I see this catchword/chimera get thrown about by pro-government leftists and statists.
What precisely is the meaning of the term “social contract”?
Also, having defined this, could you tell me what you think of the consistency or usefulness of this concept.
Or is it just simply “bullplop”, made up at the sight of danger to justify monopolist coercion as a means to “maintain society?”
It’s a concept from the time of Locke and Hume where the idea was that by being in proximity to humans in the same locality that you consented to the laws and traditions of that locality which those humans supported. It’s a messed up notion, but I might be wrong on its exact formulation.
A social construct.
There is one social contract and only one: don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff. If a person isn’t willing to abide by that rule, then he has no place in society.
EVERYBODY knows this; which is why everyone tries to hide their aggression against a fellow man.
Paying income tax in America is 'Voluntary’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg
The definition of the term can vary slightly depending on who you’re talking to. It’s basically an excuse for government’s existence I guess.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/550994/social-contract
Above link might help (it’s short, I promise).
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/#SocConThe
Above may be a bunch of rubbish but it’s “interesting” (section 3.3).
Quote: Thus, the social contract is not inextricably linked to democracy.
(Yes, but it seems pretty well linked to tyranny put the way this source has it!)
[Y] Thanks.