The idea of a "social contract" is the idea that political authority is justified because people agree—explicitly or implicitly—to trade some freedom for security, order, and mutual benefit.
Stackers that are familiar with my content here probably can guess where I land but I am curious where others land and why.
Social Contract theory is logical42.9%
Social Contract theory is nonsense57.1%
Never heard of this theory / on opinion0.0%
7 votes \ 1 day left
I wish you hadn’t included “explicitly” in the description, since the lack of an explicit and truly voluntary agreement is my main objection to social contract theory.
Is this not the common definition of it?
I always thought of a social contract as inherently implicit.
Isn’t that why it requires a special term and weird philosophical justification?
Yes. I think the explicit really only applies to someone who immigrates and becomes a citizen going through all the pledges. Also, maybe those who take political positions or work in any position where they take oaths?
I don't know. I have heard people say that paying taxes or voting is explicit agreement to the "social contract". Or that even LIVING in the US is as well.
I think Tom Woods was the first person I heard question it many many years ago. It really got me thinking as I've always been a person that gets hung up on words and little rhetorical tricks.
Contracts have to be voluntary and between parties who are rightfully entitled to their side of the contract.
The state is not such an entity so contracts with it are not binding, in my view. If a highwayman holds you up on the road, we don’t see that as a legitimate agreement that you made in order to proceed on your journey.
You’re right though that those are examples of explicit social contracts.
I don't recall if Woods used this example but I am reminded of some of the great Indian (American) chiefs who would point out that their agreements with the state (white man chief) were mostly meaningless. The next chief would change it or break it.
The US government is like a one-way system. You or I can't break "agreement" with them but they sure can with us or other nations/states.
This is a road that once you go down you really can't un-see it all. You might decide that this arrangement is as good as it gets but it sure does take the morality and goodness / logic out of it.
I guess another reason for the weird term is even with all this NO ONE signs an actual contract. There are no terms, and conditions.
This is just one nonsense term that gets tossed around in college classrooms. Representative is another one that is not what it actually seems. Public servant.
That would a good post. Make a list of the pro-state propaganda language we all just repeat and think nothing of.
justified has nothing to do with it
there is also no political authority, just political reality
there is only culture, and governments are a product of culture competition with the shadow government
The realist perspective which I do share. When I talk about this stuff though it's just a different lens I am using. The idea of it being justified or not is a cultural thing. So we kinda go in a circle if we aren't careful.
Semantic disagreements aren't useless
Still fancy myself a philosophical AnCap, but I find that useless at this point, except maybe for trolling SJW's knotted up in hypocrisy. Rarely is it more than someone convincing themselves that they've transcended the emergent properties of society.
Philosophizing on the legitimacy or utility of states is as old as states themselves, and yet it persists relatively unchanged.
People that have shaped states or culture are rare, so rare they're the fixtures of every major religion. (ex Jesus not defeating the Roman Empire but changing people that therefore force it to adapt).
John Locke might be the secular exception, and the social contract OG for that matter, but he observed, bringing clarity, rather than question.
The philosophical lens may even be counter-productive, how many individuals that would have a positive effect on the shape of the state/society if they participated are instead sidelined by the virtue trap vs. engaging in Lockean empiricism.
I see parallels in philosophizing to shitcoining, how many privacy coin tards have been wrecked because Bitcoin isn't philosophically pure enough: #906514
Many good points.
For what it is worth. SN is probably the only place I actually have these philosophical discussions. While I don't vote for many reasons I am very practical and active in working to effect my circle of control and influence.
I think most people that talk politics (me at many points in my life as well) are not moving the needle at all. No matter what they believe.
I'd also say that I think MANY influential people are ideologically on the liberty side but practically they are focused on changing things. Many are in business. Some are in religion. A small number in politics. I think most people in politics are just leeches.
When our words, ideas, are only in our heads or keyboards they have very little impact. I wish more like-minded people would get involved in their local communities for example. Been pleased to see how I've been able to make small things better in my own community. Nothing that you will read about but its is more than posting on Nostr or SN.
Would you like to propose an alternative?
Natural rights/law?
Actual contracts?
Voluntary agreement and organization?
I probably fall most into the natural law camp, given my biblical worldview.
the problem with actual contracts and voluntary agreements is that it's impossible to write a contingency for every possible state of the law. Whenever a situation happens outside the written contract language or there's ambiguity, you will have to resort to some principles that exist outside the contract.
You need judges basically. Which is how law developed over time. Predates the state.
I'm basically in the same camp.
Social contract theory is one of those things like taxes that seems to fall apart under scrutiny.
I don't know... the part about taxes where they're a protection payment seems to be quite durable under scrutiny.
That's not what I mean. Your average person doesnt view them with that understanding. You hear "ciic duty" and social contract.
Protection payment is way more accurate to what it is.
When I hear "social contract" I think of the idea that adults have a natural responsibility towards their children and elderly parents
I have heard it used that way but only from "intellectuals". In most societies those kinds of ideas are assumed in the culture.
In a highly individualistic culture it isn't so you hear it explained. In honor cultures ignoring ones family is understood to be immoral.
Is it just me, or does this term almost never come up anymore? Ten years ago I feel like I heard it fairly often. In liberty circles and anytime some statist was justifying some theft or violation of rights.
These days neither side seem to use the term. Is it such a loser that its fallen out of favor or is the public so owned mentally its not even needed.
I'm sure it is still discussed in College classes where students are being brainwashed. Right?