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.
-- 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.
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.
Hmmmm.. This is the second time I've seen you tout your PhD in math.
The rigors of logic in math do not, in your case, help you to be logical in libertarian and constitutional matters, in my humble opinion.
“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.