Social Contract Theory

Greetings one and all, welcome to the debate! I, affirming, will defend two main contentions: That all laws are an exercise of the mutual forfeiture of rights That people consent to laws Let me first say a few words in defense of each of those statements. Then I will link them back to the moot and offer some rebuttals to the points that have already been raised. 1. Laws are an exercise of the mutual forfeiture of rights A law is a limit on what you may do. Tax law limits how you may spend money, Criminal law limits how you may act, Constitutional law limits how you may deal with those in power (and they with you). Under the rule of law doctrine, followed by almost every country presently and historically, only law can remove your rights. Therefore without law, you would have unlimited rights. Laws are thus mutual forfeitures of rights - I give up my right to murder you if you give up your right to murder me. I accept that sometimes they are not mutual, for instance, in cases of pro-slavery legislation. Where they are not mutual, that constitutes an exclusion of a group from a contract and thus establishes a separate, subordinate jurisdiction within which there is a mutual forfeiture of rights. Thus even these laws are covered by the idea of mutual forfeiture of rights. 2. That people consent to laws Almost everyone reaps the benefits of living in a state. From footpaths to social welfare, people accept the help of government. By doing so, despite having the opportunity not to, people accept law. This is an argument first made by Socrates. When about to be executed, some of his followers offered to free him. He rebuked them, saying that he had enjoyed the benefits of living in Athens, and by doing so, accepted that he was a part of Athens, a member of their society, and therefore subject to their laws. Now, I know this is an argument from an idealized jurisdiction. In reality, mental patients (who cannot consent), infants, very recent laws and other problem complicate matters. But in general, people do consent to laws implicitly. 3. Social contract theory So far what I have established is two facts. Put together they show this: that people agree to the mutual forfeiture of rights. Every time they do this, social contract theory is right. Why? A contract has been defined by my opponent as "any voluntary agreement ... with consideration of an exchange for their mutual benefit." The provisos are that there must be consent without coercion. I have already argued consent, so all I must do is show that every time a law is passed, nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to stay in your country. In the US where you live, and in NZ where I do, we have freedom of movement. Thus nobody is holding guns to our heads forcing us to remain. If NZ ever goes nuclear, or we institute capital punishment, then no doubt I'll leave. Why? I don't have a lot of stake in the social contract, so there is no great problem with me breaking it. Until then let me just agree to forfeit my rights as you forfeit yours. This is the social contract. 4. Con's Objections 4.1 No history of it existing So what? Please explain how this proves anything. I think it's a red herring. 4.2 Contracts not imposed It's not in the nature of states to impose. You're making exactly the argument Jean-Jacques Rousseau made in his famous book "The Social Contract," which advocated a natural democracy. This and some other political systems never "impose" contracts, which allows a social contract to "work." Even so, I argue above that people generally accept contracts. 4.3 No redress Yes there is. It's called civil law. Look it up. In most jurisdictions, you can sue the government, and even use their legal aid funds to pay for it. Besides which a contract does not have to offer redress. Them breaking their terms, of course, allows you to break yours as well. That's the point behind Malcolm X's famous "Ballot or the Bullet" speech. 4.4 Quick violation Then I guess you're writing this from jail, huh? Actually, because people offer consent to social contracts, they are rarely broken. There are exceptions, but they are exceptions not rules. I look forward to the next round, and hearing con elaborate on his arguments in more detail. Thanks for the debate!