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

[Lord T Hawkeye]

This is the script for a vid I plan to do soon.  I'm not an expert on contract law so if anyone has something they'd like to add or something I could tweak to make it better, please do enlighten me.

Social contract

It has come to my attention that many people, grossly ignorant of contract law, still support the idea of a social contract and believe it's a legal, enforceable and fair contract.  This just cannot go on so since it's supporters want to throw morals out the window and try and claim the law is on their side, I'm going to discuss several of the legal problems with the idea of a social contract.

Duress

Contract law clearly states that any exchange made under duress is not legal.  This is why if I point a gun at you and demand your wallet, I cannot argue in court that you legally surrendered it to me because you were under duress at the time.  For a contract to be legal, all parties must be able to refuse without any threat of ill consequence whatsoever.

Proponents of the social contract like to argue that you can freely refuse simply by leaving the country, but this really just weasel words.  The truth is that you are threatening to force them from their homes unless they agree to your terms and jail them if they refuse.  This is a blatant example of duress and thus invalidates the social contract.  Some attempt to get around this by comparing the social contract to a landlord evicting tenants for non payment of rent or other reasons, but since the government is not the owner of the land, this comparison does not work either.  Not to mention the landlord DOES have proof of prior agreement to pay rent and follow his terms.  The government has no such evidence past merely the fact of being born.  Pointing at my house and saying "Mine" does not make it so.

In short, in contract law, no means no.  You cannot set unreasonable hurdles for non consent.


Tacit consent

Imagine if you recieved junk mail that claims to have signed you up for a magazine subscription and will begin billing you for it and if you don't want it, you need only reply back stating so.  Would you consider this a fair agreement?  Probably not.  What if you were away?  What if the notice didn't get to you?  What if you were unable to reply for whatever reason?

Well, once upon a time, some companies did try to do just this and it was soundly rejected in court for these very reasons.  Tacit consent is when you merely assume acceptance of a contract without any prior agreement and it is soundly rejected by contract law.

Some try to claim that tacit consent is legal and point to things such as auto insurance that automatically renews every month unless you state otherwise.  This is known as estoppel but it only applies when there is prior aggreement to such an arrangement.  You made a conscious choice to apply for auto insurance and you consciously aggreed to have it renew automatically every month.  It was not merely assumed that you agreed.  Had an auto insurance agency simply insured you with no proof of your consent, they would have no legal stand to demand a cent from you.

In short: No proof of a conscious decision to agree to the contract before any exchange was made = no contract.  If a man can force his will on someone else and ex post facto call it a contract, then legally one could get away with just about anything by simply calling it a contract afterwards.  Once again, no means no.  Arguing that no means yes doth not make it so.

Unconscionability and undue influence
Imagine if we engaged in a business deal and I demanded to also be the arbiter should either party not make good on their end.  Would you consider this a reasonable request?  Probably not.  While I would have every reason in the world to prosecute you if you did not pay your end, I have no such insentive to prosecute myself.  Thus, I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by cheating and exploiting you since all the power of arbitration is in my hands.

Yet, people defend this very scenario with this so called social contract.  We're supposed to pay taxes and the government is supposed to use them for the services we require of it.  Yet the government is also the arbiter, creating a massive conflict of interests.  The result is people who don't pay taxes are acted against very harshly yet politicians who blow tax money on pork spending very rarely face any negative reprecussions.  Vote them out?  They're not made to pay what they squandered and in fact, get rewarded with gold plated pensions and complete immunity from any ill consequence for their dishonestly.  Do you see Bill Clinton in jail for raiding the social security fund?  I didn't think so.  Is Tony Blair having his wages garnished to pay back the absurd bailouts he gave to his corporate buddies?  Can't say I've heard any such thing.  Like the above example, politicians have nothing to lose and everything to gain by blowing tax dollars on whatever pet projects they see fit and face no threat of retribution whatsoever.

Thus the social contract is massively unfair with one side having all the power and vastly more ability to negotiate than the other in addition to being shielded from any consequences of non compliance.  No court would ever accept a private contract that was so obviously one sided.

That's what I have so far.  Shane mentioned frustration of purpose but I had a little trouble understanding it from the wikipedia entry.

[MrBogosity]

Proponents of the social contract like to argue that you can freely refuse simply by leaving the country, but this really just weasel words.

That's not technically weasel words.

Here's the bit from my script for the podcast where I covered it:

And now it's time for this week's Idiot Extraordinaire. When someone submits a nomination for this non-award for non-sense, which you can do by sending an email to podcast@bogosity.tv, it is given due consideration. When two or more people nominate the same dolt in the same week, it's truly significant! Such is the case with this week's loser-winner, David John Wellman. Virgil0211 and Lord T Hawkeye both nominated this idiot non-savant because of his pathetic attempts to support that fastigium of fascism known as the Social Contract.

[play part 1 starting around 2:06, to Constitution]

This dogmatic dullard has apparently never even READ the Constitution, or he would know that no citizen anywhere in the United States is bound to it. If someone comes onto your property and starts preaching, you can throw him off your property, by physical force if necessary, without running afoul of his first amendment protections to freedom of speech or religion. It's not citizens that are restricted by the Constitution, it's GOVERNMENT. Whenever ANYONE in government takes office--from Congress and the President, to governors and state legislators, to local councilmen, every buraucrat, every soldier, every cop on the beat--he swears an oath to defend the Constitution. The Constitution is NOT there to limit the people or bind them to some contract they never agreed to; it's there to limit the government and bind them from intruding in our lives.

This "social contract" bogosity is nothing more than a surreptitious way of sneaking in the ancient concept of the Divine Right of Kings--only now, it's the law and the lawmakers and law enforcers who have this divine right. At any time, they can change the terms of the contract, and if they say they get to scan your junk when you get on a plane, then you just have to accept that. It's fascism, it's totalitarianism, and it is completely AGAINST everything this country was founded for.

[2:35 - your parents entered into the contract for you]

Sorry, but parents and legal guardians CANNOT enter into a contract for a minor. When a child actor or model is hired, the contract is made with the parents. The parents are NOT agents; they, not the child, are bound to the terms of the contract, and in contract law agents themselves are not bound to the terms, only the principal. And agency is invalid if the principal is unable to understand the terms of the contract. The child is not bound to the contract, is not acted against if the contract is breached, and cannot be held to it once the child comes of age; at that point, a contract with the child must be signed.

[contract renewed automatically]

Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. A contract becoming effective due to inaction is legally known as "estoppel," but estoppel does NOT apply to someone just turning 18 when they never agreed to anything before. It happens when they take action that demonstrates the truth of something, without them confronting it at the time.

And besides, breach of contract is a civil matter, not a criminal. No breach of contract justifies someone being put in jail.

[all you have to do is leave the country]

Sorry, but that's known as "duress." And it automatically invalidates any contract. The concept he's trying to dance around here is called "tacit consent," and it is soundly rejected by contract law.

Besides, all someone leaving the country can do is go to a different country, where presumably a whole new social contract awaits them, that they can't get out of agreeing to. Not only that, when you leave the country, you have to go through this wonderful government to get to it--a government that can stop you at customs, scan your naked body, and even detain you indefinitely without habeas corpus--even after you've been acquitted, according to President Obama! So, the one way you can get out of this contract, which is duress anyway, only means you're subject to another one, and the government can stop you from doing it.

Not only that, but this completely rules out the possibilities of rebellion, nullification, and civil disobedience, all of which were crucial to the founding of our country and the protection of our rights. The more we get away from these concepts, the more our civil liberties get violated by people who think they can just make up the terms of this phantom "contract" as they go along.

This just isn't what the concept of a "social contract" is. Here's an example of a REAL social contract: you meet someone and they say, "How are you?" You're not supposed to answer with how sick you are, or every little ache and pain that's bothering you. Regardless of how you actually are, you're supposed to say, "I'm fine, thanks." We all agree to and understand that. That's what a social contract is--and there is no penalty whatsoever for breaching it, other than just not being liked very much.

The fact is, if his ridiculous "contract" were to be claimed by someone acting on their own, and taken to court of law, it would be stricken down on every single ground that exists for doing so. Contracts require MUTUAL assent, meaning that both parties have to ACTIVELY agree to it; an Offer and Acceptance (also known as a "meeting of the minds"), which obviously doesn't exist in his description; Consideration, which has to do with an evaluation of the detriment vs. the bargain, something else that no one gets to do; both parties must have the capacity to contract, the awareness that they are doing so (and why would he have to tell us this if we were aware of it?), the parties must intend to form a legal relationship, and the parties must consent--to ALL of the terms. Past Consideration is inefficient to claim contractual obligation, as is preexisting duty. Duress, undue influence, unconscionability, and frustration of purpose all can be used as arguments to void a contract--and all apply to Wellman's bogus "social contract." A contract just is not assumed to be valid unless all parties agree to it voluntarily--and simply not leaving is NOT enough to do the trick.

But I guess if Wellman accepts all of that, then he too must accept that, by making such a completely asinine argument, he contractually agreed to be this week's Idiot Extraordinaire.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

"That's not technically weasel words."

It is in the sense that it's flipping the issue around to make it sound benign when the reality is "do as I say or be forced from your home."

Anyway, can you elaborate on frustration of purpose and how it applies to the social contract?  That's the part I was a bit muddy on.

[MrBogosity]

Weasel words are done to make something vague sound specific. "Savings up up to 50% or more," that kind of thing. This is a fallacy of equivocation.

Frustration of purpose deals with the intended purpose for which the parties made the contract. A textbook example would be when you buy an office building, but before the sale goes is finalized it gets rezoned to not allow commercial buildings. Regardless of what contracts have already been signed you can back out of the agreement, since the building can no longer serve the purpose for which you wanted to buy it.

In the case of the so-called "social contract," one could argue the "contracted" purpose of government as stated in the Declaration of Independence--to secure our rights--is frustrated when the government works to negate those rights. That would absolutely release you from the contract.

[MrBogosity]

Another social contract nutter: dbrandow in these comments: http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=NFv_tJs6Jq8

[Lord T Hawkeye]

My social contract says his head resembles that of a chicken.

My logic is irrefutable!

[AnCap Dave]

More social contract bullshit!

For context, I talked about how a landlord doesn't lock you in a cage or shoot you if you are evicted from the apartment. I also linked to the story where those two that left the US are still being bothered by the IRS. Then I posted LTH's script on why the social contract doesn't count as legitimate contract law. Read this pile of bullshit at your own peril.

As far as rent goes, if you choose not to pay your rent, the landlord asks you to leave. He doesn't lock you in a cage, and he doesn't threaten to shoot you if you resist.

He does if you don't leave. That's the trouble with libertarians. They're level 99 squatters.

With the government however, that is not the case. First off, you can't leave the country without their permission, and even if you do, they'll still come after you for tax money.

So? I thought the whole point was "Fuck the gov't, I'll do what I want." If you just leave and not give a fuck about them, guarantee they won't give a fuck about you until you show up back at their door begging for forgiveness like a wayward child that ran away from home.

Even with that aside, let's just throw some basic contract law reasons why "the social contract" is not a legitimate contract:

Nobody ever said it was. The social contract is 100% implicit. Nobody is seriously saying there's a fucking document you sign somewhere in life to agree to specific terms. The social contract is just the implicit agreement that you'll follow the laws of a democratic government and the government will provide you with protection and services its constituents say they should provide through the proper legal channels (voting).

Duress

Contract law

Irrelevant unless operating under the social contract. Libertarians try not to.

Proponents of the social contract like to argue that you can freely refuse simply by leaving the country, but this really just weasel words. The truth is that you are threatening to force them from their homes unless they agree to your terms and jail them if they refuse.

The point is it's not your homes, period. It's the government's land, not yours. Libertarians are just cowards that lack the conviction to actually leave it and so they just complain and complain and complain.

This is a blatant example of duress and thus invalidates the social contract.

Nope.avi

It's not more duress than using a desk the school lets you have for the duration of the class period. The moment that class is over, the desk is still the schools and can let anybody else use it provided they follow the rules. The land you live on isn't ultimately yours. Ultimately, it belongs to the state. You're just allowed to use it provided you follow the rules.

the government is not the owner of the land,

Yes it is.

Tacit consent

Imagine if you received junk mail that claims to have signed you up for a magazine subscription and will begin billing you for it and if you don't want it, you need only reply back stating so. Would you consider this a fair agreement? Probably not.

Except that's not what's happening. What's happening is you've been reading this magazine your entire life, and the moment you have money, you have to start paying for the subscription. Doesn't stop people from bitching because they want their cake and eat it too.

Well, once upon a time, some companies did try to do just this and it was soundly rejected in court for these very reasons.

Classic libertarians. They never take the good with the bad, you see. If the government is taking their money, FUUUUU-!!!! But the moment the government stops other companies from taking your money, HURAAAY!

In short: No proof of a conscious decision to agree to the contract before any exchange was made = no contract. If a man can force his will on someone else and ex post facto call it a contract, then legally one could get away with just about anything by simply calling it a contract afterward. Once again, no means no. Arguing that no means yes doth not make it so.

Rosseau is turning in his grave.

Unconscionability and undue influence

Imagine if we engaged in a business deal and I demanded to also be the arbiter should either party not make good on their end. Would you consider this a reasonable request? Probably not. While I would have every reason in the world to prosecute you if you did not pay your end, I have no such incentive to prosecute myself. Thus, I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by cheating and exploiting you since all the power of arbitration is in my hands.

>implying citizens have never won a court battle against the government.

lol


Yeah this is all old hat. Once you can create an argument that isn't on its face ridiculous(using aspects of the law to debate against the law), isn't a straw man(magazine subscription lols), and has some basis in understanding of the subject(using contract law as an argument against the social contract), I'll listen. I've never seen it before, but I'll listen.

[MrBogosity]

More social contract bullshit!

For context, I talked about how a landlord doesn't lock you in a cage or shoot you if you are evicted from the apartment. I also linked to the story where those two that left the US are still being bothered by the IRS. Then I posted LTH's script on why the social contract doesn't count as legitimate contract law. Read this pile of bullshit at your own peril.

Bogon shields to full...

He does if you don't leave. That's the trouble with libertarians. They're level 99 squatters.

He does it because you're on his property, and libertarians respect that right to private property (unlike statists). But he CANNOT use the gun to enforce the contract.

If you just leave and not give a fuck about them, guarantee they won't give a fuck about you

Tell that to all the people who've left and continued to be harassed by the IRS to pay income taxes on money they didn't make in the US when they didn't live in the US!

The social contract is 100% implicit.

Then it's 100% invalid.

through the proper legal channels (voting).

Yeah, after the government passes prohibitive ballot access laws, passes so-called "campaign finance reform" laws to make it more difficult for challengers to challenge incumbents or for people who aren't with a candidate or political party to speak out on the issues, and tosses out constitutionally-valid votes without counting them.

His point on Duress
Irrelevant unless operating under the social contract. Libertarians try not to.

What does this even mean?

The point is it's not your homes, period. It's the government's land, not yours.

Not according to the common law system our country was founded upon, and not according to the Treaty of Paris where the crown ceded all land to the people--NOT the government--of America.

The land you live on isn't ultimately yours. Ultimately, it belongs to the state. You're just allowed to use it provided you follow the rules.

Does that apply to our bodies as well? Like, if we want to put a drug in our body the state doesn't like? Or exchange sex for money? What's it called when you don't own your own body?

Except that's not what's happening. What's happening is you've been reading this magazine your entire life,

You've been FORCED to read it, not given any alternative.

and the moment you have money, you have to start paying for the subscription.

And you don't have the option to just stop reading.

Classic libertarians. They never take the good with the bad, you see. If the government is taking their money, FUUUUU-!!!! But the moment the government stops other companies from taking your money, HURAAAY!

What kind of sociopath do you need to be not to see the difference between government taking your money by force and a company getting your money because you voluntarily gave it to them in exchange for goods and services you thought were worth the price?

Rosseau is turning in his grave.

And Hume is doing the spinning! You realize that phrase in the Declaration of Independence about governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed is direct from Hume, in OPPOSITION to Rousseau?

implying citizens have never won a court battle against the government.

How'd that work out for the people in New London?

Some of them were ambiguous; it would have been nice to see the points he was responding to.

[AnCap Dave]

Bogon shields to full...

He does it because you're on his property, and libertarians respect that right to private property (unlike statists). But he CANNOT use the gun to enforce the contract.


Tell that to all the people who've left and continued to be harassed by the IRS to pay income taxes on money they didn't make in the US when they didn't live in the US!

Then it's 100% invalid.

Yeah, after the government passes prohibitive ballot access laws, passes so-called "campaign finance reform" laws to make it more difficult for challengers to challenge incumbents or for people who aren't with a candidate or political party to speak out on the issues, and tosses out constitutionally-valid votes without counting them.

What does this even mean?

Not according to the common law system our country was founded upon, and not according to the Treaty of Paris where the crown ceded all land to the people--NOT the government--of America.

Does that apply to our bodies as well? Like, if we want to put a drug in our body the state doesn't like? Or exchange sex for money? What's it called when you don't own your own body?

You've been FORCED to read it, not given any alternative.

And you don't have the option to just stop reading.

What kind of sociopath do you need to be not to see the difference between government taking your money by force and a company getting your money because you voluntarily gave it to them in exchange for goods and services you thought were worth the price?

And Hume is doing the spinning! You realize that phrase in the Declaration of Independence about governments deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed is direct from Hume, in OPPOSITION to Rousseau?

How'd that work out for the people in New London?

Some of them were ambiguous; it would have been nice to see the points he was responding to.

I'll fix the original quote to add each individual point he is referring to. Those will be in quotes inside the quote.

[Travis Retriever]

"What kind of sociopath do you need to be not to see the difference between government taking your money by force and a company getting your money because you voluntarily gave it to them in exchange for goods and services you thought were worth the price?"

Well, my Engineering Ethics Professor, my Criminal Justice Professor...

[Travis Retriever]

More social contract bullshit!

For context, I talked about how a landlord doesn't lock you in a cage or shoot you if you are evicted from the apartment. I also linked to the story where those two that left the US are still being bothered by the IRS. Then I posted LTH's script on why the social contract doesn't count as legitimate contract law. Read this pile of bullshit at your own peril.

He does if you don't leave. That's the trouble with libertarians. They're level 99 squatters.
So? I thought the whole point was "Fuck the gov't, I'll do what I want." If you just leave and not give a fuck about them, guarantee they won't give a fuck about you until you show up back at their door begging for forgiveness like a wayward child that ran away from home.
Nobody ever said it was. The social contract is 100% implicit. Nobody is seriously saying there's a fucking document you sign somewhere in life to agree to specific terms. The social contract is just the implicit agreement that you'll follow the laws of a democratic government and the government will provide you with protection and services its constituents say they should provide through the proper legal channels (voting).

Irrelevant unless operating under the social contract. Libertarians try not to.
The point is it's not your homes, period. It's the government's land, not yours. Libertarians are just cowards that lack the conviction to actually leave it and so they just complain and complain and complain.

Nope.avi

It's not more duress than using a desk the school lets you have for the duration of the class period. The moment that class is over, the desk is still the schools and can let anybody else use it provided they follow the rules. The land you live on isn't ultimately yours. Ultimately, it belongs to the state. You're just allowed to use it provided you follow the rules.

Yes it is.
Except that's not what's happening. What's happening is you've been reading this magazine your entire life, and the moment you have money, you have to start paying for the subscription. Doesn't stop people from bitching because they want their cake and eat it too.

Classic libertarians. They never take the good with the bad, you see. If the government is taking their money, FUUUUU-!!!! But the moment the government stops other companies from taking your money, HURAAAY!


Rosseau is turning in his grave.

>implying citizens have never won a court battle against the government.

lol


Yeah this is all old hat. Once you can create an argument that isn't on its face ridiculous(using aspects of the law to debate against the law), isn't a straw man(magazine subscription lols), and has some basis in understanding of the subject(using contract law as an argument against the social contract), I'll listen. I've never seen it before, but I'll listen.

Translation:  OUR GOV IS AN AWESOME GOD!
And people wonder why we call them "state cultists"...

[AnCap Dave]

As far as rent goes, if you choose not to pay your rent, the landlord asks you to leave. He doesn't lock you in a cage, and he doesn't threaten to shoot you if you resist. With the government however, that is not the case. First off, you can't leave the country without their permission, and even if you do, they'll still come after you for tax money.

To my knowledge, you do not need permission to leave the country, but you do need a permission to enter into another one, which is perfectly valid. Moreover proving the validity of demanding tax money depends on proving the validity of the social contract, so it is an open issue.

Even with that aside, let's just throw some basic contract law reasons why "the social contract" is not a legitimate contract:

Duress

Contract law clearly states that any exchange made under duress is not legal. This is why if I point a gun at you and demand your wallet, I cannot argue in court that you legally surrendered it to me because you were under duress at the time. For a contract to be legal, all parties must be able to refuse without any threat of ill consequence whatsoever.

Proponents of the social contract like to argue that you can freely refuse simply by leaving the country, but this really just weasel words. The truth is that you are threatening to force them from their homes unless they agree to your terms and jail them if they refuse. This is a blatant example of duress and thus invalidates the social contract. Some attempt to get around this by comparing the social contract to a landlord evicting tenants for non payment of rent or other reasons, but since the government is not the owner of the land, this comparison does not work either. Not to mention the landlord DOES have proof of prior agreement to pay rent and follow his terms. The government has no such evidence past merely the fact of being born. Pointing at my house and saying "Mine" does not make it so.

In short, in contract law, no means no. You cannot set unreasonable hurdles for non consent.

Let us further explore Desty's arguments that one essentially does not own their property or homes, and that the state is in fact, the owner.

You see, the term "ownership" in the context of your argument is only valid through the implementation of the social contract. The most basic form of ownership, found in nature, is the one that you can physically maintain by the use of force. The abstract existence of law is superseded by the actual,physical presence (or its affects), and when one observes the politics of government and nationhood on a global scale, we see that states behave in the same manner. States are essentially a group of people that have determined to own a particular set of land by physical ownership- and conversely, sometimes there are disagreements over ownership, so we have the basic tenets of war (and I do mean basic, which are historically present. The modern interrelation between economics, power politics and war are a totally separate concept, as "money" have become the new "land", but I digress)

Therefore, as a particular nation claims authority over certain property, by extension, that property belongs to the nation. It is then, on the basis of law or social contract where we see how this property is distributed.

Tacit consent

Imagine if you received junk mail that claims to have signed you up for a magazine subscription and will begin billing you for it and if you don't want it, you need only reply back stating so. Would you consider this a fair agreement? Probably not. What if you were away? What if the notice didn't get to you? What if you were unable to reply for whatever reason?

Well, once upon a time, some companies did try to do just this and it was soundly rejected in court for these very reasons. Tacit consent is when you merely assume acceptance of a contract without any prior agreement and it is soundly rejected by contract law.

Some try to claim that tacit consent is legal and point to things such as auto insurance that automatically renews every month unless you state otherwise. This is known as estoppel but it only applies when there is prior agreement to such an arrangement. You made a conscious choice to apply for auto insurance and you consciously agreed to have it renew automatically every month. It was not merely assumed that you agreed. Had an auto insurance agency simply insured you with no proof of your consent, they would have no legal stand to demand a cent from you.

In short: No proof of a conscious decision to agree to the contract before any exchange was made = no contract. If a man can force his will on someone else and ex post facto call it a contract, then legally one could get away with just about anything by simply calling it a contract afterward. Once again, no means no. Arguing that no means yes doth not make it so.

Again, the moment you apply for any type of ownership is the moment that you subscribe to the social contract.

But more to the point, apply the arguments and point that you mentioned to a scenario that involves the social contract. Essentially, because a child hasn't subscribed to the social contract, it has no rights as a living being, other then what his parents permit him. So why would be prosecute people who abuse their own children? 

Unconscionability and undue influence

Imagine if we engaged in a business deal and I demanded to also be the arbiter should either party not make good on their end. Would you consider this a reasonable request? Probably not. While I would have every reason in the world to prosecute you if you did not pay your end, I have no such incentive to prosecute myself. Thus, I have nothing to lose and everything to gain by cheating and exploiting you since all the power of arbitration is in my hands.

Yet, people defend this very scenario with this so called social contract. We're supposed to pay taxes and the government is supposed to use them for the services we require of it. Yet the government is also the arbiter, creating a massive conflict of interests. The result is people who don't pay taxes are acted against very harshly yet politicians who blow tax money on pork spending very rarely face any negative repercussions. Vote them out? They're not made to pay what they squandered and in fact, get rewarded with gold plated pensions and complete immunity from any ill consequence for their dishonestly. Do you see Bill Clinton in jail for raiding the social security fund? I didn't think so. Is Tony Blair having his wages garnished to pay back the absurd bailouts he gave to his corporate buddies? Can't say I've heard any such thing. Like the above example, politicians have nothing to lose and everything to gain by blowing tax dollars on whatever pet projects they see fit and face no threat of retribution whatsoever.

I don't understand; it seems that you have a problem with the principle just because the method is inappropriate, some of the time (as Desty mentioned), in some particular parts of the world. And the only way to prove that this argument is valid against the social contract is if you prove that all methodologies have failed, or the existence of a functioning methodology is impossible.

He's replying to the same points as the other guy was, but for the sake of context I'll put the points he is directly responding to anyway.

Either way, prepare for more lunacy.

[AnCap Dave]

I'm starting to think this guy has no idea what the social contract even is.....

Once again, I'll put the specific points he is replying to within the quote.

Except you do. If the country chooses to detain you, or close down the means of transportation then you don't have a right to leave at will.

No, you merely don't have the means to, but you still have the right to. And if a country chooses to detain you on the basis of a crime, then I do not see where is inequity here (unless you mean other circumstances)

Might makes right! Except only in favor of the state. If I steal your wallet, I can't claim ownership of it just because of a contract I made up.

But I cannot claim ownership without the social contract, which stipulates that you cannot take my wallet except under certain legal circumstances to which I have agreed. The alternative is might makes right, or in other words, without the social contract, legalistic ownership is void.

Mind you, I'm not saying that the government isn't ripping people off at times. I am saying that the principle, as it is, is valid. You have a set of people who elect officials to govern in their name, and this includes introducing the rules to which people adhere. The fact that some people are dumber then a bag of hammers, or simply to scared to realize that the rules are turned against them is a whole different story, and an issue of practicality, not principle.

The minute I own something, the government owns it? Why do they get the special treatment. Again, if I steal your wallet, do I just get to claim I own it just because I say so?

Not quite. I argued that legal ownership stems from the social contract. If it was a monopoly game, then the nation and government would be the dice and board, while you had you pawn and money. They are still yours, but they can only operate within the game if you follow the rules. And if you don't follow the rules, you can either choose to physically defend the pawn and money, or simply return them to the box.

So how do you explain deficit spending? Do you really advocate holding someone to a contract even before they're born?

Deficit spending is a rather diverse and multietiological monetary concept, but the simple way to explain it is that collective debt still represents a part of the social contract. The issue is one of a simple cost to benefit ratio- if indeed you get more from not applying the social contract then trying to sustain it by paying higher taxes and covering for the mistakes of past generations, then one is free to simply exclude himself. But that would mean reverting to naturalistic ownership where might does make right, so people are not so inclined to do so.

More to the point, the deficit is still a choice between the social contract and naturalistic ownership. Childhood is not.

That implies there is even a principle here. The whole point of principles is that you don't just waive them whenever you feel like it, yet there are exceptions for the state that are self-defeating.

"Don't steal, but I can, because my contract that I made up says I can!"

The answer is simple. Don't hold a principle, but make exceptions for a certain group of people.

As I said previously, just because some people are too frightened or too stupid to see what is being done to them does not disprove the principle of having a group of people elect certain individuals who share their interest to guide them. There are many countries where the democratic process works just fine, even though corruption can never be fully eradicated.

In my opinion education is the single most important component of how the democratic process operates. And it makes sense; educated people make educated decisions about whether or not a politician is bullsh!tting them. And you can see that in the statistics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#2011_rankings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index

Arguably it is not an uniform list, but there are similarities between them, like the Nordic countries usually being near the top in both instances. When compared to other lists, such as the GDP (purchasing power) or even cultural synchronicity that may effect both life expectancy and how people view democracy, the list is more diverse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

Of course, I am not stating that this is clear evidence, but considering that, logically, well educated people make well educated decision, and there is a small link between education and democracy is still an idea to be considered (albeit, one can interpret the data as democracy influencing education, not the other way around, but I digress)

Either this guy is just stupid or doesn't even know what the social contract is...

[MrBogosity]

No, you merely don't have the means to, but you still have the right to.

Wow. Just wow. So you have the right to do something even if government closes off your only means of doing it?

But I cannot claim ownership without the social contract

Since the social contract is hardly the only political philosophy that recognizes private property rights--in fact, it can be argued that the social contract philosophy abrogates those very rights--this is just another stupid, ignorant point.

The alternative is might makes right, or in other words, without the social contract, legalistic ownership is void.

False dichotomy.

collective debt still represents a part of the social contract.

So you can be held to the terms of a contract made even before you were born??? I think even Rousseau would balk at that!

Give him a copy of The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard.

[Travis Retriever]

Give him a copy of The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard.

Or about 20 CC's of Escitalopram Oxalate saline solution...