Social Contract Theory

I must admit I'm a bit spooked by the notion that he's anticipating what I'm about to write. I wonder if his crystal ball has any accuracy. .. I said I would argue two points, which together hold that people agree to the mutual forfeiture of rights. The reciprocity and agreement points of this argument have been contested by my opponent. However, before I go on to that, there are a few other, minor points I want to dismiss. First, that there is no history of it. As I suspected this is a red herring, as all I need to show is that it could exist. However, I have argued already that virtually all states operate on the basis of social contract theory. Second, the imposition of contract. As I said, if people ARE the state then there is no need for state imposition, as is the case in a natural democracy as advocated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. As my opponent is arguing against a specific implementation of the theory, rather than the theory itself, my case is not harmed at all. Third, no redress. This little section is important, so read it carefully. Of course you can counter-breach. No state will allow breaches, but then neither will any individual. All contracts work on the principle of good faith. Sovereign immunity exists, but that doesn't stop a remedy. The power to sue is limited to its own court system. The power to convince others and lead a coup rests with every individual on this planet. Without a society backing them and having abandoned their contract, a state loses all power. Cool. So let's move on to our two main points, shall we? I shall list your objections and my responses, by argument. 1. Reciprocity a) Explain the slavery thingy Very well. When slaves are enslaved, they are removed from the common jurisdiction and have their own set of laws apply to them. Thus they have a separate relationship with the state from the rest of society. Between them and the state is therefore a distinct forfeiture of rights. It isn't mutual, and it definitely isn't a contract. The point is that the existence of such cases does not break the social contract because slaves are not included in the contract, as they are beyond the contract's jurisdiction. b) OK, well, what about the Socrates thingy? Socrates had already accepted the contract before the trial. He reaped the benefits, he was convicted of a crime under his own contract, found guilty, and about to be punished. It does not matter that he no longer agreed to the contract. Once it's signed, a contract cannot usually be revoked on a change of mind. The same applies for social contracts. c) States need to rule by fear (various variations on this theme) My opponent articulates the school of legal theory known as positivism, and I articulate that known as naturalism. According to his theory, it was right of ordinary people in NAZI Germany to hate on Jews because that's what the state wanted. According to mine, the government had broken the old contract and built a new one, that the people had the right to reject (as many who fled NAZI Germany did). I am of the conviction that we are able to exercise our own discretion in interpreting the law. A police state has no social contract, but we are not police states. We are states with police, not by police. Laws can be applied without fear. In New Zealand we recently had a law passed which restricted parent's ability to punish children. Despite widespread opposition to the law, the law was applied and two years later, there have been no convictions under the law. Why? According to positivism, the only way that effect could have been achieved is a policeman in every household. I claim the social contract was extended, and therefore accepted. The facts support my conclusion, simply on the basis that police numbers decreased over this period relative to the number of kids. 2. Agreement a) Prove only law can remove rights Doctrines of Rule of Law, and Parliamentary sovereignty. Basically both have the same message - only law has power to forfeit rights. Other removals are not recognised by the law and thus not relevant to the social contract. b) You don't need a power monopoly To create public goods, according to basic economics, you need a government with a monopoly on taxation to raise money for these goods. c) Laws are applied to infants So if an infant murders another, does the baby go to jail? No. The infant has not yet surrendered to the social contract. Laws are imposed at the point where they are able to be understood. That supports the social contract model. d) Morality does not rely on law Then why is it in the law? The answer is that morality is an application of the law. It is a manifestation of a mutual forfeiture of rights. Morality is part of the law because law is social contract - mutual forfeitures of rights built by society. I think that's all of my opponent's objections to my model dealt with. I look forward to the final round of this debate!