Is there a 'social contract' in American/the world community?(think Locke/Hobbs)

[phk]

Is there a 'social contract' in American/the world community?(think Locke/Hobbs)

[MaC]

Hell, I never consented the government to take away my property rights with intent to give me an equal value.  I never consented for them to say your too stupid to save for your retirement so we'll put it into a fund.  I never consented for government to take 'reasonable' measures in controlling my personal homeland security.  I never consented for them to decide for me what's moral.  I never consented for them to determine what's healthy for me.

So short answer-no.

[Bono]

No, go read Lysander Spooner.

[phk]

Could you give me a link?

[Bono]

Could you give me a link?

Sure,
http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-0.htm

[© tweed]

Hobbes was a nut.  But Locke's theory of a social contract does pertain to the USA.  If our governmental officeholders betry us and our 'contract' we can send them packing.

[A18]

No, it was always a dumb theory, and I don't need any link to tell me that.

[A18]

Hobbes was a nut.  But Locke's theory of a social contract does pertain to the USA.  If our governmental officeholders betry us and our 'contract' we can send them packing.

Define 'us' and 'we.'

[12th Doctor]

Though I agree with Hobbes on some points, I reject the premise of his theory, as he believes that the "social contract" keeps us all from reverting back to our natural state, which is basically killing each other when we feel like it.  He looks at society as being the chief creature of "morals and values" (though not in the explicitly Christian sense) and denies the idea that man is, by nature, a social creature.  While I agree that society is the establisher of norms and values, I disagree that the natural state of man is nessesarily barbaric.  One question that I would ask is "where did all these norms come from in the first place"?  Some one had to make them up, in fact, to spread like they have, many peopel would have to make them up.  You cannot simply trace this stuff back to one source event.  It makes more sense to say that man took those things which were already a part of his charecter and made them into norms, thus the natural state of man, while not nessesarily "moral" is not "brutish" either.

[A18]

The main problem with the 'social contract' theory is that it would require unanimous consent to be a legitimate basis for government.

[12th Doctor]

The main problem with the 'social contract' theory is that it would require unanimous consent to be a legitimate basis for government.

You have to understand though, that the particulars of Hobbes theory are not that immportant, as, at the time, the government he was talking about was extremely limited (i.e. security and defense).  It is his wider theories that really merit discussion.

[Emsworth]

A contract is not valid unless all the parties involved expressly consent. Surely, one is only bound by a contract when one has agreed to it voluntarily, and without duress. To argue that a contract can bind an individual without his consent is the height of absurdity.

I will add that the consent must be express, not "implied" (or, in other words, fabricated). It has been argued that, by being born into or living in a particular society, an individual implicitly consents to the social contract. Under this argument, slavery must be considered legitimate, because each newly born slave "implicitly" consents to his servitude.

It is also absurd to think that any person would voluntarily cede the whole of his natural freedom to any government, in return for its protection. Is it reasonable to assume that any person will consent to any activity of the government whatsoever, in effect telling it, "You may bind me in any way whatsoever, deprive me of my life as you wish, restrain my liberty as you please, take as much of my property as you desire, so long as you protect me from enemies"? Why should he fear any enemy--can it do any more harm to him than this government, to which he has allegedly consigned the entirety of his rights, leaving them to do as they please?

The social contract theory, therefore, appears to be wholly flawed. Instead, I base my theory of the legitimacy of government on certain philosophical principles:

First, each person has a natural right to enjoy his life, liberty, and property, free from all coercion. Second, complete freedom from coercion can never be obtained, and the natural right of all men can never be absolutely honored. Third, a lesser coercion (that of a legitimate government, responsible for protecting from coercion, but no more) ought to be tolerated to protect from a greater coercion (that of murderers, rapists, thieves, and the like).

I accept these as "axioms" of law, so to speak (although others are of course free to follow their own theories).

[phk]

Though I agree with Hobbes on some points, I reject the premise of his theory, as he believes that the "social contract" keeps us all from reverting back to our natural state, which is basically killing each other when we feel like it.  He looks at society as being the chief creature of "morals and values" (though not in the explicitly Christian sense) and denies the idea that man is, by nature, a social creature.  While I agree that society is the establisher of norms and values, I disagree that the natural state of man is nessesarily barbaric.  One question that I would ask is "where did all these norms come from in the first place"?  Some one had to make them up, in fact, to spread like they have, many peopel would have to make them up.  You cannot simply trace this stuff back to one source event.  It makes more sense to say that man took those things which were already a part of his charecter and made them into norms, thus the natural state of man, while not nessesarily "moral" is not "brutish" either.

What points of Hobbes do you agree with?

[12th Doctor]

Though I agree with Hobbes on some points, I reject the premise of his theory, as he believes that the "social contract" keeps us all from reverting back to our natural state, which is basically killing each other when we feel like it.  He looks at society as being the chief creature of "morals and values" (though not in the explicitly Christian sense) and denies the idea that man is, by nature, a social creature.  While I agree that society is the establisher of norms and values, I disagree that the natural state of man is nessesarily barbaric.  One question that I would ask is "where did all these norms come from in the first place"?  Some one had to make them up, in fact, to spread like they have, many peopel would have to make them up.  You cannot simply trace this stuff back to one source event.  It makes more sense to say that man took those things which were already a part of his charecter and made them into norms, thus the natural state of man, while not nessesarily "moral" is not "brutish" either.

What points of Hobbes do you agree with?

Like I said, I agree with him that community is an important "civilizing factor", and that governments do need to be in place to prevent disorder.  Ummm... that's about it.

P.S.  I accuse Hobbes of backwards reasoning, since he argues that communities established this "pact" that rids people of thier "animal instincts".  I think it is the other way around.  The community was estabilshed because the inherent goodness and power of reason of people allows us to establish societies that are reflective of our already inherent moral attitudes.

[Bono]

Could you give me a link?

Sure,
http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-0.htm

So, you read it?

[phk]

Could you give me a link?

Sure,
http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-0.htm

So, you read it?

He makes good points in references to the ciivil war.

[© tweed]

Hobbes was a nut.  But Locke's theory of a social contract does pertain to the USA.  If our governmental officeholders betry us and our 'contract' we can send them packing.

Define 'us' and 'we.'

'the general public' and 'the general public'