A discussion recently with a guy, I was told, believed in the Social Contract theory and could debate anyone into the ground on the subject.
How very disappointed I was when the guy just repeated “you were born into a social contract” over and over again. I just told him to call me when he could prove that I was born into any contract.
Does anyone know what the actual arguments are for Social Contract, and exactly what is the social contract theory, once all the feathers and fluff are taken away? In fact, that’s probably the more important question: once you remove all the fluff and feathers from the social contract argument, what are you left with? I have attempted to read a few articles on the subject from proponents, but they are so full of elliptical language that I can’t suss out exactly what they believe.
I think you have the correct strategy, first find out what the heck they mean by social contract. Similarly, don’t start with the proof of social contract, start with what do you mean by social contract. I sometimes ask, do you really mean a contract? A contract is voluntary, if they mean involuntary we have a word for that its called slavery, so why would someone mis use the word contract? Probably out of dishonesty. Call a spade a spade, its social slavery not social contract.
First off, I’m writing from my blackberry so bear with me.
In re the social contract, I, personally, would define it as the socioeconomic construct by which individuals trade stock in themselves in order to realize the benefits of division of labor, specialization, and the ricardian law of association.
Many Austrian economists (notably rothbard) stress the importance of being the sole monopolist of oneself. This stance is analogous with nietzsche’s ubermensch. Regardless of the terminology, both of the aforesaid individuals (who are truly one and the same) operate outside the bounds of the social contract.
Perhaps the easiest way to percieve of this supposed contract is to consider your own life. How often is it that you find your desires and subsequent actions snared by the effects they would havew on other people? Moreover, how many people have established a line of goofwill with you (good will is veritably the currency of the social contract, although there may be others). Those who have your goodwill essentially own stock in you (in precisely the same way that you now possess stock in the market)
For the most part, interpersonal exchange results in some iteration of the social contract, as cooperating individuals have a vested interest in one anothers well being (if only such that cooperation may continue)
In essence, when you engage in interpersonal cooperation, you relinquish certain extensions of liberties in order to maintain said cooperation. One such instantiation of which may be that you refrain from sleeping with you boss’s wife (even though you very much want to) so as to keep alive both your chances of promotion and the cooperative spirit existing between you.
From this premise evolved “social norms” and “morality”, both as simple guidelines maintaining the cooperative spirit (such that you may continually benefit from the synergistic benefits of cooperation).
Hope this explanation helps, it’s merely my take on it, but I think that there is a lot of truth to it
I would suggest that even with my explanation you are born into it. Infants undoubtedly cooperate with those who nourish them from their advent. Furthermore, cultural indoctrination blinds individuals to the nature of the social contract, such that they act unknowingly.
Furthermore, there is little doubt that the social contract extends far beyond the human sphere and in fact pre-dates it. It would be fool hardy to assert that animals do not cooperate. More so than mental, the social contract is a biologically programmed recourse. There is ample evidence to support this last statement. Mallard duck (with their 5 gram brains as compared to our 1400 gram brains) behave cooperatively in their foraging habits, arrainging themselves into game theory equilibriums (further proof that economics as a whole is a biological construct first and an intellectual one second)
Isn’t a contract only a voluntary agreement between two parties? How could an infant that is incapable of even the simplest of thought processes give the state consent to rule over its life?
Note that the original enlightenment philosophers were the ones to say you were born into it. On this note it is most appropriate to suggest that your point is mere logomachy, aimed soley at the terminology. While it may be the case that the use of the word contract is erroneous, it is merely a label; and, if we are to refrain from pedantry, can be accepted as a simple misgnomer. Unless you feel the need to rename the concept, I suggest you accept th jargon
Non Sequitur. The evidence you supply above might illuminate the benefits of social organization and mutual goals, and shows that members of a species recognize this and act accordingly. It cannot justify a “Social Contract”, which is a supposed obligation of one member to a class. The fact that a member chooses to cooperate with his peers does not prove that an obligation exists.
You are committing serious violence to the accepted usage of “Social Contract”.
The problem with the social contract theory is that it is circular reasoning. The argument is essentially that the government is legitimate because you consent to it by being on it’s land, but this rests on the premise that it is legitimate in the first place, or otherwise the very concept of ‘the government’s land’ is meaningless. It assumes the very thing it is trying to prove.
I personally like Roderick Long’s example of the funny hat because in a way it is a reductio ad absurdum.
Say I come over to your house and you tell me ‘You have to wear the funny hat, everyone who comes to my house has to follow these rules’ well clearly you cannot say ‘No I won’t wear the hat but I’m still staying.’
However, say I become your neighbor and you come over and say ‘Hello…you have to wear the funny hat’ and I say ‘what?’ then you precede to tell me that by moving in next to you I implicitly agree to wear the funny hat and follow your rules. Well I never agreed to such things when I bought the property and why do I have to follow such a rule if you are not the actual property owner nor if you are the individual who I entered into contractual agreement with?
“Social contract” is a conceptual monster. You can’t completely disregard that the ‘contract’ in “social contract” bears incoherency. A contract requires promise and acceptance in some form. In reality, no state promises can be kept and birth is not acceptance. Participating in a state-worshiping society, via cooperation, as a matter of self-defense is also not acceptance. Social contract is just part of the lexicon of the myth of the state. Your line of thinking is riddled with fallacies. Use of the phrase “social contract” is pedagoguery (one subcategory of aggression, along with coercion, violence, etc.). It typically accompanies something like the ridiculous “If you don’t like it, you can leave.”
Your whole poem was entertaining, but this part was the best. “Extensions of liberties” is supposed to mean property rights or what? This and the twaddle about animals is you exhibiting the “latecomer ethics” of the socialist. The boss’ wife was never your property, so you suffer none from this “cooperation” of not raping her. Government is entirely based on aggression, and this phrase is just subverting a word that genuinely refers to cooperation.
