The social contract.

[gplauche]

@twistedbydsign99

So I’m wondering what the best argument you guys feel, against the social contract theory, is? I suppose its just that entering into a contract without having to sign anything sorta negates it. Or perhaps that the united states can never enforce a territorial contract on us because it slaughtered the original owners of this land and therefore are by default invalid. Anyone have some clever refutations?

I pose a number of arguments in my working paper “On the Social Contract and the Persistence of Anarchy.”

[Torsten]

@Brainpolice

No it does not.

No it does, or rather as I have written it may: “…Being of some nation etc. may imply certain duties, rights and norms as well…”

@Brainpolice

It only does if we assume a false premise, I.E. legitimacy. But “the country” as a whole and in the abstract has no rightful owner. That’s the problem with the whole “you implicitly consent to these laws, norms, privileges, etc., by living within the country” thing.

… You just dispute the something as a premise and try to disprove via this method. Becaus if the premise is true, the conclusion would stick also within your logic. Or did I understand you wrong?

I’d draw a difference between private ownership through individuals and the dominion that institutions of a nation or other corporate bodies would hold over a certain country.

@Brainpolice

It assumes what it’s trying to prove.

Actually this would work both ways. Since you assume that the premises are false. But then I’m not just assuming, I draw conclusions from what is and has been. This is for example also the basis on which customary or common law courts would work.

@Geoffrey Allan Plauche

I pose a number of arguments in my working paper “On the Social Contract and the Persistence of Anarchy.”

Thanks for posting that, it seems to be very interesting.