Best quick argument against the "social contract" canard

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hot dogs : government provided good
$100 : taxes
monopoly on food service : monopoly on distribution of said government provided good

I really don't think I needed to spell that out. What is your issue with it?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't want to answer for Martinez, but here's my problems with it:

1. The ridiculous overpricing of hotdogs. $100 for a hotdog is equivalent to something like 95% tax rate - which no one would tolerate. Given the current pricing of hotdogs, the analogy suggests a 4000% differential between the cost of government and market supplied goods. This is absurd. He relies on the effect of "OMG $100 for a hotdog!!! WTF??" when this is in no way analogous to the government situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. Government never made me buy $500 toilet seats or $2000 coffee makers.

[ QUOTE ]
2. He implies that hotdog buyers don't have a say in pricing - but they do have a say in government, on several levels. People can and have and have voted for and against big government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true! The hotdog vendor has a suggestion box! He cares about your opinion!

I suggested that I pay less in taxes and nobody even read my suggestion card.

[ QUOTE ]
3. The analogy he gives implies that most people would be outraged at the vendor's prices, but have no choice. Where I live at least, most people have no problem paying their taxes (the same as they don't have a problem using roads, schools, free health care, police, courts, or welfare when unemployed/sick)

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, most people in my hotdog distribution territory have no problems at all paying $100 for a hot dog. After all, they realize that they have to eat, they've done it their whole life, and they have no right to use money without paying the costs of my social contract!

[ QUOTE ]
4. Oh, and as a bonus, I give free wedgies (retail value: $500 each, just because I arbitrarily placed that value on them) with each hotdog. Enjoy!

That line is just drivel from a man who's high on his own moral outrage. It adds nothing to the discussion and is pure look-at-me juvenile BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get a *seperate* bill for the Iraq war. I get it for "free"!

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hot dogs : government provided good
$100 : taxes
monopoly on food service : monopoly on distribution of said government provided good

I really don't think I needed to spell that out. What is your issue with it?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't want to answer for Martinez, but here's my problems with it:

1. The ridiculous overpricing of hotdogs. $100 for a hotdog is equivalent to something like 95% tax rate - which no one would tolerate. Given the current pricing of hotdogs, the analogy suggests a 4000% differential between the cost of government and market supplied goods. This is absurd. He relies on the effect of "OMG $100 for a hotdog!!! WTF??" when this is in no way analogous to the government situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This depends on who you are. Some people get their government hot dog for free and the vast majority get their hot dog for *far* more than the hot dog is worth. After all the taxes, I probably pay 40% tax. I probably get maybe 5% of my income worth of value from the government. When you include inflation and the fact that our government has been running deficits forever which I'll eventually have to pay for - I don't think the price pvn used for the hotdog is that unreasonable. Besides, the argument would still be valid if he had used $20 for the cost of the hot dogs, or even $0.01 more than the market price because you wouldn't have voluntarily paid *any* higher price.

[ QUOTE ]

2. He implies that hotdog buyers don't have a say in pricing - but they do have a say in government, on several levels. People can and have and have voted for and against big government.

[/ QUOTE ]

Better make sure you're in the 51% if you don't want to get screwed. The ability for a chance not to get screwed does not justify it. Insert all usual arguments against democracy.

[ QUOTE ]

3. The analogy he gives implies that most people would be outraged at the vendor's prices, but have no choice. Where I live at least, most people have no problem paying their taxes (the same as they don't have a problem using roads, schools, free health care, police, courts, or welfare when unemployed/sick)

[/ QUOTE ]

People like taxes where you are?? People in general are under the mistaken impression that taxes have to exist and be this high. They're tolerating it for this reason, I highly doubt they are really fine with it.

[ QUOTE ]


4. Oh, and as a bonus, I give free wedgies (retail value: $500 each, just because I arbitrarily placed that value on them) with each hotdog. Enjoy!

That line is just drivel from a man who's high on his own moral outrage. It adds nothing to the discussion and is pure look-at-me juvenile BS.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you're just using it as an opportunity to throw an insult. It does add something:

pvn was pointing out the subjective and arbitrary nature of the services provided by government. Such as, the service of preventing online gambling. Boy, I'm sure glad my taxes are paying for that.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To both you and pvn: Not quite. He'll simply own the main access roads so you're forced to pay whatever he charges for his services. I'll repeat again. Finite property. Historical ownership. Same problems as the social contract.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the problem here? Obviously he wants to make some money, so he can't charge so much that people can't pay, or so much that people use other roads (businesses relocate somewhere with less exorbinant fees, taking all of the road custoemrs with them).

[/ QUOTE ]

How is a business going to relocate if he's bought all the land around them? You seem to be avoiding or not understanding Phil's point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who exactly is going to do business with him and interactx with him?

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1

[/ QUOTE ]

It's weird how all of your arguments are made by way of strained analogies.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not strained, it's ridiculous, which is exactly the point - the analogy points out the ridiculousness of the social contract.

[/ QUOTE ]

So whoever can come up with the dumbest analogy wins?

[/ QUOTE ]

If your argument is logically analogous to a situation that is ridiculous, your argument is probably of questionable merit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for laying bare one of the more questionable rhetorical techniques employed by ACists - taking a point made by an opponent and downplaying it by regurgitating it via an unflattering analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, using logic to show people what they don't want to see is "questionable" all right!

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess he is much more comfortable with the pie in the sky platitudes pitched by the government to flatter their own operations.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
I got to talking politics with some ppl at school the other day (very dangerous). They used the "social contract" argument. Apparently by participating in society I am signing a contract and therefore have to agree to do some things that they think are good for society.

I was shocked how many people nod their heads when they hear this crap. My problem is I need a good quick argument against it and I couldn't think of one. Best I came up with was that I never signed anything and a contract is supposed to be a voluntary agreement. I just got blank looks... Any ideas? Maybe I need a good analogy or a freaking puppet display or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm surprised that this thread is this long. Here's your answer: "It's not a contract if I didn't agree to participate. A contract needs to be entered into voluntarily by all parties or it's not a contract."

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised that this thread is this long.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it moved to an actual discussion about the validity of the social contract. It seems pretty open-shut to me that the social contract is BS but evidently that opinion is not shared by all...

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

So you're suggesting we must provide a rigorous debunking of every silly analogy?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but when people overwhelmingly say "hey, I don't see what's wrong with that analogy," some kind of explanation is called for.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I should use the AC strategy of silly-analogy-shift-burden-of-proof?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not an "AC strategy," it's a "logic strategy." People try to do it against AC all the time (Somalia?) and they get told why their analogy is silly and wrong. If you're not willing to say what makes an analogy silly and wrong, people are simply going to assume that it's because you can't and don't want to admit it. That's just human nature.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems pretty open-shut to me that the social contract is BS but evidently that opinion is not shared by all...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, here's the thing. For people who actually want to participate in a large scale social contract (which is basically all non-ACists which is ~99.9% of the population) it isn't BS. Voluntary social contracts aren't BS, it's just that most people haven't thought about why the contract they want should be forced on others.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems pretty open-shut to me that the social contract is BS but evidently that opinion is not shared by all...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, here's the thing. For people who actually want to participate in a large scale social contract (which is basically all non-ACists which is ~99.9% of the population) it isn't BS. Voluntary social contracts aren't BS, it's just that most people haven't thought about why the contract they want should be forced on others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that most people want different things, people trying to force their own preferences on others leads inherently to much conflict. In my view, it is therefore best to keep the "social contract" near the bare minimum, which means that the minimal principles of non-aggression and non-coercion against others should comprise nearly all of the "social contract".

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems pretty open-shut to me that the social contract is BS but evidently that opinion is not shared by all...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, here's the thing. For people who actually want to participate in a large scale social contract (which is basically all non-ACists which is ~99.9% of the population) it isn't BS. Voluntary social contracts aren't BS, it's just that most people haven't thought about why the contract they want should be forced on others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that most people want different things, people trying to force their own preferences on others leads inherently to much conflict. In my view, it is therefore best to keep the "social contract" near the bare minimum, which means that the minimal principles of non-aggression and non-coercion against others should comprise nearly all of the "social contract".

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes. If there is any such 'social contract', then that is it. It is the understanding that no person is of a different moral category over another person. This belief in universal morality is also something we have in our genes. We all believe in it, deep inside. And if we act against it, it will absolutely and guaranteed have an effect on us. This is illustrated for example in soldiers who come back from war, after they have killed people. Their mind is so broken (having gone against it's own fundamental beliefs), that they cannot function anymore; they're in a constant state of terror (nightmares, violent, scared, etc), and they cannot experience true hapiness anymore because their sense of empathy is broken down (it has to, otherwise they could not have done the things they did).