What is it, to be governed?

Post Reply New Topic

When did I sign a social contract? Because I read everything I sign and keep a very strict record, and I don't remember that one. We say it is dishonest to hide important clauses in fine, unreadable print when we sign normal contracts; if just living with people means I must implicitly accept a list of random laws, then I'll have to find my receipt, because I want a refund.

Not that I want the war of all against all, but the expression "social contract" is very bizarre. I think there are much better ways nowadays to explain the situation than the word three-hundred-year-old philosophers. I don't know enough for my own taste, but I think social psychology has many answers better than theirs, or at least it uses less flawed assumptions.

I don't think state, law or anything else is justified because of some dishonest trick I would not even accept of my next door neighbour. I just believe it is useful. I would agree to despotism (traditional meaning) or anarchy, to the most brutal autocracy or to the mildest social democracy, if it served global interests better.

As for property... I don't think it is "theft", but I don't think it is justified. In the best cases, it might be partly justifiable. In the worst cases (which include land ownership), it is like that businessman in Le Petit prince, counting the stars he owns because no one claimed them before. However, rashly destroying it would rather harm than heal, I believe, and probably would not solve anything in the long run, as powerful dominants groups always form. What is useful is better than what is "justified".

It's as much based on reciprocity as on risk / benefit assessment and fear of retaliation. If you depend on a regular supply of certain goods from a merchant in your village, it is unwise to get on his wrong side by cheating him or stealing from him. You also have to consider the possibility that he sends a few heavily built business affiliates or family members to teach you a lesson. But when a stranger passes through town, there is no loss for you and no risk of retaliation if you beat him over the head, take his belongings and dump the body in the river. Hence the need for a body of laws and people who are capable of enforcing them.

Your point?

If people are going to hem and haw over the word "social contract" that they "never signed" then just substitute "social obligation" instead. You can opt out by moving to Antarctica or putting a bullet through your own head. Existence itself is never free because nature is a cruel b***h. People must eat in order to survive and in most cases people must work cooperatively in order to eat.

I think this debate is not fundamentally rational as both sides will merely assert their own legal imperatives regarding the role of government based on what their own personality traits cause them to see as desirable.

My cooperatively, you mean by force.

You leave out any possibility of voluntary association being the glue which holds society together. No, instead we need everyone to become slaves under a monolithic authoritarian system for society to function.

No. The world is not black-and-white like that.