I’m doing a law course at the moment. I asked my tutor / course convenor after class today, what he thought about social contract theory. He gave a weird look and stated that he has to deliver a short report on precisesly this to the University. He then wondered why I asked.
I said I was interested in political philosophy. He then said if you have some stuff… (he sounded like he was stuck / having trouble with it)… that I should send it to him.
I said sure. So I’m wondering, I am in a position to influence the guy who will probably be outlining the course material on it. (It’s not currently discussed in the course -pretty much because what we are learning, refutes it.) Haha.
I will probably send him this video. But I was wondering if there are any journal articles on it from a Libertarian perspective? Kinsella has written something maybe?
As I understand it, social contract theory is basically the contractarian theories of political obligation, of which the most popular is consent theory: people freely consent to their government’s authority, and so bind themselves to obedience. But because almost no one directly consents to the government, social contract theorists turn to indirect, or tacit consent. The typical acts that constitute tacit consent are residence, taxation, and voting. But none of these acts actually count as consent:
1- Circular reasoning. For residence to count as consent, the government would have to already have authority over your property — but this is the very issue being debated.
2- Taxation is aggression. Coerced consent is an oxymoron.
3- Voting is a coerced choice. You don’t get to choose between anarchy and government, but only between different types of government.
So consent theory is a dead end, and people will usually respond with the gratitude account, i.e. that citizens owe a debt of gratitude to government for the services it provides. Of course, there are problems with this (e.g. paternalism), but at this point we have left the realm of consent theories, and it makes sense to do a complete analysis of political obligation.
On social contract theory, see here, here, and here.
On political obligation, see here and here. Moral Principles and Political Obligations by John Simmons is the classic text, and Is There a Duty to Obey the Law? by Christopher Wellman and John Simmons is a good recent discussion.
Long story short, the social contract is not worth the paper it’s not printed on.
I don’t understand the social contractarians to mean something like a sales contract or labor contract one does enter or leave via signing something. It’s rather something that is there by default. Still this isn’t without problems.
It is a matter of figuiring out who really owns all the land in a given area.
Is jurisdiction different from ownership?
I gave my friend (the socialist) an example of a table.
If i truly owned the table, then i could do anything i wanted to do with the table without any regulation or higher authority limiting my volition to the table.
He told me that a higher authority can have jurisdiction over what can and cannot be done with the table but this is not ownership.
nap could be social contract like, unless we carry around papers to sign nap with everyone we meet there is some implicit aknoledgement of the mutual benefit of nap. maybe there is more difference between social contract and implicit agreement though.
The distinction between ownership and jurisdiction/regulation is one that exists in libertarian theory as well. You cannot do whatever you want with your property. It must adhere to the NAP. That’s regulation. If unlimited discretion is a major element of ownership, do you really own anything under NAP then?
Historically speaking the depersonalization of governance from the feudal to modern eras, limiting private prerogative according to universalized standards, was one of the major innovations that allowed for the explosive growth of the West.
nap could be social contract like, unless we carry around papers to sign nap with everyone we meet there is some implicit aknoledgement of the mutual benefit of nap. maybe there is more difference between social contract and implicit agreement though.
I think there is some commonality. The NAP, if in existence, would be part of a social contract.
This “regulation” is the inevitable result of universability. Your discretion to do as you will with your body and property is only limited by the discretion of others to do the same. Finally, you are de facto free to do whatever you want and suffer the consequences (i.e. the reactions of the equally free and self-interested agents around you). Neither a contract nor NAP is necessary.
Quite the contrary. The explosive prosperity of the West was due to division of labor and markets (voluntary exchanges) which came only after this “private prerogative” was universally applied to every self-interested agent in the system. So it’s the appearance of, and respect for, private property that caused the flourishing – not the suppression of it through “collective contracts”. Check out USSR and Mao’s China as quintessential examples for “limiting the private prerogative”.
So what? It doesn’t matter if its the result of universalization or not, it’s still regulation (no need for the scare quotes there). Your use of property is limited, yet you still own it. This requires the distinction between ownership and jurisdiction.
All governance and property were in the private realm during the feudal period. That is, ownership and governance were the same thing. What allowed for the universalization you mention was the development of a public realm in which individuals achieved equal status at the expense of the private discretion of feudal lords.
Ownership means to totally control a resource in any way shape or form (just because gravity or friction exists preventing you from doing certain things, there is no higher authority, marking you owner).
Jurisdiction means: to say how something should or should not be done.
Ownership means to totally control a resource in any way shape or form (just because gravity or friction exists preventing you from doing certain things, there is no higher authority, marking you owner).
Jurisdiction means: to say how something should or should not be done.
Who has jurisdictions? Authorities do.
I want say that jurisdiction/dominion and ownership are the same things.
The both refer to authority over an object, but the reference is different aspects of that authority.