Why Statists Always Get it Wrong

As has already been argued by N. Stephan Kinsella, he totally misses Rothbard's point. Furthermore, he fails to show why people would not choose to voluntarily pay for services which would benefit them double, as has been pointed out by Bob Kaercher.

Even so, I wish to offer another analysis of Milsted's reasoning. His article is a good example of why statists always seem to get it wrong — and why they always fail to understand what we're talking about. The bottom line is that they fail to realize the costs of force due to their unwillingness to see the state for what it is. I will therefore use Milsted's own example to shed light on his fundamental mistake.

Milsted takes the case of national defense, which is commonly considered an institution that would face the free rider problem if supplied on the market. Argues Milsted: "suppose the majority assesses a tax on everyone to spread the burden of supporting the new defense system. This is theft of the minority. However, suppose that the economies of scale are such that this tax is less than half of what people would have had to pay for defense on their own."

That's the argument, plain and simple. If it is morally permissible to steal when the victim is compensated double, the equation seems to fit. Well, let's look into this in more detail and see if it really does.

First, consider a situation where everybody benefits, say, $10,000 on a yearly basis from being protected by a national defense. That would mean, if the premise is correct, that it would be morally permissible to force costs of no more than $5,000 on everybody.

Were it a company supplying a service worth $10,000 to each of its customers paying only $5,000 for it, this would be easy. Anyone willing to pay the $5,000 would get the service, and the costs associated with administration and so forth would have to be covered by the $5,000 paid. But Milsted argues the $5,000 should be taxed, and that makes it much more difficult.

First of all, we know state-run businesses and authorities (especially if they are monopolies) tend to be much less efficient than private enterprises. That means people in Milstedistan would get less than they would in a free market society. But even so, there is still the cost of coercion totally neglected by Milsted in his article.

Forcing people to pay for a service means there will always be someone who tries to avoid paying or even refuses to pay. So "we" (i.e., the state) need to invest in collection services to get the money. Now, let's say Murray, who is one of the people we're trying to coerce, goes out to buy a rifle and then declares that he's "anti-government, so get the hell off my property." Perhaps he even threatens to kill the collection agents. Dealing with him would take a whole lot more out of the budget, meaning there is even less to provide for the defense (which is the reason we're in business in the first place).

But that's not all. Let's say Murray won't give us the money no matter how much we ask or threaten him. We will simply have to take it by force, so we need to invest in the necessary tools and we go out to hire a dozen brutes to do the forcing. (More money down the drain … ) It is already pretty obvious we're in a very expensive business; there will not be much defense left if there are a lot of Murrays in our society.

Now imagine our hired brutes go down the street to Murray's house and knock on his door. He sticks his rifle out the window and shouts something about having the right to his property and that he will shoot to kill. Anyway, the brutes try to open his door only to find it is locked and barred. They will have to break in to finally get their hands on Murray's cash.

Our small army goes back to their van to get their tools, then returns to break down Murray's door. Going inside, they manage to avoid all the bullets Murray is firing and they tie him up and put him in the closet. They eventually find that he does not have any valuables and that he keeps his cash in a locked safe. So they have to break it to get the money.

Now we have a problem. To make this operation morally permissible, the benefit to Murray, which we know is $10,000, must be at least double the cost forced on him. The cost is now a whole lot more than the cost of the national defense; it includes administration and collection costs, hiring the brutes and their tools, as well as the broken door and safe, and the time and suffering (and perhaps medical expenses) Murray has lost while we were stealing from him. How much do you think is left from the original $5,000 to invest in a national defense? Not much.

What if Murray suffers from paranoia and therefore had invested $1,500 in an advanced special security door and $2,000 in an extra security safe? Then the total cost of simply getting into Murray's safe would probably exceed the $5,000 we are "allowed" to steal. What then? Should we break in anyway since it is a mandatory tax, only to give him a check to cover what's above the $5,000 mark? That doesn't sound right.

But on the other hand, if we just let him be, more people would do the same as Murray only to get off, and we would have a huge problem on our hands. This is a typical state dilemma: it costs too much to force money from some people, but it would probably be much more "expensive" in the long run not to. It's a lose-lose situation.

Now, what if Murray is very poor and doesn't have the $5,000? Then we would have to take whatever he's got and make him work off the rest. We need to get the $5,000 to cover our expenses of the national defense, and we have the right to take that amount from him. It could, of course, be argued he couldn't possibly benefit $10,000 from a national defense if he has no money and no property. If we trust Austrian economics, that might very well be correct; the benefit of national defense would, like any other product or service, be valued subjectively and thus the benefit would be different for each and every individual.

If this is true, it means we have an even greater problem: the state can rightfully levy costs of a maximum of half the subjective benefit enjoyed. Well, that's a task that would keep an army of Nobel Prize winners busy for a while. If possible, I wonder how much that would cost in the end.

This is the problem statists face on an everyday basis when discussing philosophy and politics. It is easy to make nice equations and formulas, and theorize on great systems and cheap solutions neatly enforced by the state. But when consistently failing to realize the costs of coercion it makes their reasoning fundamentally flawed. Just scratching the surface reveals they really have no clue whatsoever.

Per Bylund works as a business consultant in Sweden, in preparation for PhD studies. He is the founder of Anarchism.net. Send him mail. Visit his website. Comment on the blog.

Good grief. Who taught you logic?

My PhD is in math, which makes me a professional user of logic (in the same sense that an engineer is a professional user of math). The main reason I continue discussing with you at all is that I can't resist the urge to teach: in other words, I'm trying in vain to teach you logic.

The subject of the debate is: "Is there such a thing in reality as a 'social contract'?" You are affirming, and I am denying. I've offered some cogent arguments against the notion of "social contracts". But rather than trying to prove your position, you keep appealing to the assertion that the Constitution is an example of one. In one case, you cite an essay which also assumes the result under debate--namely, that social contracts are real. So far, you've made no attempt to actually prove that social contracts are real, nor to rebut any of my arguments that they aren't.

How silly. you are making a circular argument that I "can't argue that the Constitution is a valid social contract", -- because you dispute that premise. --

For starters, you're misusing the word "premise": a premise is something you assume true for the sake of argument. If we're arguing about the Constitution's status as a social contract, you most certainly cannot assume it as a premise. If it really is a "premise", then you're arguing in a circle again (which you are).

But secondly, I'm not trying to "disprove" your assertion by assuming its negation, which would indeed be circular logic. Instead, I'm pointing out that your assertion is flawed, because you have failed to prove your assumption that social contracts exist in the first place. You might as well claim the Constitution is "divinely inspired" without proving that there is such a thing as "divine inspiration," or that it's clauses are "magic words of power," without proving that there's such a thing as "magic words of power."

You want to 'debate' their existence by insisting that they can not exist.

No, I want to debate their existence by proving that they don't exist. You, on the other hand, are "debating" their existence by assuming they do exist.

Free clue: an existence debate always follows the same pattern. First, you define what it is you're claiming exists. Second, you provide, by logical argument, a test to determine whether something is or isn't an example of one. Finally, you exhibit the example and show how it passes the test you've given. There's a fancier form, used to argue the existence of "dark matter" or of "God", but that needn't concern us for the moment.

I handled my end of the argument by attacking the definition in two ways.

First, I proved (by contradiction) that a "social contract", whatever it is, cannot possibly be a "contract." Briefly, the proof is to observe that a "contract" is "a voluntary agreement among two or more parties," and noting that a "social contract" is not entered into on a voluntary basis. This leaves only the possibility that a "social contract" is a "contract of adhesion"--i.e., a "shrinkwrap license"--where being born is interpreted as consent to the terms of the contract. An unborn child cannot consent to anything, and did not choose to be born; therefore a "social contract" is also not a valid contract of adhesion. QED

Second, I cited Hobbes's operational definition of the social contract, by proving that his claimed process for creating them cannot possibly have ever occurred in human history. Specifically, humans never existed in a "state of nature" in which all struggled against all, from which they emerged by devising a "social contract." Rather, we know that all mammals, and in fact all chordata, have a social structure of the sort Hobbes considers a "social contract." Therefore such structures predate sentience, and could not possibly have been devised purposely by rational beings. QED

So far, you haven't actually said what a social contract is, so it's hard to attack your definition. I've attacked, and destroyed, all the available definitions, which is the best I can do under the circumstances. The burden of proof is on you to say what they're supposed to be, as the first step toward proving that one exists. When you do, I'll smash your definition, sending you back to square one. Until you do, any statement about "social contracts" will essentially be begging the question.

You've claimed to have:

-- proved that a "social contract" cannot possibly be a "contract." --here:

Briefly, the proof is to observe that a "contract" is "a voluntary agreement among two or more parties," and noting that a "social contract" is not entered into on a voluntary basis.

Fact -- Our Constitution was, and is, a contract among all the citizens of the USA, and is entered voluntarily upon adulthood. -- Anyone is free to renounce their citizenship and/or leave this country to avoid honoring Constitutional law.

This leaves only the possibility that a "social contract" is a "contract of adhesion"--i.e., a "shrinkwrap license"--where being born is interpreted as consent to the terms of the contract. An unborn child cannot consent to anything, and did not choose to be born; therefore a "social contract" is also not a valid contract of adhesion.

Pointless argument. The fact is you are free to leave the USA as an adult, as pointed out above.

--- humans never existed in a "state of nature" in which all struggled against all, from which they emerged by devising a "social contract."

Rather, we know that all mammals, and in fact all chordata, have a social structure of the sort Hobbes considers a "social contract."

You admit social contracts exist in mammals. -- Thank you.

Therefore such structures predate sentience, and could not possibly have been devised purposely by rational beings.

Your conclusion that rational human beings "could not possibly" devise a Constitutional social contract, --- because "such structures predate sentience" is akin to your "magic words of power" argument.
How droll.

So far, you haven't actually said what a social contract is, so it's hard to attack your definition.

Here's a pretty good preamble to & definition of a social contract:

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Fact -- Our Constitution was, and is, a contract among all the citizens of the USA, and is entered voluntarily upon adulthood.

There you go making assertions again. The fact is that only naturalized citizens and members of the military can truly be said to have "entered voluntarily" into the contract. At no point in my life have I sworn an oath or signed a contract. I am certainly not a signatory.

Your answer is, "then leave". That's what a "contract of adhesion" says: "by opening this package you agree to sacrifice your children to Moloch, serve as Bill Gates's cabaña boy, etc., etc..." You are saying that I accept the terms and conditions by remaining inside the country's borders. The reality is that no such contract exists. I already answered the case that it inheres upon birth, by pointing out that birth was not a choice.

You introduced a new definition: namely, that citizenship is a contract of adhesion that one enters upon turning 18. That's false too, but I haven't addressed it before. There are three arguments against this theory:

First, if such a contract of adhesion existed, there must exist an adhesing party. You (or someone in this thread) denied that the government is the "other party" to the "social contract," which leaves no adhesing party at all.
Second, the adhesing party must assert his/her/its rights per the contract. So if we say, for the sake of argument, that the government is a party, just to ensure that the contract actually has two parties, then we observe the government has not ever asserted its rights per the contract: namely, it has never deported anyone for breach of the social contract. The government has never attempted to enforce the terms, "abide by the contract, or else leave the country."
Third, constitutional rights are applied to minors as well as adults. Therefore, the privileges of alleged the "social contract" accrue to minors; but this is only possible if the obligations of the contract also accrue to minors. Therefore, it is not possible that the contract comes into force at age 18.

You admit social contracts exist in mammals. -- Thank you.

Very much the opposite, unless you're making the absurd claim that mongooses can make contracts. Mongooses have a complex social order, based on a mating pair, their offspring, and various old adults and batchelor hangers-on. You're claiming these mongooses have a "social contract," which utterly beggars the meaning of the word "contract."

Which is exactly my point. If you actually read Hobbes, he claims that man in his natural state is involved in perpetual conflict, and that certain smarter-than-average individuals discovered "civilization" when they made a contract, and then began enforcing it on the people around them. I prove him wrong by pointing out that long before man had language, or even sentience, he had a social structure. Centuries passed, and a human named "Hobbes" invented a completely ahistorical explanation for the development of that social structure. Among other things, the complete ahistoricity of Hobbes's theory utterly beggars the meaning of the term "natural state".

Fact -- Our Constitution was, and is, a contract among all the citizens of the USA, and is entered voluntarily upon adulthood.

The fact is that only naturalized citizens and members of the military can truly be said to have "entered voluntarily" into the contract.

Read Article VI. All officials are also sworn. -- And all citizens are obligated to support the Constitution, as our oath of citizenship makes clear. You want to pretend it doesn't apply to you? Feel free to scoff.

At no point in my life have I sworn an oath or signed a contract. I am certainly not a signatory.

Would you refuse? Ever served on a jury? Voted? If so, you've exercised some of the duties of citizenship.

Your answer is, "then leave".

Yep, you don't like our Constitutional social contract? Feel free to leave and start a company where you can ban guns [maybe mexico?]

You are saying that I accept the terms and conditions by remaining inside the country's borders.

Exactly. Everyone in the USA is subject to our Constitutional contracts rule of law.

The reality is that no such contract exists.

Beg that fact.

I already answered the case that it inheres upon birth, by pointing out that birth was not a choice.

So what? You are a US citizen by birth, but you are free to renounce your citizenship when you are no longer a child. Until then "yo momma" tells you what to do.

You introduced a new definition: namely, that citizenship is a contract of adhesion that one enters upon turning 18.

Nope, -- citizenship is a contract that one can `renounce` upon turning 18. [or maybe earlier]

That's false too, but I haven't addressed it before. There are three arguments against this theory: First, if such a contract of adhesion existed, there must exist an adhesing party. You (or someone in this thread) denied that the government is the "other party" to the "social contract," which leaves no adhesing party at all.

Sigh. -- ALL the people of the USA are the parties to our Constitutional contract.

Second, the adhesing party must assert his/her/its rights per the contract. So if we say, for the sake of argument, that the government is a party, just to ensure that the contract actually has two parties, then we observe the government has not ever asserted its rights per the contract:

The government is a not party. -- It is our legislative, executive & judicial servant. It can deport.

namely, it has never deported anyone for breach of the social contract. The government has never attempted to enforce the terms, "abide by the contract, or else leave the country."

Bull. People are deported every day, for a multitude of reasons. - Among them are anti-social criminals.

Third, constitutional rights are applied to minors as well as adults. Therefore, the privileges of alleged the "social contract" accrue to minors; but this is only possible if the obligations of the contract also accrue to minors. Therefore, it is not possible that the contract comes into force at age 18.

Arguing the obvious. Yes -- constitutional rights are applied to minors as well as adults.

You admit social contracts exist in mammals. -- Thank you.

Very much the opposite, unless you're making the absurd claim that mongooses can make contracts.

That's an absurd sophomoric argument izzy. -- I'm arguing the humans are mammals that make social contracts.

Mongooses have a complex social order, based on a mating pair, their offspring, and various old adults and batchelor hangers-on. You're claiming these mongooses have a "social contract," which utterly beggars the meaning of the word "contract."

Amusing, but rave on

Yep, man has had social contracts for a long time. You shot your own foot again izzy.

Centuries passed, and a human named "Hobbes" invented a completely ahistorical explanation for the development of that social structure. Among other things, the complete ahistoricity of Hobbes's theory utterly beggars the meaning of the term "natural state".

I fail to see how your 'thing' about Hobbes disproves the fact of a Constitutional social contract izzy.

And all citizens are obligated to support the Constitution, as our oath of citizenship makes clear.

Natural-born citizens, like me, never take that oath. When you say I'm "obligated," you're back to talking about a contract I never signed.

Would you refuse? Ever served on a jury? Voted? If so, you've exercised some of the duties of citizenship.

It happens that, as part of my church's beliefs, I have never done either of those things. I'm also a conscientious objector. And before you get all righteous about it, please recall, as I said earlier, that colonial America was perfectly lousy with Quakers. Tommy Jefferson was OK with it, so you should be too.

Yep, you don't like our Constitutional social contract?

Never said I didn't like it; in fact I'm quite fond of it, and have already demonstrated that, despite my disagreements, I'm much closer to the original intent than you are. However, as for the "social contract" part, I remark that the Constitution isn't one of those, seeing as I've proven there's no such thing.

So what? You are a US citizen by birth, but you are free to renounce your citizenship when you are no longer a child.

But the part that you're missing is extremely fundamental. Namely, if a "social contract" is indeed a contract, then I come under it by means of some sort of agreement between myself and another party. I can't possibly make that agreement as a newborn, and more than a mongoose can ever make such an agreement. Yet I'm deemed to be subject to that "contract" from the moment I'm born. Thus, a "social contract," even if it exists, is not a contract. QED

People are deported every day, for a multitude of reasons. - Among them are anti-social criminals.

Your proof? Hint: don't wear yourself out! Afroyim v Rusk found that no citizen may ever be involuntarily stripped of his citizenship. This applies equally to natural and naturalized citizens. The deportation of non-citizens, of course, has nothing to do with any "social contract" binding citizens.

I'm arguing the humans are mammals that make social contracts.

And I'm countering with the observation that mongooses have similar social arrangements, and yet clearly do not make social contracts. The apes from which we sprang had social groups, but did not make social contracts. The conclusion follows that human social groupings are a product of evolution, pre-dating the development of sentience, and therefore cannot possibly be the result of a social contract. Get it?

Yep, man has had social contracts for a long time. You shot your own foot again izzy.

You're failing to notice how long! Man has had "social contracts" ever since he was a gerbil-like rodent hiding from the dinosaurs. This proves that no "contract" was involved, unless gerbil-like rodents can now make contracts.

-- all citizens are obligated to support the Constitution, as our oath of citizenship makes clear.

Natural-born citizens, like me, never take that oath.

Very few would refuse. I'd like to see an amendment that taking the oath be a prerequisite to voting for candidates to national office.

When you say I'm "obligated," you're back to talking about a contract I never signed.

Would you refuse? Ever served on a jury? Voted? If so, you've exercised some of the duties of citizenship.

It happens that, as part of my church's beliefs, I have never done either of those things. I'm also a conscientious objector.

That explains a lot. Thanks.

And before you get all righteous about it, please recall, as I said earlier, that colonial America was perfectly lousy with Quakers. Tommy Jefferson was OK with it, so you should be too.

Yep, you don't like our Constitutional social contract?

Never said I didn't like it; in fact I'm quite fond of it, and have already demonstrated that, despite my disagreements, I'm much closer to the original intent than you are.

Dream on. I've actually defended it. You refuse.

However, as for the "social contract" part, I remark that the Constitution isn't one of those, seeing as I've proven there's no such thing.

Again, you're begging. -- Poor logic.

-- You are a US citizen by birth, but you are free to renounce your citizenship when you are no longer a child.

Which, if you actually learn something about contracts of adhesion, is not a valid contractual arrangement. It's difficult discussing the subject with you, if you won't inform yourself on any relevant aspect of the subject. Contracts of adhesion are limited in certain critical ways, and here I'm talking about actual US law. Most importantly, in US law any presumption or doubt is resolved against the adhesing party. One great-big gonzo doubt is that "I could not have entered such a contract, on the grounds that I wasn't even legally a person at the time." But the part that you're missing is extremely fundamental. Namely, if a "social contract" is indeed a contract, then I come under it by means of some sort of agreement between myself and another party. I can't possibly make that agreement as a newborn, and more than a mongoose can ever make such an agreement.

Your parents made it for you. -- and theirs for them, back to the founders. -- Anyone can renounce citizenship.

Yet I'm deemed to be subject to that "contract" from the moment I'm born.

Yes, you are a part of our Constitutional contract from birth. - Most people are proud.

Thus, a "social contract," even if it exists, is not a contract. QED

People are deported every day, for a multitude of reasons.

Your proof? Hint: don't wear yourself out! Afroyim v Rusk found that no citizen may ever be involuntarily stripped of his citizenship. This applies equally to natural and naturalized citizens.

Thanks for the Afroyim cite, interesting case. I see you've studied this subject in detail.

The deportation of non-citizens, of course, has nothing to do with any "social contract" binding citizens.

I'm arguing the humans are mammals that make social contracts.

And I'm countering with the observation that mongooses have similar social arrangements, and yet clearly do not make social contracts.

Apples & oranges. Our Constitution is a detailed social contract; mongoose 'social arrangements' have no similarities.

The apes from which we sprang had social groups, but did not make social contracts. The conclusion follows that human social groupings are a product of evolution, pre-dating the development of sentience, and therefore cannot possibly be the result of a social contract. Get it?

No, -- your 'following' conclusion is illogical nonsense.. No one 'gets it'.

-- man has had social contracts for a long time. You shot your own foot again izzy.

You're failing to notice how long! Man has had "social contracts" ever since he was a gerbil-like rodent hiding from the dinosaurs. This proves that no "contract" was involved, unless gerbil-like rodents can now make contracts.

Gerbils? Good lord izzy. Get a grip.

That explains a lot. Thanks.

Actually, it doesn't--but I'm sure it tempts you to draw all sorts of unwarranted conclusions. What else is new?

Your parents made it for you. -- and theirs for them, back to the founders.

I can't sign a contract for you. You can't sign one for me. I can't sign one for my parents, and they can't sign one for me. That's how contracts work. You are proving my point: the "social contract," if there is such a thing, is most certainly not a contract.

Apples & oranges. Our Constitution is a detailed social contract; mongoose 'social arrangements' have no similarities.

On the contrary, the Constitution is hardly the first "social contract"; in fact Thomas Hobbes died more than a century before the Constitution was written. His "social contracts" include tribal arrangements of the sort formed by stone-age man... which are exactly analogous to mongoose social arrangements.

Gerbils? Good lord izzy. Get a grip.

The earliest known placental mammal lived 75 million years ago, and resembled a shrew. Here's an artist's reconstruction from fossil evidence:

That creature undoubtedly had social groupings, given that it gave birth to live babies that it then nursed. So not only did man have social groupings; so did our earliest mammalian ancestor, which as I've remarked resembled a gerbil. That's not the earliest example, however: evidence from dinosaur tracks suggests that they also had social groupings, which in turn suggests that a common ancestor of dinosaurs and mammals also had social groupings. So social contracts predate man even in his "gerbil" phase, back when he was an amphibious amniote some 350 million years ago.

Ever served on a jury? Voted? If so, you've exercised some of the duties of citizenship.

It happens that, as part of my church's beliefs, I have never done either of those things. I'm also a conscientious objector.

That explains a lot. Thanks.

Actually, it doesn't--but I'm sure it tempts you to draw all sorts of unwarranted conclusions. What else is new?

Your background was new to me, and explains where you are coming from. Sorry bout that, but now I understand a lot more about your attitudes on this thread.

Your parents made 'it' [a decision to raise you in this country] for you. -- and theirs for them, back to the founders.

I can't sign a contract for you. You can't sign one for me. I can't sign one for my parents, and they can't sign one for me. That's how contracts work.

Our Constiututions contract doesn't need signing. -- You live here, -- you support our rule of constitutional law. -- You don't like constitutional law in a free republic? - Tough. You are free to leave. You are not free to ignore the rights of your peers, however. They can keep a gun in their trunk.

You are proving my point: the "social contract," if there is such a thing, is most certainly not a contract.

Dream on of apples & oranges.
Our Constitution is a detailed social contract; mongoose 'social arrangements' have no similarities.

On the contrary, the Constitution is hardly the first "social contract";

-- Who said it was the first? -- Social contracts are part of the history of mankind.

in fact Thomas Hobbes died more than a century before the Constitution was written.

So what? You have a really hang up about Hobbes, even though no one here is defending him. Weird obsession.

His "social contracts" include tribal arrangements of the sort formed by stone-age man... which are exactly analogous to mongoose social arrangements.

Sigh. -- OK -- Sure thing izzy. Mongoose = Hobbes.. - Whatever you say.

But Gerbils? Good lord izzy. Get a grip.

The earliest known placental mammal lived 75 million years ago, and resembled a shrew. Here's an artist's reconstruction from fossil evidence: That creature undoubtedly had social groupings, given that it gave birth to live babies that it then nursed. So not only did man have social groupings; so did our earliest mammalian ancestor, which as I've remarked resembled a gerbil. That's not the earliest example, however: evidence from dinosaur tracks suggests that they also had social groupings, which in turn suggests that a common ancestor of dinosaurs and mammals also had social groupings. So social contracts predate man even in his "gerbil" phase, back when he was an amphibious amniote some 350 million years ago.

Stark raving..

Then it isn't a contract. Thanks for admitting it.

Do you ever tire of playing your juvenile word games izzy? -- I'm starting to wonder about how based on reality anything you post can be. You don't write like a math PhD who is concerned about religion, truth & credibility. -- And:

--- You have a really hang up about Hobbes, even though no one here is defending him. Weird obsession.

Orwell was right about one thing: ignorance is strength. Since you know nothing about the theory of "social contracts,"

Yet another in a long line of unsupported juvenile "yo momma" type comments.

of course the name of the guy that invented it would mean nothing to you.

I've read enough Hobbes to know I don't much agree with him. Why you obsess about him however, - escapes me.

Your ignorance makes you invincible.

Stark raving..

Once again, ignorance makes you invincible. Feel free to point out any error I may have made concerning the evolutionary history of humans.

I was commenting on your weird bit about gerbils, izzy. Read much?

Do you ever tire of playing your juvenile word games izzy? -- I'm starting to wonder about how based on reality anything you post can be.

Try something you've never tried before. Try saying what a contract is, what a "social" contract is, and how the Constitution is one. You'll find it eye opening.

Yet another in a long line of unsupported juvenile "yo momma" type comments.

On the contrary, you're the one who expressed incredulity that I should keep mentioning Hobbes in this context. Such incredulity can only mean one thing: you don't understand where Hobbes fits into the picture. Which is consistent with the fact that you've never tried to define "social contract," and appear not to know what one is. I, on the other hand, have defined it several times now.

I was commenting on your weird bit about gerbils, izzy. Read much?

That's why I mentioned the invincibility of ignorance. You're incredulous that I should claim that we're descended from a creature resembling a gerbil. If you were familiar with the oldest known placental mammal, Eomaia Scansoria, you would also know that it did indeed resemble a gerbil. Here's another picture for you:

As I said, your incredulity can only be attributed to ignorance. The pattern is quite consistent. I remark that tribal structures, which are supposedly "social contracts," are in fact found in every species of mammal, and hence by inference were found among Eomaia Scansoria some 75 million years ago.

This proves that social structure is not at all the product of rational thought, but is rather the evolutionary product of parental caretaking. If no thought is involved, then it's abundantly clear that no agreement is involved. And if no agreement is involved, then whatever it is, it certainly isn't a contract. When you keep asserting otherwise, with no attempt at proof, you're crediting the human mind with something that has much more to do with the human breast.

“You may or may not have realized it, but you are suggesting it:”

“It” being (from your post 324) …”that the land owner might now say, "I want you off my land in one second... ONE! OK, now you're a trespasser!" and start shooting.”

That last quote is part of the following: “Supposing you are on his property because you were allowed on, he can't defend his property against your "trespassing", because you aren't trespassing. What you're suggesting is that the land owner might now say, "I want you off my land in one second... ONE! OK, now you're a trespasser!" and start shooting.” That was said in a response to my post 321.

What I said in my post 321 was “It looks like you’re saying that if he wants he can ban the life and liberty of others; that if they are on his property, the owner can kill someone at will or prevent someone from leaving.”

That was in response to your “…he can ban anything he wants on his property…” in your post 311.

I did not say anything about trespassing or anybody changing their mind after allowing somebody to do something or about setting time limits.

I’m not a professional user of logic, but it seems to me that you offered an imitation of what I said, knocked it down, and gave the appearance (at least superficially) of negating what I said.

If you want to negate what I said, you have to start with what I said

All I said was “It looks like you’re saying that if he wants he can ban the life and liberty of others; that if they are on his property, the owner can kill someone at will or prevent someone from leaving” and I said it because it looks to me like your saying that when you say “…he can ban anything he wants on his property…”

What you need to do is demonstrate why it doesn’t look like your saying “…that if he wants he can ban the life and liberty of others; that if they are on his property, the owner can kill someone at will or prevent someone from leaving” when you said “…he can ban anything he wants on his property…”

But don’t actually try to do that. You’re going to have other things to do.

Shalom Israel wrote: “An "implied" contract is actually "implied" by something--namely, the parties' own voluntary words and actions. “

I’d say they also have to have a mutual understanding of the voluntary words and actions and I think that leads back to the social contract.

Shalom Israel wrote: “There's no way I can bind you by an "implicit contract" against your will. It's in no way analogous to a "social contract", which binds me from birth through no action of mine.”

Disregarding the truth or falsity of your first sentence, neither I nor tpaine (if I recall correctly) have said a “social contract” binds you from birth through no action of yours. One way or another we have both said that you can opt out. I say that you can be an outlaw and in short tpaine says that you are free to “renounce citizenship and/or leave.”

I’m not a professional user of logic, but it seems to me that you offered an approximation of what we say, knock it down, and gave the appearance (at least superficially) of negating it.

I see most of your PS as containing arguments in favor of the concept of the social contract, but it does not please me to address that right now.

Shalom Israel wrote to tpaine:

“So far, you haven't actually said what a social contract is, so it's hard to attack your definition. I've attacked, and destroyed, all the available definitions, which is the best I can do under the circumstances. The burden of proof is on you to say what they're supposed to be, as the first step toward proving that one exists. When you do, I'll smash your definition, sending you back to square one. Until you do, any statement about "social contracts" will essentially be begging the question.”

Smash these:

an actual or hypothetical contract providing the legitimate basis of sovereignty and civil society and of the rights and duties constituting the role of citizen. The contract can be agreed between people and a proposed sovereign or among the people themselves.

agreement among all the people in a society to give up part of their freedom to a government in exchange for protection of natural rights. John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were two European political philosophers who wrote about this concept.

A theory on how government and societies began. Contractarians hold that societies were formed by the consent of the populations of various areas who decided, for whatever reasons (these vary from philosopher to philosopher) that it would be to their mutual advantage to band together and cooperate.

This is a core component of the liberal tradition. The social contract, which has its roots in earlier feudal traditions, is used by liberal theorists like Hobbes and Locke to define the conditions under which people will leave the state of nature. People living in the state of nature find at certain point that they can continue living in the state of nature. ...

an implicit agreement among people that results in the organization of society; individual surrenders liberty in return for protection

Social contract is a phrase used in philosophy, political science, and sociology to denote a real or hypothetical agreement within a state regarding the rights and responsibilities of the state and its citizens, or more generally a similar concord between a group and its members. All members within a society are assumed to agree to the terms of the social contract by their choice to stay within the society.

Jean-Jaques Rousseau's Social Contract greatly differed from that of Thomas Hobbes. For Hobbes, the contract was an agreement between society and its government. For Rousseau, it was an agreement between individuals to create a society and a government. Like John Locke, Rousseau believed that a government should come from the consent of the governed. ...

An agreement among the members of an organized society or between the governed and the government defining and limiting the rights and duties of each.

Social contract theory (or contractarianism) is a concept used in philosophy, political science and sociology to denote an implicit agreement within a state regarding the rights and responsibilities of the state and its citizens, or more generally a similar concord between a group and its members, or between individuals. All members within a society are assumed to agree to the terms of the social contract by their choice to stay within the society without violating the contract; such violation would signify an attempt to return to the state of nature. Thomas Hobbes (1651), John Locke (1689) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) are the most famous philosophers of contractarianism, which is the theoretical groundwork of liberalism and democracy.

And when you smash them, please do so without offering an approximation or imitation of the definition, smashing that and then claiming to have smashed the original.

I told you you were going to have other things to do.

For tpaine: If he declines to “smash” for me because his post was to you, I respectfully request you cut and paste the above definitions and send them to him.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Why Statists Always Get it Wrong

by Per Bylund