Best quick argument against the "social contract" canard

[ianlippert]

I was also wondering today why people use the term social contract? Why dont they use the greater good anymore? I think its because too many bad socialist policies have abused the term so much that people just dont believe it anymore. The social contract sounds so much more modern and binding.

Also assuming we are in a social contract to provide the best for society then this means many of government monopolies should be abolished since they are helping no one in society except those in power. Using the social contract arguement is completely superfluous because you still have to have the arguement about what is best for society. You should really ask them what the most effective contract should be.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
You mean to say that the social contract is pro violence???


[/ QUOTE ]
Enforcement of it is, by defintion.
[ QUOTE ]
You would prefer no social contract, and as you are born have only property rights that are left over, with no one looking after your interests?

[/ QUOTE ]


Develop whatever contracts you want. Don't force others to conform to your standards. Have a problem with society? Do so through voluntary means like every other party that isn't government or criminals.

You make it sound like you just pop out of thin air at 18and everyone is like "sorry, no property for you, you've got to be a slave the rest of your life." I'm sure this is unintentional, as it's not like it helps your side paint AC as "lunacy". LOL


*Edit://Jman220: Personal Attack Deleted. This is the third personal attack I've seen against a poster today by ShakeZula, ban increased from 2 days to 4 days.

[nietzreznor]

ojc,

I would recommend Roderick Long's "Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections". As the title suggests, he responds to ten common statist objections to market anarchism, one of which is the social contract theory. Beware, though, it is filled with some "ridiculous analogies" [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]...

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
This discussion would be interesting if we could get quote]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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't speak for everyone who believes in natural rights, but I tend to think of it as justifying SELF-ownership, above all else. I do tend to think that further property rights are derivable from self-ownership, but 'natural rights' at base are really just one right: the right to live your life as you, and not others, see fit.

Also, yeah, that sucks about the liberty dollars... what are LETS/Time Dollar?

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
ojc,

I would recommend Roderick Long's "Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections". As the title suggests, he responds to ten common statist objections to market anarchism, one of which is the social contract theory. Beware, though, it is filled with some "ridiculous analogies" [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]...

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh sweet, thanks, that looks like a useful essay.

[plzleenowhammy]

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)

Really?

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
You mean to say that the social contract is pro violence???

[/ QUOTE ]

Institutionalized violence and arbitrary coercive interference into individual lives, all conducted by a cabal of political elites, necessarily follows from social contract theory.