inseparable from the type of society. You cannot expect the social contract to be the same in democracies and communist countries.

You are essentially asking me to prove to you that an eye exists, and the moment I point to you an object that it is defined as such, you argue that I haven't proven anything.   

Ah the, "Because we said so" clause. I wonder what section of this invisible document they put that in.

Totally valid. Oh wait. No. No it isn't.

The reason why I used the term "stipulates" is not because it is written somewhere, but because it is the only logical conclusion based on the set rules that govern the relation between community and rulers (laws). The laws also state that the community will determine who designs and enforces those rules, at least in a democracy.

Except I never agreed to the social contract. It was already set in place before I was even born. Not to mention, yes, people have been detained for refusing to go through the extremely intrusive TSA security measures. From random citizens to politicians alike.

Man, how generous of our overlords. They'll actually let me swim out of the country if I don't want to be molested at the airport? I couldn't ask for anything better. (It hurt to type that...)

I sense that we are in danger of falling in reductio ad absurdum. Just because the government has enforced rules that are unpopular, that does not mean that social contract, as it existed, is void. Specifically, the community still has the authority as per the social contract to remove those officials, even while they are in power. If I am not mistaken, governor Scott Walker will face a recall election in Wisconsin.

Ah, the old "Because we say so" clause, yet again.

Seriously though, this screams "special pleading." When governments use naturalistic ownership it is considered okay but when the rest of us do it, it automatically creates a might is right scenario? What makes them so special again?

It is not an issue of justification, it is an issue of applicability. The social contract between nations, in the form of United Nations is still too weak to be applied as a contract at all, which is the reason why we have unilateral decisions of one country to attack another, without any ramifications. The reason why this does not occur all the time, however, is an issue of morality relating to loss of life, neocolonialism, so on, so forth. A better model of how a social contract operates between nations is the EU, but it is not without its problems.

In any case, nobody argues that this is ok, but this is simply how nations have determined to operate (or EU members, who have decided on a different path). The only difference between nations and a single individual is the level of might that they have. 

Tell that to them. If what you say is true, and simply choosing to leave the country should remove your obligations to pay taxes to that country, then why are people still getting harassed to pay after having already left that country?

To quote the text: "So why comply? Because if you don't, they can refuse to let you into the U.S.". In what manner is the state wrong?

And simply leaving the country is insufficient. The government cannot assume that you simply want to revoke your citizenship the moment you leave the country. There are actually special procedures for renouncing US citizenship, given that you do not have any military or financial obligations towards the US, obviously,

http://renunciationguide.com/Renunciation-Process-Step-By-Step.html
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

and many people do

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/more-americans-are-renouncing-citizenship/

But I have to admit that after some reading, it is apparent that expatriation law has delved into the absurd. Since 2008, there is a thing called exit tax, which taxes the wealthy who decide renounce US citizenship. The problem is-according to the rules, you don't have to be wealthy in order to be taxed, which is ridiculous

http://renunciationguide.com/Exit-Tax-on-Renunciants.html

The only possible argument that one can make is that the US is taxing the person for basically utilizing the social contract that permitted them to acquire their wealth. It is also the point that this is found only in the US. This is also an issue of a failing democracy, as I don't think many people know of these provisions, nor are interested in what happens if you are not a US citizen. If these provisions had the effects of SOPA and PIPA, then the outcome would have been different. Essentially, there are too many factors that come into play to simply determine that a specific social contract has failed.

If the government plans on you being a tax payer before you are even born, then that means they're holding you to it. The government doesn't "assume" you will pay taxes. It demands that you pay taxes, because if you don't, it will lock you up and take away everything you own. Of course, should you choose to resist, they'll just shoot you.

The bolded. How is planning on something and holding you to something the same? One is an abstract thought, the other is physical action, at very least in the context of what we were discussing.

But more to the point, removing certain issues, which I mentioned in the posts, from the line of reasoning muddies the issue, and makes it seem unjustified. For example, I can say that I pulled out a gun a shot someone, but it makes a significant difference if I mention that it was war, and the other guy was shooting first.
 

As far as the bold goes, I'm glad I can simply act like someone has agreed to any set of arbitrary terms I set in a contract I made up.

So, we should be able to kill our own children then? Without repercussions?

The issue here isn't even about a democracy that works, but the basic principle that one does not have a right to make decisions for other people about how to run their life. Pure and simple.

True, but direct, or pure democracy was about exchanging ideas that would benefit all, both as individuals and as collective, which is why the first, Greek democracies were direct. The analogy of two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner is a crude misrepresentation of the basic tenants, or rather, a representation of how democracy got perverted. The essential rule found in the social contract in democratic societies is "consensus", not "collective control". We can discuss at length how democracies fail, and in what manner the succeed, but that doesn't change the initial intention.   

You know, I just remembered that I have a social contract on this forum.

Let's have a social contract here on the forum. As King, I now declare a social contract. If you want to defend the social contract, you are now contractually obligated to send me $100. Of course, if you don't want to pay me, you can choose to leave, after all, that's only fair right?

So where's my money?

You sorta prove my point why I chose democracy as the example to explore the dynamics of the social contract. When the social contract stipulates that one has the authority to unilaterally change that same social contract and does so, the previous social contract is nonexistent and a new one is formed, not unlike might is right principle. So if one refuses to accept your social contract, your claims are as powerful as the your ability to execute your restrictions, which is what happens when we have a democratic society, a dictator who attains power using force, and creates a dictatorship, thereby changing the social contract to might is right- he has the guns so he gets to say what's right. You don't approve, you get shot.

[MrBogosity]

Wow--the ontological argument used to defend the social contract! Now I've seen it all...

I'm debating moving these posts to Lord T Hawkeye's Social Contract thread, since there's now so many of them.

[AnCap Dave]

Wow--the ontological argument used to defend the social contract! Now I've seen it all...

I'm debating moving these posts to Lord T Hawkeye's Social Contract thread, since there's now so many of them.

Feel free. Honestly there's just so much fail I felt it had to be posted.