Serious Question Regarding the "Social Contract"
J. Kendrick McPeters
Anyone who questions the legitimacy of a government is told, in
effect, "love it or leave it." (Or at the very least, pay the taxes
and obey the laws, or leave it.)
So, I was wondering... will this argument still hold water, in the
event that a "one world government" is someday established?
No, I'm not one of those "blak helikopter" conspiracy buffs... but,
the truth is, an awful lot of people, from the far Left (Cranston) to
the far Right (Peikoff lackeys on humanities.philosophy.objectivism),
truly want to see ONE global government, period.
Suppose they get their way? It's awfully hard to leave the planet, so
would the "social contract" argument be dropped in favor of the "naked
force" theory?
Just curious...
Kendrick
PS; It seems obvious (to me, anyway) that anyone who believes in a
"social contract" legitimizing taxation and regulation, ought to
support as much decentralization as possible. Oddly enough, most left
wingers seem to want all the important decisions to be made in DC,
which makes "voting with feet" rather a difficult proposition.
Chloe Pajerek
> The "social contract" is something flogged by both Right and Left.
> Anyone who questions the legitimacy of a government is told, in
> effect, "love it or leave it."
Not necessarily. You can always act politically to change the behavior
of government. In a simple case, this might involve voting. It might
also involve more, depending on how undemocratic the situation is. For
example, you might have to form a new party.
(Or at the very least, pay the taxes
> and obey the laws, or leave it.)
"Love it or leave it" is the principle upon which markets are
based. There's nothing wrong with it.
> So, I was wondering... will this argument still hold water, in the
> event that a "one world government" is someday established?
What do you mean "someday"? The transnational corporations have
been busy establishing transnational ruling bodies, such as the
WTO, that already have the ability to override the laws of so-called
sovereign nations. The MAI is more of the same.
We are already in the fix that you are worried about.
> Kendrick
- Chloe
J. Kendrick McPeters
>You can always act politically to change the behavior
>of government. In a simple case, this might involve voting.
Aw, c'mon.
If we have a one world government, and a universal franchise
democracy, my one piddling vote will be only one in four billion. I'd
be far more likely to be struck by lightning AND win a lottery on the
way to the ballot box, than to have any measurable influence on the
outcome of an election.
And, gosh, there is already such a "dis-economy of scale" with the US
government, that voting here is pretty meaningless. Case in point:
term limits. An overwhelming majority of the public wants em, but
virtually every politician, be they Demo or Rep, is against them. And
the Supreme Court has struck down every term limits initiative passed
at the state level. Which means, basically, that what the voters WANT
doesn't count... at least when it conflicts with the interests of the
political class.
Case in point: the Income Tax. Can anyone HONESTLY believe that this
Frankenstein's Monster is what the majority of voters want? Puh-leeze!
Case in point: medical marijuana. Passed by lopsided majorities
whenever voted on by the public... yet fought every step of the way by
the entrenched bureaucracy AND the people's elected "representatives."
So, even with a relatively small and homogenous US population,
"democracy" ain't giving the "people" what they want. To extend this
process to include every warm body on the planet, is simply to
_guarantee_ permanent rule by an undemocratic elite.
>It might also involve more, depending on how undemocratic the
>situation is. For example, you might have to form a new party.
And if the party in power passes laws to make "third parties" an
exercise in futility... what then? Armed rebellion against the UN's
crack peacekeepers? That certainly sounds like fun!
>"Love it or leave it" is the principle upon which markets are
>based. There's nothing wrong with it.
Nope. Markets say "love it or buy something else." Statists say
"your physical presence within an arbitrarily drawn border mandates
that you pay any tax and obey any law that a democratically elected
government imposes."
If markets worked like THAT, then everyone would HAVE to drink Coke,
and eat at McDonald's, or else leave the country.
Big difference!
>What do you mean "someday"? The transnational corporations have
>been busy establishing transnational ruling bodies, such as the
>WTO, that already have the ability to override the laws of so-called
>sovereign nations. The MAI is more of the same.
Point granted. Okay, shall we abandon the archaic legal fiction of
"social contract" NOW, rather than later?
>We are already in the fix that you are worried about.
Oh, I'm not really worried about it. I'm simply amused that any adult
could maintain a belief in something as absurd as a "social contract."
Santa Claus is, from my POV, far more plausible!
---Kendrick
PS: I don't think we can blame the "libertopists" for the existance
of "transnational ruling bodies" that override local laws!
JAS Carter
McPeters) wrote:
>>We are already in the fix that you are worried about.
>
>Oh, I'm not really worried about it. I'm simply amused that any adult
>could maintain a belief in something as absurd as a "social contract."
>Santa Claus is, from my POV, far more plausible!
At least I've seen evidence of Santa Claus. *Someone* leaves presents
under the tree... :)
Julie Carter
jsgo...@zippynet.com
--
The usual approach of science of constructing
a mathematical model cannot answer the questions
of why there should be a universe for the model
to describe. Why does the universe go to all the
bother of existing?--Stephen Hawking
David Friedman
jsgo...@zippynet.com (JAS Carter) wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:06:05 GMT, mcpe...@usit.net (J. Kendrick
>McPeters) wrote:
>
>>>We are already in the fix that you are worried about.
>>
>>Oh, I'm not really worried about it. I'm simply amused that any adult
>>could maintain a belief in something as absurd as a "social contract."
>>Santa Claus is, from my POV, far more plausible!
>
>At least I've seen evidence of Santa Claus. *Someone* leaves presents
>under the tree... :)
>
>
>
>Julie Carter
I've had extensive arguments on and off about the "social contract" with
James Prescott on humanities.philosophy.objectivism (he believes in it, I
don't); people here might (or might not) finding looking at them in Deja
News interesting.
--
David Friedman
DD...@Best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
J. Kendrick McPeters
>I've had extensive arguments on and off about the "social contract" with
>James Prescott on humanities.philosophy.objectivism (he believes in it, I
>don't); people here might (or might not) finding looking at them in Deja
>News interesting.
Me too! I've exchanged enough posts with Police State Prescott on the
ersatz social contract to wrirte a small book. For a taste of what's
waiting at DejaNews (or perhaps isn't, I've found their archiving
spotty at best), here's a sample exchange:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James E. Prescott <jep...@uriel.net> wrote:
[regarding the value of voluntary citizenship oaths]
>I think it's important for immigrants who grew up with traditions
>and education different from ours. But I also think America has a
>disgraceful record regarding voting rights, and we ought not
>cavalierly revive racist policies that took decades to overcome.
Talk about stupid. There is nothing "racist" about requiring literacy,
or an oath to uphold the Constitution, in order to vote. Jeeze.
>Implicit commitments are perfectly binding. There is nothing even
>the slightest bit wrong with them.
If you can't see what is WRONG with "implicit commitments," in the
context of using them to commit naked aggression against those who
claim they never agreed to them... then there is something very much
WRONG with you, Mr. Prescott.
This ain't rocket science.
Let's take a page from my real life. I was born and raised in a
county with no zoning. (There's still no zoning, thanks largely to my
political activism over a five year period.)
Suppose that the County Commission had passed zoning. Suppose further
that most people in my county wanted zoning. (The exact opposite was
the case, but bear with me.)
Suppose that one day, a piece of land that I owned suddenly became
virtually useless to me, since the county zoned it to remain a vacant
lot. Or, let's say I just couldn't paint my house the color I wanted
to use. The principle is the same.
One day I own my property, and the next, I still pay taxes on it, but
the county government would have a veto power over what I could do
with it. Would this be right, Jim? Surely, you could say that I had
"implied my consent" to live under the county zoning, since I can move
away if I don't like it.
In point of fact, this is a much BETTER case than what you advocate,
because it's lots easier to move out of a county than a country.
But still, would the "representatives" of my neighbors have the right
to strip me of my property rights? (One of the pro-zoning slogans was
"zoning's not about taking away your property rights; it's about
giving your neighbors rights.")
Or would--- should-- my property rights remain inviolate?
If your answer is "no," and you support coercive zoning based on the
idea of "implicit consent," then where does it all stop? Should my
neighbors be able to move into my house, Dr. Zhivago style, and live
rent free? If not... why not?
Implicit "consent" is the road to slavery... and I don't care one whit
about how "noble" your intentions may be.
Now, as an example of explicit consent, consider the case of a
homeowner's organization. These groups, which are very popular, often
have restrictions even more onerous than most municipal zoning plans.
But... look at the difference! If you own your property prior to the
establishment of the organization, nobody can force you to join. And,
should you buy a piece of (deed restricted) property after it's been
established, you have no real grounds to complain.
Either way, it's a voluntary deal. Way, way different than government
imposed zoning. So, Mr. Prescott... you claim to be an Objectivist...
which seems more in line with Rand's ethos? Forced zoning justified by
an "implicit social contract," or voluntary homeowner's groups?
>There are _reasons_ this agreement is not written down.
Absolutely. Were the obligations of citizenship a burden freely
undertaken, and escapable anytime other than war, the result would be
a tremendous "check and balance" against statism and mob rule.
Take Bill Gates, for example. He's a public spirited guy... he
donates money to the Democrats all the time... so, it is likely that
he would VOLUNTARILY choose to accept the burden today's level of
government imposes on him. But, should Govco get carried away, and
raise the income tax to 90% (as it was in the 1950s) he'd likely drop
out. As, indeed, would all other producers.
The result? It would be impossible for a "widows and orphans" welfare
state to melt down into a socialist "soak the rich" cradle to grave
nightmare. Instead of just representative democracy...which can easily
be subverted by demagogues (eg, Bill Clinton, Richard Gephard)...
you'd add an element of direct democracy: producers would be free to,
in effect, go on strike, and deny their productivity to the welfare
state. Such a system of VOLUNTARY CITIZENSHIP would likely eliminate
class warfare, and would, IMHO, make socialism impossible.
On the other hand, with your "implicit contract" and "involuntary
citizenship," anything goes. Put enough money in the hands of a
Congresscritter, and they'll legalize cannibalism. (And no, don't
tell me that the Judiciary will stop them. Been there, done that. It
simply doesn't work.)
>First, it applies to _everyone_, [...]
You are perfectly free to create a monopoly government, and have it
make (and ruthlessly enforce) laws against murder, rape, robbery,
assault and fraud. And apply them to EVERYONE, both resident and
citizen alike. Got that? What your government must NOT do, is pass
laws that deal with NON-RIGHT VIOLATIONS (eg, business regulations or
victimless crime laws) and IMPOSE THEM BY FORCE on anyone who hasn't
freely given CONSENT to abide by these types of intrusive laws.
A society based on freely consented-to citizenship is, ultimately, a
society of free men... no matter what laws its government might pass.
A society based on involuntary "implied" citizenship is a society of
SLAVES no matter how few and reasonable its laws might be. (And rest
assured that such a society will ALWAYS slide into statism and rule by
the mob. It's simply inevitable, as history bears out.)
>[...] whether or not they can write, and even to those who might _
>refuse_ to write.
Just out of curiosity, Mr. Prescott, do you want to be GOVERNED by an
electorate chock full of imbeciles and nincompoops? Do you think that
the stakes are so low that it's okay for anyone to play?
Keep in mind that the 1965 Voting Rights Act outlawed any requirement
that prospective voters "demonstrate the ability to read, write,
understand or interpret ANY matter," or "demonstrate ANY educational
achievement" or "show ANY knowledge of a particular subject."
That being the case, why not allow children to vote as soon as they
master the hand/eye coordination required to pull the lever? We could
provide them with step stools so they can reach the levers--- or maybe
it'd be better to give them paper ballots and crayons.
Which would you prefer, Jim? As long as you advocate the franchise
for illiterates and simpletons, you can't very well justify denying it
to kids (who are, after all, the prime movers of politics these days).
Doing so would surely be "ageist"... and you wouldn't want that!
>And second, there is no "Court of the Heavenly Angels" in which to
> _present_ such a written or oral statement as "evidence of commitment."
Now, this is really, incredibly, lame.
When I registered to vote, I went down to the County Election Bureau,
and signed a card, then presented them with proof of my age and
residency. Do you REALLY think it would have been all that much extra
trouble to take a quick test, and then swear an oath to support and
defend the Constitution of the United States?
If you do, you're an imbecile. And if you haven't noticed, it doesn't
seem like all that MUCH trouble to require this with immigrants.
>> Not good enough. Teaching the THEORY that we all have
>> "consented" to accept certain obligations is no substitute for
>> actually signing on the dotted line in a REAL "contract" to
>> accept them.
>
>This isn't a matter of substitution. The theory must be taught.
Did I just sniff out an advocate of coercive, state supported
education? After all, if "the theory MUST be taught"...
>Signing a piece of paper would serve no purpose [...]
Other than guaranteeing that one lived in a free society, rather than
a slave state. No purpose, eh? If nothing else, voluntary citizenship
would insure that a Proper Objectivist Government (tm), would remain,
over the long haul, an institution devoted to rights-protection.
After all, if it turned into an agency of tyranny, citizens would be
free to "quit the contract" and terminate their membership in the
citizenship "club." (You'd probably want to disallow this during
times of declared war, and I could go along with that.)
Having abandoned the status of "citizen," residents would still be
free to participate in the free market, as well as the countless
"little platoons" which make social life more pleasant than
hermit-hood. Life, as we know it, would go on... with just fewer
people making rules and assessing taxes on each other.
There might be a free rider problem with things like national defense.
Well, we've got that right now, under the system of no-consent. And,
with courts financed by user fees... paid by citizens and residents
alike... the legitimate functions of government almost certainly would
get financed.
>[...] and would convey the wrong message.
Namely, the message that one was entering into a society of free and
equal sovereigns, rather than being dragooned (via implicit consent)
into a slave state gulag. Yes, I suppose that would be the "wrong
message" to a collectivist like you, Mr. Prescott.
>This agreement is not optional [...]
Why shouldn't participation in a political organization be optional?
If I'm a decent, rights respecting person earning my keep in the free
market, and supporting (via time and/or money) the voluntary
organizations that I believe in (if any)... why should I be dragooned
into your "government" and forced to abide by your "rules?"
Can't you just leave me in peace? If I violate someone's rights...
then, sure... hunt me down like a mad dog and kill me. But don't
force me to join your club, pay the dues, and obey the bylaws.
Try making me a good offer, and getting me to consent to your
government's rules because I *want* to.
>[...] and not contingent on any court's approval.
Court? What's this hang up about courts?
>> "Implied consent" is a slippery slope to absolute dictatorship.
>> I've never consented to have 40% of my income redistributed to
>> bums, and it is a mockery to say that, because I was born here,
>> it is just and fair that this expropriation take place.
>
>I never said anything remotely approaching that.
Certainly you did... are you unable to follow the logic of your own
arguments to the bitter end?
>I _oppose_ the current levels of taxation, obviously.
A) Considering your carte blanc attitude towards statism, it far from
being obvious.
B) The "level" of taxation is irrelevant... the principle is what
counts. Involuntary taxation is wrong... on principle.
>I _oppose_ welfare, obviously.
Obviously, eh? On what grounds? It looks to me like most people in
this country support welfarism. So, under your "love it or leave it"
theory of government, you have no right to oppose it. Correct?
>Why do you, an advocate of explicit statement, accuse me of
>somehow sanctioning things that I've EXPLICITLY denounced?
Denouncing the "level" while supporting the principle of an evil,
statist policy, is not really MUCH of a denouncement. And, besides
that, you seem to be "sanctioning" every collectivist evil under the
sun... judging by your postings to HPO. You do *read* them... right?
>All I've said is that you have no right to take the law into your
>own hands.
I have no problem with this, so long as I can defend myself with my
own guns, whenever my rights are being violated by a thug.
(You do understand the difference between defensive and retaliatory
uses of force... don't you?)
>You and I need to work together, peacefully, within the
>law, to change the laws we disapprove of.
Oh boy, you really lapped up the BS in 8th grade civics class, didn't
you? If you understood how laws really come into being, you'd realize
how utterly futile it usually is to lobby for peaceful change.
Mind you, I'm not saying that this justifies lobbing bombs at anyone.
I'm simply saying that there's no point pretending that the laws are
legitimate since they can, in theory, be set right via the process of
"peaceful change."
Tell ya what, Jim. Try lobbying to "peacefully change" the present
incumbent-ocracy by passing federal term limits. This should be a
cinch, since three fourths of the public WANTS term limits.
Let me know what kind of success you have, okay?
>By participating in our free society, you've _agreed_ to obey
>tolerable and constitutional law [...]
I've done no such thing. By being a decent human being, I make it a
practice to respect the rights of others. I participate in the free
market as a trader, giving value for value. Should I decide to become
a thug or a looter... you, Mr. Prescott... either by yourself, or with
the aid of your fellow citizens... have an absolute right to capture,
convict and punish me. (And my consent is not required for this.)
"Society" has the right to punish rights violators as a simple
extension of the self defense rights of its constituent members.
BUT "society" has NO right to expect something POSITIVE from me... the
payment of taxes, service on a jury, or obedience to victimless crime
laws... UNLESS it gives me a FREE CHOICE to accept the terms of its
written, objectively enforced, social contract.
This contract would offer both benefits (voting rights, officeholding)
and obligations (taxes, conscription, jury duty)... and it would be up
to each SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUAL to decide for himself if the benefits
truly outweighed the cost. (As it presumably would, for most people,
in the case of a legitimate, rights respecting minarchy.)
Make the "contract" an "implicit" one, and you make men slaves.
The principle involved here is a simple one, Mr. Prescott... it's the
difference between coercion and persuasion. On a concrete level, it's
the difference between coercive zoning and a voluntarily entered into
homeowner's association. You do see the difference... don't you?
(Incidentally... what oracle do you consult to determine which laws
are "tolerable and constitutional?")
>[...] and to avail yourself of the mechanisms for peaceful change,
>whether you admit it or not, [...]
If I am a peaceful, value for value trading non-citizen, the rules,
regulations and taxes imposed on citizens by their mutual consent
would be of little concern to me. These, plus their "mechanisms for
peaceful change" would be none of my business, in point of fact.
All I ask from those who band together into a "government" is that
they leave me free to do as I please, so long as I don't initiate
force against anyone.
Is that really asking too much, Mr. Prescott? (And please note that
I'm not advocating anarchy or competing governments here--- we both
know that would be Objectivist heresy--- I'm just asking that my
participation in any government be as a result of my consent.)
>[...] and so you are morally as well as legally obligated to do so,
>whether you admit it or not.
I absolutely AM NOT "morally obligated" to obey the stinking laws
passed by the corrupt career politicians in Washington DC. As a matter
of pure pragmatism, I generally do... but "morality ends where a gun
begins," and I'm under no obligation to immolate myself for the
benefit of Bill and Hillary's criminal gang.
>If you violate these terms, you will go to jail.
Only if I get caught, and cannot persuade a jury of my peers that the
law was wrong. Regardless, your loathsome idea of "implied consent"
does not justify my punishment for violating (non rights protecting)
laws which I haven't consented to.
I know you *think* it does... but you're living in an intellectual
Fantasyland, along with USENET's most ardent Marxist, Mike Lepore...
who, rather tellingly, advocates PRECISELY the same "implied consent"
bunko to "justify" dragooning people into his anthill utopia.
>Creeping tyranny? Bounding paranoia!
The following paragraph absolutely tears it. You voted for Bill
Clinton, right?
>Taxes are way too high.
At last... something we agree on! :-)
>Okay. Get a grip. Your rights are better protected now [...]
Absolute malarkey. There have never been more immoral laws, aimed at
peaceful citizens, than right now. Practically every day, a new law is
passed that makes something else a crime... usually subject to asset
forfeiture and RICO. Here, let me commit a felony, and illustrate
what I mean...
"Buy a pack of ordinary, perfectly legal firecrackers. Take
out two, and carefully unroll them. Now, take the silver
colored powder from the center of the two firecrackers, and
roll it up into one big firecracker. Add a fuse, and light
when ready."
I've just described how to make a "destructive device." Any homemade
firecracker with more than 50 mg of flash powder (which is precisely
what is put into every legal firecracker) is considered a destructive
device, and thus illegal. Felony illegal.
Now, once upon a time, we had "freedom of speech," which allowed,
amongst other things, the free circulation of information about things
that would be illegal to do. Recently, though, the dynamic rights
destroying duo of Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Biden tacked on an amendment
to a military spending bill that makes it a FELONY, punishable by 20
years (!) in the big house, to disseminate info on making bombs and
destructive devices. The amendment passed 94 to 0 in the Senate, and
by now is probably law.
So, if some fedgoon reads this post, and I get 20 years in prison for
writing the above paragraph, I'd say that my rights are not exactly
"better protected now... than at any time in American history."
In point of fact... if you really BELIEVE that, in the context of
today's black ninja raids carried out by the ATF/DEA/FBI, then I'd say
that you must be mentally ill.
Freedom is not slavery, so please ignore what the Ministry of Truth
says, and attempt to come to grips with the reality of today's
situation. As mentioned before, LOST RIGHTS, by James Bovard, would
be an excellent place for you to start.
>[...] and your freedom, standard of living and opportunity are greater
>now than at any time in American or world history.
Freer than before the New Deal? Freer than during the 19th century?
Yeah, right... if you say so, Mr. Clinton.
>We are moving, rapidly, in the right direction.
This is sheer, raving, Clintonite insanity. We are in fact, moving
toward the criminalization / forfeiture of almost everything. There
has NEVER, EVER been an administration in power that had so little
regard for civil liberties, as we have today. Thanks to a little
(very little) opposition from House Republicans, we aren't living in
an absolute police state... but we're getting damned close. One more
high profile tragedy, and the Republicans may give in, and allow
Clinton to have the Crime/Terrorism Bill of his black hearted, freedom
hating dreams. "Moving rapidly in the right direction?" HAH!!!
>Taxes are falling.
No they're not. The federal government is getting bigger, not
smaller. A new entitlement program (free health care for kids) just
passed the *Republican* congress.
>Regulations are rolling back.
Utter lunacy. Are you sure you live in the real world?
>The welfare rolls are shrinking.
By giving recipients government jobs? Some improvement.
>Productivity is up.
And this is because of something the government's done for us?
Why don't you read ATLAS SHRUGGED, and check back in later?
>I know these are hard facts to accept, [...]
They're hard to accept because they are GOD DAMNED LIES!
>[...] but sometimes you've just got to look reality squarely in
>the face and deal with it.
An excellent idea, Mr. Prescott. Try this reality on for size:
IMPLICIT SOCIAL CONTRACTS = SLAVERY
>> As an analogy: if I agree to join the armed forces, I consent to
>> be held to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. On the other
>> hand, if I haven't joined, the government has no business
>> telling me whether or not I can commit adultery.
>
>I suppose you mean consensual sex. Adultery is a breach of
>agreement, a crime the government has every right to prosecute.
Perhaps... but why don't you return to my analogy and plug in
"consensual sex" instead of "adultery." What then?
[snippage regarding Native Americans]
>> That is nonsense. There is no way that productive Americans are
>> going to be free to stop paying taxes. [...]
>
>I didn't say _productive_ Americans. I said _non_-productive. I
>said _withdraw_ from the economy _like_the_indigent_homeless_ and
>then you won't pay taxes, serve on juries or ever be conscripted.
Why exactly should the exercise of my (theoretically) inalienable
rights be CONTINGENT on the demonstration of mindless, serf like
obedience to the Powers That Be?
Where did you get the idea that participation in the FREE (note that
word... it's kinda important) MARKET imposes some sort of obligation
on anyone? Marx? Lenin? Pol Pot?
Really, the notion practically takes my breath away...
You assert that I must make a choice between being productive (which
is to say, living the life of man qua man), and being a slave roped
into an "implicit social contract," and thus forced to sacrifice
myself for the sake of others...
Thus, do you reveal the kind of disgusting collectivist slug which you
really are, claims of being an Objectivist notwithstanding. (Ayn Rand
must surely be puking in her grave.)
Choose between being a homeless bum and a slave? I'd rather choose
death, you statist thug.
>You say you'd rather not? Okay, then, don't.
I say that, in a *free* society, no such "choice" can possibly be
entertained. Not for one stinking moment...
>Best Wishes,
I shudder to think of what "worst wishes" would mean, coming from you.
Kendrick