Last night I shared Rod Rojas’s recent Mises Daily article about taxation on my facebook page. A friend of mine claimed that the social contract makes taxation and a coercive government legitimate. I directed him to some links and told him that a true contract must be agreed upon by everybody involved. He then said that there would have to be unanimous consent to all laws and policies, which is impossible. Maybe I’m making this more difficult than I should be, but I’m not sure how to go about responding… any suggestions?
I can’t tell you how to respond, since I’ve never been successful with this one, but your post reminded me of the following, by Lysander Spooner:
Where would be the end of fraud and litigation, if one party could bring into court a written instrument, *without any signature*, and claim to have it enforced, upon the ground that it was written for another man to sign? that this other man had promised to sign it? that he ought to have signed it? that he had had the opportunity to sign it, if he would? but that he had refused or neglected to do so? Yet that is the most that could ever be said of the Constitution.[3](http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm#NT.6.4.n3.1) The very judges, who profess to derive all their authority from the Constitution – from an instrument that nobody ever signed – would spurn any other instrument, not signed, that should be brought before them for adjudication.**NT.6.4.5**Moreover, a written instrument must, in law and reason, not only be signed, but must also be delivered to the party (or to some one for him), in whose favor it is made, before it can bind the party making it. The signing is of no effect, unless the instrument be also delivered. And a party is at perfect liberty to refuse to deliver a written instrument, after he has signed it. The Constitution was not only never signed by anybody, but it was never delivered by anybody, or to anybody's agent or attorney. It can therefore be of no more validity as a contract, then can any other instrument that was never signed or delivered.|
IV. |
|
|
NT.6.4.1 |
The constitution not only binds nobody now, but it never did bind anybody. It never bound anybody, because it was never agreed to by anybody in such a manner as to make it, on general principles of law and reason, binding upon him. |
|
NT.6.4.2 |
It is a general principle of law and reason, that a written instrument binds no one until he has signed it. This principle is so inflexible a one, that even though a man is unable to write his name, he must still “make his mark,” before he is bound by a written contract. This custom was established ages ago, when few men could write their names; when a clerk – that is, a man who could write – was so rare and valuable a person, that even if he were guilty of high crimes, he was entitled to pardon, on the ground that the public could not afford to lose his services. Even at that time, a written contract must be signed; and men who could not write, either “made their mark,” or signed their contracts by stamping their seals upon wax affixed to the parchment on which their contracts were written. Hence the custom of affixing seals, that has continued to this time. |
|
NT.6.4.3 |
The laws holds, and reason declares, that if a written instrument is not signed, the presumption must be that the party to be bound by it, did not choose to sign it, or to bind himself by it. And law and reason both give him until the last moment, in which to decide whether he will sign it, or not. Neither law nor reason requires or expects a man to agree to an instrument, until it is written; for until it is written, he cannot know its precise legal meaning. And when it is written, and he has had the opportunity to satisfy himself of its precise legal meaning, he is then expected to decide, and not before, whether he will agree to it or not. And if he do not then sign it, his reason is supposed to be, that he does not choose to enter into such a contract. The fact that the instrument was written for him to sign, or with the hope that he would sign it, goes for nothing. |
|
NT.6.4.4 |
People that use that argument simply don’t care about agreement.
jmorris, I already showed him how the social contract idea is invalid. What I am confused about is how to explain how society could work without 100% of people agreeing on every law.
That depends on what “work” means.
I have had this issue too. I push for the question of legitimacy of government. Even when I have people understanding the point, they think the alternative (no government) would be absurd, chaotic, or would create lack of law. And it’s harder to debate from that point, without getting into details of how anarchy would work.
Thanks for the help!
“The State has never been created by a “social contract”; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation.” - Murray Rothbard, The Anatomy of the State.
For one, we’re not even close to having this under the current system. Ask him what forms of government have ever existed where there was 100% agreement on every law? Even the absurd ideal of “democracy” doesn’t presume such circumstances.
How Could A Voluntary Society Function?
L&L, I used to have that same kind of difficulty in discussing this with people. One thing that’s definitely helped me is bringing up the notion of “natural law” or “natural order”. I point out that, across humanity, there are a relative few things which are generally considered wrong, such as non-defensive killing, non-consensual taking, and non-consensual sex. The vast majority of the laws today have nothing to do with such things - they’re simply rather arbitrary decrees by whoe’ver happens to be in power. So far, my experience has been that people seem to get this notion. If they still have a hang-up, it concerns their belief in the need for an “ultimate” decision-making authority. Then I get to talk to them about the illusion of certainty. 
Red herring. The government is not a social contract. It is not voluntary. If you think the state is a necessary evil, that is another conversation.