There's no written contract signed by anyone, but if you would like the freedoms provide by said government, then you seem to be obligated by those rules. If you no likey, you may leavey

I've never really understood social contract, as it takes something very literal (a contract) and attempts to apply it very abstractly. I must admit I haven't read up on it in over 10 years, but I think social capital is a much more effective way of modelling the abstract moral culture that binds us together.

"If you no likey, you may leavy"

Ok, citizens obviously don't choose their states. But they implicitly consent to a social contract by not leaving.

1. Immigration is prohibitively expensive for the majority of human beings on the planet.

2.Even if immigration were affordable, most human beings have unchosen, intimate, connections to people and groups within their states, which make it unreasonable to demand that they leave. If the only way for you to signal disagreement with a contract that I'm foisting on you is for you to promise never to see your mother again, it's clearly not reasonable to take your silence as an indication of agreement.
Where would citizens leave to? We aren't living in the sixteenth century; there aren't large, habitable tracts of land where people may live free of state power. If persons leave, they must almost always leave to join another state. But that's not consent.

3. Suppose I lived on an island with no travel to the outside world. There is a Northern Mafia that controls the North half, and a Southern Mafia for the South half. Each takes my presence in its half as a sign that I have consented to obey its rules. Each points out, correctly, that I could leave (for the other half) if I chose. Can I be said to have consented to live under the rule of the mafia?

if you are tied to others either emotionally, ethically, intimately, or spiritually and feel you cant break those bonds, then abide by the fucking rules set forth by the powers that be.

Bullshit, you dont like states laws, leave the state...people do it all the time

"Ok, citizens obviously don't choose their states"

say what?

i hate the fucking tax laws in Illinois, thinking of moving, and i will declare residency in another state as soon as my kids graduate from high school

For those who haven't (because who ever does) read the article. Here is the full text (it is about debate theory a bit but it mostly cross applies to like actual political thought):

"Social contract arguments are incredibly painful to watch. A debater is making a speech. He wants to argue that some person has such-and-such a legal right. Or maybe such-and-such an obligation. But he can't for the life of him think of why. Flash of brilliance: There exists a mythical contract that no one has ever seen or signed, and its terms include exactly the moral stipulation that he's looking to prove.

This approach has its slightly more contorted variations. Maybe the social contract was broken, so the person breaking that contract is going to lose certain legal/moral rights. (Often only loosely connected to the clause 'broken' in the first place.) Or maybe the speaker asserts that the social contract involved some 'trading' of rights, where some pre-civilised caveman gained certain social duties in return for a right not to be clubbed over the head. All these variations are also terrible.

Few top-tier debaters, and virtually no professional political philosophers, would nowadays make or defend the social contract argument as it is used in debating today. Here's why: Social contract arguments are transparently false and intellectually dishonest, even though they are so commonplace in debating that most debaters don't question their basic premises. Let's run through several interpretations of what a 'social contract' could mean, and see why they are all deeply problematic.

'There is a social contract: Citizens, by joining a society, consented to some set of common rules, so they are morally bound to obey them.'

1. This purported contract is entirely fictional. It existed at no point in history. Why should I be bound by a fictional contract cooked up by an over-imaginative political theorist?

2.Most citizens do not choose their states. Citizens are born into states (without their own consent), and from birth are bound by legal and social rules that they did not choose.

3.Moreover, if life in the 'state of nature' is nasty, brutish and short, then in what sense can I be said to have consented to its alternative? If I'm drowning in the sea, and you offer me a 'contract' in order to allow me onto your boat, that contract is made under duress and is of no moral or legal significance.

'Ok, citizens obviously don't choose their states. But they implicitly consent to a social contract by not leaving."

1. Immigration is prohibitively expensive for the majority of human beings on the planet.

2.Even if immigration were affordable, most human beings have unchosen, intimate, connections to people and groups within their states, which make it unreasonable to demand that they leave. If the only way for you to signal disagreement with a contract that I'm foisting on you is for you to promise never to see your mother again, it's clearly not reasonable to take your silence as an indication of agreement.
Where would citizens leave to? We aren't living in the sixteenth century; there aren't large, habitable tracts of land where people may live free of state power. If persons leave, they must almost always leave to join another state. But that's not consent.

3. Suppose I lived on an island with no travel to the outside world. There is a
Northern Mafia that controls the North half, and a Southern Mafia for the South half. Each takes my presence in its half as a sign that I have consented to obey its rules. Each points out, correctly, that I could leave (for the other half) if I chose. Can I be said to have consented to live under the rule of the mafia?

'Ok, so that approach is hopeless. But maybe citizens consent to the social contract by voting?'

1. Either voting is optional, in which case many citizens will not in fact have 'consented' (almost half, in the case of many Western liberal democracies), or voting is compulsory, in which case it cannot be a sign of consent.

2. Many citizens may in fact have voted for the losing side in an election. How can they be said to have consented to the winner's rule?

3. Even citizens voting for the winning side may have been forced to make a choice between poor alternatives. If I offer you a choice between torture or death, can you be said to have consented to torture? Why is it different if there is a 'Torture' party and a 'Death' party?

'Good grief! So maybe citizens consent to the social contract by receiving government services (welfare, public highways, police protection)?'

1. There are many government services which I cannot opt out of. (Take, for instance, the benefits of clean air or military defence.)

2.If the state takes my resources by force (through taxation), and then converts those into services, I may have to consume those services. That doesn't imply that I consented to any wider set of rules that the state dreamt up!

3.Since the state generally exercises a monopoly on the use of violence, it drives other providers out of business, forcing me to consume its services. I have to rely on the state police, because the state takes steps to make sure that their police force is the only one. A monopoly that systematically destroys all its competitors does not thereby have consenting customers.

'So maybe the social contract is entirely hypothetical; it is a claim about what reasonable people would consent to, if they had the choice.'

1. A hypothetical contract is not a 'milder' form of contract; it is not a contract at all! It is therefore not morally binding. A court would look rather dimly on my having stolen your car and left you a reasonable sum of money, even if I argue that you would (hypothetically) have consented to the exchange.

2. Why do we imagine whether a person would agree to this contract in totality? Maybe he agrees with some clauses but not with others. If the contract is: "I will take you out of a state of nature in which your life is nasty, brutish and short. I will feed you and give you safety. In return, you will make me dictator for life." It may be that it is reasonable to consent to that contract if the alternative is a Hobbesian world. But why is that the appropriate alternative to consider?

3. Finally: If you are making this form of social contract argument, you need to provide reasons why reasonable people would (hypothetically) consent to this form of contract. But in that case, don't waste everyone's time. Skip the words 'social contract', and just give reasons for the desired legal duty/obligation directly. The words 'social contract' add nothing.

I add as an addendum: The use of hypothetical contracts as 'intuition pumps' to help us think about what set of rules a reasonable person would find desirable is still prevalent in modern political philosophy. This kind of claim is occasionally a useful rhetorical strategy in debating, but it's often better made without the jargon "social contract"; e.g. "Look, a reasonable person would agree to rules X because of Y, so we should implement rules X."

Equally still alive is the claim that, if a perfectly rational person would consent to a certain system of rules, then people are (in some sense) obliged to obey them. This is not a very useful argument in debating, because proving that a rational person would consent to or desire your proposed rules is generally the entire debate. "

In summary: Social contract arguments - cliche, bad strategy, and just plain wrong. Debating would be better if they didn't exist."

As for ssorenn and your concern about Illonois and tax laws. My question is, while you can leave Illinois you will always be forced into a preset list of laws, many of which you (or perhaps even the majority of inhabitants of your state) disagree with, and your choices will be limited on the price of the house you can afford, what is available and the distance you are willing to travel. And no matter what state you travel to you are still subject to US federal law no matter where you go, where your only alternative to that is essentially Canada or a handful of other countries. At no point have you actually consented to all the laws you are subject too, just merely concluded that they were somewhat better than your current option.

A social contract is quite necessary for a society to function properly. If each person got to choose what rules they like and dislike, there may as well be no law.

@Vashta: What is your point? That there should be no laws?

Mine ,were but examples of myself. The question is beyond stupid. No one asked if it was fair, because the obvious holds true. You are obligated too Abide by the laws in the place you live If you want to have any sort of life. Break the social contract and go to jail. This morons article is not reality. The only possible solution out of it, is buy an island call it "Vastaland " and set you own rules. That sets up other dilemmas in you would have to deal with other society's in trade for survivial. If you chose not to, most likely someone would come and just take your shit. Why? Because they could and you would not have the power or means to stop them.

Yeah, let's have a place with no laws--- that's smart. Heheheheheee

@Leon and Vashta.

A social contract is a model for understanding human interactions. You could look at things from a different perspective, as it is only a model, but for the moment let's assume this is the only model under consideration.

Is it a useful model? and if so what social function does it serve?

"A social contract is quite necessary for a society to function properly. If each person got to choose what rules they like and dislike, there may as well be no law."

In this case, Leon correctly points out a function of the model. The idea of a social contract is one which helps to enforce law. It is a mental model to ensure people conform to the laws of the state which reduces the need for physical force to ensure this conformity (as was the case in the past).

I for one like not having my state us physical force against me.

@Criticisms of the model.

Children born into the system are not considered eligible to sign contracts (FYI contracts are only useful when there is a system of enforcement, and without a state i'm not sure what that system is.) Thus they can be considered property of their parents until such time as they choose to engage the social contract - usually by following the 'social expectations' placed upon them. IE behaving in school, achieving good result - this is the first training and indoctrination grounds for new members of our society. We train them to respect authority, and 'work hard' at pointless tasks.

Are they useful for debate? OR for understanding how we interact with our state?

@"Why should I be bound by a fictional contract...?"

Money is also fictional, created based on the trust in (formerly gold) fiat dictates. The trust that your employer is paying you in a currency which will hold value for long enough to spend it.

Being fictional does prevent money from being useful. The question is only whether you *should* put your trust in it.

Similarly the social contract may be useful, and you should ask whether you *should* put your trust in it.

@"2.Most citizens do not choose their states." - i addressed this above.

@"3.Moreover, if life in the 'state of nature' is nasty, brutish and short..." - IF. Actually humans are by nature social creatures, and the we have (over the last 10,000 years) developed cultural social relations and (mental) tools which allow us to function in group of greater and greater numbers.

We naturally form implicit social contracts. But there are other useful tools, like money, writing, the concept of owning land/property (which varied among different cultures, but proved very successful in some) These cultural norms, tools, and mental constructs are all components of our culture, and inform the social contract.

Which i will now go on to criticise...

The major problem is that once in place new people coming along do not get to decide what is in the social contract. It has already been decided by their 'elders and betters' - imagine a feudal system where a group of people agree to feed their lord in exchange for security (their property being protected) now there is a clear social contract, but it is a verbal agreement and three generations later it has devolved into a rather unfair system which nobody agreed to. How do the peasants now respond to the social contract they are bound by but which they had no input into?

Well the modern solution to this dilemma is democracy, we assume that an informed populace can guide government to create laws which they are happy with. We try to keep input into those laws alive so that people do not feel dis-enfranchised and this is designed to reduce inequality and disruption to the system. Lots of small changes instead of waiting for a revolution - which typically upsets everyone... Ok, this may massively favour the status quo. But it is the current solutions we have come to.

Now what can you do if you don't like the 'contractual' expectations your state holds you to? Well there are a variety of activist models you could take. Disruptive actions / strategies you can engage in, in order to influence the system. The civil rights protests effected some of these - and became such a threat to the status quo that their demands were folded into the rules of the state. They became normalised, and de-radicalised. Power systems only ever capitulate when it is necessary for their own survival.

The gay rights movement is a great example; there was a time when queer rights meant the right to be different, to not subscribe to the normalizing rules and systems of family and marriage. Yet today we have a different movement which wants to normalize. They want access to traditional marriage. The conservative elements of our society have realised that they can't ignore the LGBT movement and more, and the more conservative elements of the LGBT movement (who i suspect would have been closeted in more repressive times) have managed to push for inclusion into the norms of our society.

This is a huge victory for conserving our social values by allowing small non-revolutionary changes to be pushed forward. Functionally we did not do this by re-drafting any physical contract, and asking everyone to sign up to the new terms and conditions. But practically, the social contract has changed. Rights newly extended to enfranchise a larger group of people.

Philosophers understand nothing of the actual world. Contracts, as in reciprocal promises (which is all they are under law) are a strong feature of primate societies. This kind of social bonding is of course quite complicated, but it is a key feature of our social interaction. It preexosted both law and philosophy. This business of writing promises down formally is a much later modern conceit and is merely a formalization of a rather imprecise "contract" that pretty much exists in human societies. So, yes, the social "contract has existed since primates went in for social living and it wasn't "signed or consented but nevertheless exists as a set of cultural norms that all are expected to abide by and enforced through social pressure. It isn't a consensual contract but it still represents a system of promises nonetheless

All this jibber-jabbing is all well and good but y'all need to get back to work and pay your taxes or we will punish you with imprisonment enforced at the business end of a firearm.

On the bright side, once you are locked up, you will have all the time you like to contemplate your belly buttons and other philosophical things.

I would emphasize again that social contracts exist whether one wants them or not. Laws, rights and morals only exist as social interactions. You have a "right" to something only insofar as other humans recognize it. Rights are only descriptions what other members of your society will respect. Violate social norms and the humans around you will enforce them.

Morality is only a phenomenological description of what a social group values or doesn't. Again, it exists whether philosophers like it or not.

You don't opt in, any more than you opt in to being human or the laws of physics. Doesn't mean those constraints don't exist

Okay so a few broad response before getting into how I feel about this:

So the first general trend we have is "but those are the rules, and if you don't respect them you'll go to jail."

While I do understand this, this is not what the article is talking about at all. It is simply going over the underlying principle of following laws and supposed obligations to the government simply because they are the law and as such following them must be moral and not following them immoral. The idea of going to jail is a completely different personal incentive that has nothing to do with the justification of government or the morality of following a government, and as such is not a very good response to this article at all.Though the idea of "do this or you go to jail, it doesn't matter what you believe" seems to just further exemplify how unjust government can be.

Another thing we see is "this guy is a moron/does not understand the actual world"

I just find this funny as Sheng Wu Li is the furthest thing from a moron that you can get. He won the world debating championship and currently has 4 published papers and a PhD in Economics from Stanford (http://www.shengwu.li/) and this article is mostly decrying a specific reasoning for the justification for the authority of governments, not all of them.

Then there's the argument that "the social contract exists whether we like or not, it's just not a consensual contract." and "It's as real as being human or the laws of physics".

First off, if it's not consensual it's not any kind of contract. You can not reasonably construe any arrangement where one side does something without the consent of the other as legitimate, so I don't get the point here. If you go in and paint my house when I didn't ask you to, and you ask for payment, I am not suddenly required to give you payment.

As for the comparison to being human or the laws of physics, this is totally not analogous. After all laws are constantly changing and non uniform based on location. Meanwhile I can't change the fact that I am human and the laws of physics are the same everywhere I go and don't suddenly change over time.

Also the idea that laws, rights and morals are just social constructs is perfectly fine, but that seems to be more of a justification that none of them are truly legitimate anyway than the idea that they actually exist.

Also orathic responded to the idea that people don't choose their states with the idea that people choose when they choose not to disobey in school or something like that. Problem is we are conditioned and coerced into making that choice, and coercive choice is not a choice.

Anyway, onto the impact of this idea. Clearly we can't just create a happy go lucky world with no rules and only actual contracts, I never said this, however this does mean that since no government can actually have an opt-in beyond it's inception and often have many people who can't opt-out, governments ought prioritize the maximization of rights and utilitarian outcomes for their constituents to any semblance of legitimacy. After all the only reason they exist is so that we don't all die horribly or just live miserable lives. So how do we do this?

Some people say that democracy is the way, but is this really so. As pointed out in the article even the actual act of voting does not mean the government is legitimate, but perhaps this could be ignored if democracy lead to the best outcomes for society. However, this is simply false, democracy has lead to the oppression of minorities and ignorance of actual facts for no good reason. Elected officials often get elected due to appealing to the emotions of uniformed voters, while only being slightly less uniformed themselves. This is especially dangerous when they are making changes they can not even notice, yet affect everyone (like with tax law). As such would it not be preferable if instead of electing officials based on opinion of the uninformed masses, we simply appointed experts in each field to govern the laws?

Another impact is probably that jury nullification is a very justified thing to do. No one consented to the laws set before them, especially when they can't leave, so if you disagree with the law someone is convicted upon, there is no reason to follow through just because "those are the rules" at least from a moral standpoint. Overall in situations where you won't face retribution for doing so, you really ought follow your own moral code.

Anyway, these are just some thoughts anyway, but hopefully y'all find them interesting.

"As such would it not be preferable if instead of electing officials based on opinion of the uninformed masses, we simply appointed experts in each field to govern the laws?"

Be very careful about who the "we" is that gets to appoint the experts. I am curious, Sensei, who appoints the experts?

Democracy is horrible. No doubt. Rule by the uneducated masses. The only positive thing that can be said about it is that it is better than any other option.

I echo Steve's question. Who selects the experts? If it's by public vote, that's just a slightly different form of "democracy". If some supreme authority gets to choose the experts, that sounds like a dictatorship.

@"Also orathic responded to the idea that people don't choose their states with the idea that people choose when they choose not to disobey in school or something like that. Problem is we are conditioned and coerced into making that choice, and coerci"

I was explicitally described school as the system of coercion. But i said a lot more than that... Like Life is not 'nasty brutish and short' and we are social animals.

"would it not be preferable if instead of electing officials based on opinion of the uninformed masses, we simply appointed experts in each field to govern the laws?"

Condescending arrogance bordering on insanity! Uninformed masses? You'll have to point me in the direction of this uninformed mass as I have never seen it. There is no greater expert, and no one has performed a more detailed study, on the life of Octavious than I. There is no greater authority on the life of Jamie than Jamie. There are no uninformed masses. The people who vote are all leading experts on themselves and how they fit into the world, with a lifetime of research dedicated to it.

Who better to choose the best representative for orathaic? The world's leading expert on orathaic, or a collection of academics who have never met him?

Well the collection of academics has got some good research methods...

Can i get them to advise me, and still have me choose?

This is beyond stupid. There's no utopia or Shangra La. We live in a world where laws exist. In order to be part of any society, you must abide by those laws. If you don't like certain laws you may move to another place, but obvious they will have their own set of laws. The social contract is a given. We happen to live in a place in the USA where you can change laws(good luck ;) ) but beyond that, you must live by the rules

Democracy all the way. Hoo ra

Um... Social Contract Theory was EXTREMELY flawed, I had to read a collection of David Hume's works, and here's his main concern:

Social Contract Theory implies an agreement, and cannot work without one. HE argues that the basis of working with the government is based off of utility, though altruism will occur on an individual level

http://web.nmsu.edu/~dscoccia/320web/320conserv.pdf

this is an interesting way of analyzing his argument, but it's not as in depth as simply reading some of his works.

It's a shame that kids are taught Locke in school, but might never know his name.

As far as the election of experts, the only possible system would be one heavily restricted with checks and balances, but the simple fact is that if the system is closed then corruption is possible

The system must be responsible to the people

@Vashta

“Can we seriously say, that a poor peasant or artisan has a free choice to leave his country, when he knows no foreign language or manners, and lives from day to day, by the small wages which he acquires? We may as well assert, that a man, by remaining in a vessel, freely consents to the dominion of the master; though he was carried on board while asleep, and must leap into the ocean and perish, the moment he leaves her.”

@Vashta

it's funny how similar your earlier thought and Hume's words were

@ssorenn

you also seem to be confusing social contract theory with rule of law

social contract theory implicates that we all agree with the laws... because the government has not been overthrown

thus social contract theory in countries with governments such at 1780 France... there was no social contract there, because the government was deemed wasteful and unfair.

But wait, up until that point there was obedience, so there was a social contract IN FAVOR of France according to this theory.

Thus social contract theory disappears as soon as there is violence, but that's not a choice made by society, but almost every government overthrow has been started by individuals

therefore... social contracts are an individual mandate, rather than a universal one, otherwise society would act more or less as one in the face of tyranny, but this is not, and almost never has been, in history

It doesn't matter if you agree with the laws. No one cares if you agree. Hypothetically nonsense means nothing. I can say "what if". Who cares.

unless we're making the argument for Morphogenic fields, in which case that is a scientific argument we can also have

@ssorenn

"it doesn't matter if you agree with the laws"

*rolls joint*

nothing matters man -.-

but in all seriousness, WTF does that mean? I could be the next Mussolini! (we were both born on July 29th) So I don't agree with the laws, I might overthrow society, and people like you, love revisionist history where "oh this could NEVER happen to us"

bitch please, and i'm not going to self-incriminate, but the idea that society follows all current laws, is ridiculous. Crime wouldn't exist if social contract theory existed as a universal concept.

Crime is an individual, or collection of individual's actions. Social contract theory is an abstract-all will obey idea that has never held up

It's like saying "oh yeah, i'm an immortal" right up until you die

Hypothetical nonsense means nothing


and i'm sure you have a special handbook that determines what is hypothetical nonsense and what isn't? Hypothetical "nonsense" created law.

the only way to say it's nonsense, is to have an empirical, objective rational explanation of why something cannot function, and you haven't presented that in defending social contract theory

The only way to argue in defense of social contract theory, is that there IS a true meaning in life, a true purpose, a true objective morality, that society tends to lean to, except for a few outliers.

Once again, that's a different et of arguing points, that hasn't really been proposed yet i this thread

Just like a bunch of millennials to hypothesize about things, and yet they do NOTHING

what does krellin says" dance monkeys, dance "

Ah Hume. Classic millenial

I bet that the 18-25 demographic in the Los country has the lowest percentage turn out for the up coming election. Anyone want the other side.

If you do nothing, you can change nothing. Talk is cheap

@ssorenn

now you're attacking my age group... rather than what i've said. Social contract theory has flaws, and does not hold up in historical pretexts, as well as modern ones.

if you an argue THAT. i'd appreciate it.

@ssorenn

HAHA wait you've proved my point!!!

It's INDIVIDUALS whose actions count, not some magical universal consensus!