 |
January 05, 2013, 03:08:58 AM |
|
This is a post by Phillip Rahvin, I saved it because I was sure it was going to be lost in time:
--- ---
[on Social Contacts:]
Oh, I have too many opinions about this. Thanks for the excuse to rant.
The social contract is not a contract.
Contracts contain four elements: offer, meeting of the minds (negotiation), acceptance, and consideration (trade).
There is no offer or meeting of the minds because the laws are unilaterally, arbitrarily dictated down upon people.
There is no acceptance. The social contract is enacted by force. If someone disagrees with the laws and acts upon their disagreement then they are taken away to a prison. If they resist, they are killed. Contracts cannot be coercively formed or else they are invalid.
There is no consideration. Consideration is those things which are traded in a contract, usually money for some good or service. When the State taxes people for a good or service they always include the disclaimer that they are not legally obligated to provide it. For example, people are taxed for social security for their entire working lives. Yet, people have been denied their social security benefits under the Supreme Court case Flemming v. Nestor which states that the government is not contractually obligated to provide social security benefits. People are taxed for police services and told that it is for their protection. Yet, the Supreme Court cases Bowers v. DeVito and DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services state respectively that the government is not obligated to provide police services and that even when the police services are provided that the police are not obligated to protect the citizens.
Also, contracts can be dissolved once one party breaks the terms. Consider that political candidates routinely commit fraud by lying. Presidents use drugs and then continue to support drug prohibition and prison upon others. Law enforcers routinely break the law and behave as criminals. People cannot be expected to abide by a social contract if the State, which imposes the contract, itself refuses to abide by the terms of the contract.
By the definitions of a contract, the social contract cannot apply.
Next, is a historical argument.
As is rightfully stated in the Declaration of Independence, government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. If an individual does not consent to be governed, then the government does not have just power over him. As such, individuals have the right to opt out of the State's rule.
The knee-jerk response to this is usually represented by the standard Socratic social contract argument, “Well, if you don't like it then leave.”
That is really an incredible statement coming from supporters of the U.S. Government considering the history of the U.S.'s formation as found in the Declaration of Independence. It is widely acknowledged that the Revolutionary War was both just and moral. As such, it is highly celebrated. The revolutionists did not leave the geographic area when they rejected the king. It was quite the opposite. They kept their claims to the land and killed their oppressors. It has already been recognized that the consent of the governed can be withdrawn independently of geographic bounds.
It would be hypocritical to say that it is acceptable for the country to be founded by withdrawing consent to be governed while retaining claims to the land and then say that it is unacceptable for others to do exactly the same thing to the government that set the precedent.
As a side note, this does bring to light the fatal flaw of the “founding fathers” who are usually regarded in high esteem. After advocating that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed and violently rebelling from an oppressive regime, the very first thing they did was to impose a constitution and a federal government upon their neighbors who objected to and did not consent to be ruled by such. These actions make the “founding fathers” some of the biggest hypocrites in history as they engaged in exactly the same evil behaviors to which they so vehemently rejected.
The social contract is immoral.
Individuals are the sole owners of their own bodies, their actions, and the effects of their actions in the form of their property.
To reject this claim is to advocate the belief that everyone else owns at least some part of every individual. The social contract serves as this excuse for social control; but, in reality, regardless of how numerous or how powerful they may be, others have no moral claim to own anyone's property, their actions, or their body because humans cannot own each other. The notion of human ownership is the essence of the social contract and where one party, in this case society, exercises non-consensual control over those around them.
Humankind has advanced to the point where everyone recognizes these kinds of actions to be immoral when performed by an individual. The next step is to recognize that these actions are immoral when performed in the name of the State which only gains its power from groups of individuals.
Just like I cannot grant my consent to allow your life to be violated, society cannot grant its collective consent to allow others' lives to be violated.
And lastly, the idea of a social contract is just ridiculous.
Imagine a contract under which a person can bind someone else's unborn children according to their rules and monetary obligations. This “contract” would be laughable. The child would not have to vote to “change the system” or leave his home to be unbound by this contract. The contract would be unenforceable because it is immoral. It does not and cannot legitimately exist.
Yet, groups of people do this through the State where they bind unborn generations to their “constitutions” and laws and pass onto them “sovereign debt” obligations. Then when the children oppose these conditions they are told that they are bound by a social contract and if they do not like it then they must either vote to change it (with futility) or they must leave.
As can be seen, there is substantial hypocrisy between the acceptable actions of individuals and the actions of collective individuals who call themselves a “government.” People cannot create a collective social contract when they cannot morally form exactly the same kind of contract individually.
We're also told that we're born into society and therefore into the social contract. Last time I checked, minors under the age of 18 cannot be bound by contracts.
--- ---
I hope that you found this post great! Gives people lots of Ammunition to refute the entire 'Social Contract' concept.
|
