Best quick argument against the "social contract" canard

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
What you did is the standard counter. You could ask them if you're consenting to being robbed if after the first time you don't move to where burglars won't steal from you. Ask them what right someone has to apply force to you simply because the property you rightfully own is in close proximity to you. Ask them to define what constitutes a society and why they have any right to impose on anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Shake. I really need to have these ready to ask immediately. Any pausing or um-ing and err-ing really hurts the message...

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I need a good analogy or a freaking puppet display or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the "well, if you hate it so much, you're free to leave!" is irritating. Here's how you argue the "voluntary social contract" thing: scale. I'll quote from an old
post of mine:

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose, in the future, the national governments are fully globalized. All local, state and national governments defer to the world government, which constitutes the greatest percentage of any individual's tax revenue, and which creates and enforces most of the laws that govern our lives.

Luckily, if you don't like it, there are other alternatives. Mars has been terraformed for several decades now, and exists mostly as an independent, loose confederation of city-states. Unfortunately trade is very difficult with Mars and it has few natural resources, so the economy is abysmal, poverty is rampant, health care is terrible, the weather and culture suck, there is little to do, and getting there costs (in today's money) two hundred thousand dollars. This can, of course, be purchased with a loan much like today's houses, but it's still quite costly.

Nevertheless, you do have a choice, and are free to leave Earth's global jurisdiction at any time. Does this mean that the social contract of residing in Earth's government is just as legitimate as the social contract of living in modern USA?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously if choices are extremely restricted by government expansiveness...so much so that the costs of changing states is prohibitively overwhelming...it's pretty hard to call the social contract you have with the state you were born into "legitimate."

Consider this: what do you think is more legitimate, your contract with your local government, or your contract with your federal government? It's very easy to move to a different town, and truth be told it's fairly easy to move to a different state. Make a few arrangements, pack up your car, and out you go to a new place with a new culture and new social norms. But if you want to switch countries, that's quite different, and it's not just because of geography. If I wanted to move to Ontario, it would take me years of red tape, fees and paperwork before I got Canadian citizenship. And believe me, I've strongly considered it. As much as I love Canada's lack of a gambling ban, head shops where you're allowed to say "bong," and the freedom to have sex with fourteen year old girls, I'm sticking with America just because the barriers to immigration are too [censored] difficult. Most first-world countries are like this. Pretty hard to consider my contract with the American government "legitimate" when you consider my lack of options, isn't it?

Legitimacy of the social contract must decrease with government expansion. Almost everyone would agree that if there were a world government, the social contract with it would not be voluntary at all, since there is literally no choice in the matter. As government jurisdictions atomize, the social contracts become more legitimate.

[Msgr. Martinez]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been searching through your posts on this thread...

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

So whoever can come up with the dumbest analogy wins?

Exactly.

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.

Yes.

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

... and haven't actually found an argument for what you have been claiming.

Do you actually want to say why you think the analogy is invalid?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where's an argument on behalf of what you're claiming in this thread?

If someone compares government to a hot dog vendor, why is it my responsibility to disprove that analogy?

[latefordinner]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe many people here argue for property rights from a utilitarian standpoint rather than a deontological one.

[/ QUOTE ]

sure you could say the same thing about social contract theories though - ie; we understand this has no basis in some absolute reality, but acting as if there is this contract we are born into provides the best utilitarian outcome

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just as natural rights are a construct to justify ownership of property

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe many people here argue for property rights from a utilitarian standpoint rather than a deontological one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure this is true, at least in regard to the ACists. I think we have more natural rights ACists in here than utilitarian ACists but I could be wrong.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
Quick! Someone give me the one-line, AC solution!


[/ QUOTE ]


He's been runnin' all over the place tonight, I can't believe he's still filled to the brim.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]

If someone compares government to a hot dog vendor, why is it my responsibility to disprove that analogy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok fine.

From pvn:
[ QUOTE ]
I have some hot dogs. I am selling them for $100 each. Since you probably like to eat (or know somebody who does), I'm going to force you to buy them (for your own good - you just said you need to eat something!). If you don't want to buy them, you need to move to siberia, because I'm giving myself the monopoly on food distribution for everywhere except there. Your presense in my monopoly territory is tacit consent to my distribution scheme.

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!

[/ 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?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like politics is back to what it was. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

And what is that?

[AlexM]

[ 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!

[AlexM]

[ 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.