Social Contract Theory

Thank you for accepting larz. I will address your arguments in turn. 1. Laws are an exercise of the mutual forfeiture of rights I agree that law is a limit on what you may do, that seems elementary. However, your argument that law (and only law) can remove your rights, let alone that you have unlimited rights, is unproven. I am equally skeptical that law is a mutual forfeiture. You accept in some cases this is not the case, but argue that even here there is a mutual forfeiture of rights. I do fail to see how this can be the case. With your example of a law recognizing slavery, how can this mutual forfeiture possibly exist? 2. That people consent to laws I must point out that "society" does not equal the state. Footpaths and social welfare are both possible without having a power monopoly which controls them. In addition, people have no option except to accept government "help"-there is certainly no way to opt out. How exactly do they have an opportunity not to? Your example of Socrates is a perfect illustration, for although he accepted laws even at the point of death, it did not matter. If there were a legal option to free him, it was at the state's pleasure. Conversely, if prison break was discussed, clearly it would be illegal. As you note, infants and others cannot consent. However, we all start as infants, so are born into a system of state laws without consent. At the point we can actually consent, those laws have already been imposed. People consent implicitly to laws because force or the threat thereof is used to enforce them. Some things most people will generally not do, such as kill, steal or cheat. This does not rely on law though, indeed laws make numerous exceptions in favor of such behavior by the law-makers and enforcers themselves. Other laws which do not enjoy such customary approval require more coercion. 3. Social contract theory Every time a law is passed, force or the threat of force must be used to enforce it. Otherwise this law is a dead letter. Though I will point out that some countries do not allow people to leave, in any case this argument amounts to "love it or leave it." Greater freedom of movement exists with our countries, true, however between them is another story, which makes going somewhere else problematic at best. 4.1 No history of it existing The reason it matters is assuming social contracts have never existed, then how do your arguments that they exist make any sense, or have persuasive value? The social contract in this case remains a purely theoretical idea. 4.2 Contracts not imposed. "It's not in the nature of states to impose." This is flat-out wrong. Every law must be imposed as I have said, or it would have no weight and be freely ignored. People who freely accept the laws may have no issue, however my point was that anybody who does not must be coerced to. A threat of force makes people act in ways they otherwise will not. It would not be hard to think of laws people deeply oppose, but obey due to penalties for violations. 4.3 No redress. Such redresses are of course granted by the state itself. I am fully aware of them. Are you familiar with the concept of sovereign immunity? The state cannot be sued without its consent and in many cases reserves this immunity, all power to sue it being given or taken away as it pleases. A contract does not have to offer redress true, but there must be a way to counter breach, which is what I meant. In the case of social contract breaches, there is no state that will allow you to "breach" it in retaliation. For instance, the Declaration of Independence states "whenever government becomes destructive to these ends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it." However, no government will accept this in practice, including the very one that declared independence from another state, Great Britain, soon after putting down opposition by force. Your reference to Malcolm X's speech is striking in that Black Nationalists did seek to "break" the social contract in turn. The state response need not be stated. 4.4 I am not writing this from jail only because of my obedience to current laws. As stated, fear of coercion is not an indicator of voluntary consent. In your view, social contracts are rarely broken, while of course their very existence is the subject of this debate. However, assuming for this point only that they exist, I must disagree and say they are constantly broken. I'm enjoying this debate thoroughly, anticipating your next points.