Best quick argument against the "social contract" canard - Page 3

Msgr. Martinez · #21 04-21-2007, 01:11 AM

[ 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.

pvn · #22 04-21-2007, 01:11 AM

[ 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). And he's not going to own *all* the roads. What percentage of the roads in the US do you think Bill Gates could actually buy?

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, a bunch of "ZOMG bill gates is going to kill hobos in his spare time if there's no government" type arguments.

pvn · #23 04-21-2007, 01:12 AM

[ 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 ]

The dumbest *valid* analogy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you agree, the analogy above is valid and dumb. It can only be dumb because the situation it is analogous to is dumb. Voila.

ojc02 · #24 04-21-2007, 01:13 AM

Ok, I'll bite. Why do you think it's not valid? Or did you just want to state that it was and be done with it?

latefordinner · #25 04-21-2007, 01:13 AM

holy [censored] - i just saw that the US Govt was trying to declare the Liberty Dollar illegal to use. I don't know how I missed this - must be because I run with LETS/Time Dollar folks and not the goldbugs. that's completely wack. Stupid government. Okay, back on track --

--

This discussion would be interesting if we could get into a discussion about "natural rights" - social contract theories are, of course, a philisophical thought/experiment and construct to justify the government - just as natural rights are a construct to justify ownership of property.

pvn · #26 04-21-2007, 01:16 AM

[ 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 ]

What's questionable about this? This is no different than any other method of exposing fallacious arguments, poorly-thought out positions, or counterproductive policy formulations.

Perhaps it's unfair. Is it *too* effective? Does it make it harder for you to sell the snake oil you're pushing?

Msgr. Martinez · #27 04-21-2007, 01:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So you agree, the analogy above is valid and dumb.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
It can only be dumb because the situation it is analogous to is dumb. Voila.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

ojc02 · #28 04-21-2007, 01:19 AM

[ 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.

ojc02 · #29 04-21-2007, 01:23 AM

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?

ShakeZula06 · #30 04-21-2007, 01:23 AM

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.