Best quick argument against the "social contract" canard

[Phil153]

[ 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.

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.

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)

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.

[AlexM]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't... until you claim it's a bad analogy. Then it's your responsibility to back up your position or be ridiculed and ignored. Currently you're arguing like that Monty Python sketch:

M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

[Phil153]

Alex,

So you're suggesting we must provide a rigorous debunking of every silly analogy? Perhaps I should use the AC strategy of silly-analogy-shift-burden-of-proof?

Your post is like Clinton's evasion of questions during the impeachment. If you disagree, it's your responsibility to tell me why it isn't, or else you'll be ridiculed and ignored.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Alex,

So you're suggesting we must provide a rigorous debunking of every silly analogy? Perhaps I should use the AC strategy of silly-analogy-shift-burden-of-proof?

Your post is like Clinton's evasion of questions during the impeachment. If you disagree, it's your responsibility to tell me why it isn't, or else you'll be ridiculed and ignored.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Alex,

So you're suggesting we must provide a rigorous debunking of every silly analogy? Perhaps I should use the AC strategy of silly-analogy-shift-burden-of-proof?

Your post is like Clinton's evasion of questions during the impeachment. If you disagree, it's your responsibility to tell me why it isn't, or else you'll be ridiculed and ignored.

[/ QUOTE ]

Coming up with an arguement that governments dont cause an increased cost to consumers would be a good first step.

[Nielsio]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]


This argument is 'might makes right', wrapped in 10 layers of obscurity; as almost all pro violence arguments are (!!!).


Can you unwrap it?

[bluesbassman]

Lysander Spooner demolishes the "social contract" argument in this essay:

No Treason

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
This argument is 'might makes right', wrapped in 10 layers of obscurity; as almost all pro violence arguments are (!!!).


[/ QUOTE ]

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

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? This is lunacy, like AC theory is! LOL.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

Best from whose perspective?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This argument is 'might makes right', wrapped in 10 layers of obscurity; as almost all pro violence arguments are (!!!).


[/ QUOTE ]

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

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? This is lunacy, like AC theory is! LOL.

[/ QUOTE ]


wow