Social Contract Theory

Sorry lol, I meant anticipating as in looking forward to them. .. My argument per the historical social contract has been and remains that, given no example, this remains a theoretical concept. In addition, your contention that all states operate this way is weakened by this. I would dispute the people "being" the state. The idea "we are the government" remains appealing, for obvious reasons, but does is not convincing. I am in fact arguing that the theory is entirely wrong, not merely in some cases. Yes, an individual can counter-breach, but the idea that they will not "allow" breaches does not follow. The individual has little power in relation to the state in terms of retaliating after breaches. Contracts do work on the principle of good faith, but also that both parties have some way to enforce them. When the state "breaches the contract" the individual has little recourse. If the individual attempts to "counter-breach" the full power of the state will be used on them. Convincing others to revolt is outlawed by every state in the world of course. While it is true that were society to abandon them, a state will lose power, this is difficult and rare, not least because the state shall impose itself even more harshly in most cases when people go against it. As well, the majority are dependent upon it and conditioned to obedience, making revolt more difficult. 1. Reciprocity a) So the existence of groups not party to the social contract is not a strike against this? Do the slaves or other groups not included have any duty to the state in such a case? I suspect that you will say no. However, this lack of duty is easily extended to other people, as this contract remains unproven. b) Yes, contracts remain binding even if people have a change of heart, true, but most do not give to one party the power this alleged social contract is. There is such a thing as an "unconscionable" contract, that is void due to its egregious nature, even if both parties have agreed. In Thomas Hobbes' original concept of social contract, the subjects relinquished all rights to the sovereign. While the social contract theories do not always go this far, the relationship stays completely unequal, with one party (the state) as judge in its own case for any violations. Ironically John Locke, another social contract theorist used this idea in support of the state, to prevent parties being judge in their own case, but the state necessarily does this, contradicting his argument. Thomas Hobbes' formulation amounts to a slavery contract, where one party not only has no way to remedy breaches but counter-breach (which the state naturally will not accept lying down) and Locke's has one party being the judge in its own case, an open conflict of interest. c) I have never denied that states vary regarding how much the threat of force is used. If the laws being imposed have less support, or none, the rights violations more severe, threat and open force itself must be used more generally. I reject the idea of legal positivism-in fact my argument is against that, since this amounts to what all states at bottom must be. In no way do I think what happened with Nazi Germany or any other such dictatorship was acceptable. The example proves my contention, as the opposition was suppressed by force, when the state ceased its benevolence of allowing people some input (or "democracy") and took absolute power. The remedy of "fleeing" does not work for those unable or unwilling to, and brings us back to odious "love it or leave it" ideas. In addition, by what possible standard could the Nazi regime be said to create a new social contract, as their ideas by definition excluded large amounts of Germans from all protection and rights under it? I fully agree the law can be interpreted at discretion, which included rejecting it or parts thereof entirely. I also agree that police states have no social contract, since my argument is against them existing. While our countries are certainly not in the state of Nazi Germany, coercion must necessarily be used to enforce laws (force or the threat thereof). Although our societies do not have widespread, constant fear of their states, it does not disprove my contention. The states which allow some input from their subjects are more likely to engender loyalty and acceptance of laws that otherwise will not be, this is obvious. Your example in New Zealand is perfectly fitting with this. While rejecting positivism, the law does not require "a policeman in every household" rather the assurance that violations will draw visits from said policemen. 2. Agreement a) So if someone is killed extra-legally, that person's rights are intact? If the law does not recognize them, that means they do not occur? (That reminds me of a tree falling in the forest and whether it makes a sound. .. ) b) I would dispute this further, but public goods could be a whole debate itself. I will leave it at the assertion that such goods have been provided outside states and move on. c) True, an infant is not held legally responsible. By that very fact though, how can an infant consent to this presumed social contract simply by virtue of its birth? They cannot understand. Indeed laws will be imposed at the point of them understanding, but there has been no consent to begin with. d) I am not arguing that law has no moral content. Rather, I am arguing that morality can exist separate from laws, and indeed in contradiction to it. I am also not arguing against all laws but rather state law. Customary law requires no government enforcement, predates this, and is often opposed to state laws, being the expression of common morals. This does not apply to the state, rather the opposite. The basic morals are generally agreed-do not kill, do not steal, etc. -but the state makes exceptions for itself, and draws upon these to impose other moral strictures which the people did not hold to start with. Such customs have been slowly overridden, eroded or twisted in order to support this power monopoly. The actively coercive state law is necessary to uphold power monopoly, and resulting social inequality, while customs often are enforced without coercion entirely.