This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The Social Contract

Apparently, the reason why I have to obey the buffoons in Whitehall is because of the "social contract".

I just thought I'd ask. Since I'm bound by the social contract, please could someone tell me where I can get a copy of the social contract which I have signed.

A simple question: where is the social contract? Is it anything but vapour?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Lawz-

tommorris

What do you mean "have to"?

Essentially there are two reasons to obey:

a) Consequences
b) Belief that overall it is better for as all to make collective edecisions through representatives than to make individual choices on what is right and wrong.

Of course you can choose to ignore it.

Reply 2

tommorris

Followers of both Marx and Rousseau tell me that there is a Social Contract. I just simply to know where my signed contract is.

Reply 3

Howard

tommorris

Followers of both Marx and Rousseau tell me that there is a Social Contract. I just simply to know where my signed contract is.

You signed it with the spilled blood of liberty (waxing poetic today)

Reply 4

Lawz-

tommorris

Followers of both Marx and Rousseau tell me that there is a Social Contract. I just simply to know where my signed contract is.

it goes like this:

You can choose not to sign up - but then if you dont feel beholden to society - you cant expect it to feel beholden to you.

Feel free to do as you wish - but expect society to do the same to you in response.

Reply 5

Lawz-

Howard

You signed it with the spilled blood of liberty (waxing poetic today)

haha... rare form ... the blood of liberty - I think you've been in the USA quite long enough now.

Reply 6

SevenDeuceOff

It is agreed to tacitly, not literally; because you have chosen to remain where you are, even though you are free to leave the constituency if you do not wish to comply with the contract.

That's the theory, at least.

Reply 7

Howard

Lawz-

haha... rare form ... the blood of liberty - I think you've been in the USA quite long enough now.

Yes. Time to reclaim my sanity and come back I think. Actually, I'll be in the UK next week; a whole week sitting in a series of pubs and Indian restaurants. Can't wait! :smile:

Reply 8

tommorris

/\Shaz\/

That's not a contract. It's coercion.

Reply 9

gideon2000uk

You're right. The reason the social contract doesn't work is that there was never an original position of natural liberty where we all agreed to the constraints of government. However the argument does work as a thought experiment.

The best modern proponent is probably Rawls.

Who argues that in an original position of equality, behind a 'veil of ignorence' where all specific information about our social position is removed we are forced to choose a society with maximum liberty compatible with a like liberty for all and where social and economic equality is to the benefit of the lest advantage (because in such an orighinal positon thst could be us, for we know nothingo f our place in the social order).

So we see that by removing arbitrary considerations in an original position of equality we come up with a constitution which is quite liberal and re-distributive.

Reply 10

tommorris

So, if there's no signed copy, there really is no contract. Or is it a verbal contract? Has it ever been enforced in a court of law?

If it's not legally enforceable, it's all a bit of a farce really.

If there is an actual written, signed legal document, I really want to see it. You're all here - the socialists, the racists, the nationalists, the neocons, the Islington liberals, the academics. Here's your chance. Show me my contract!

Reply 11

SevenDeuceOff

tommorris

This is getting silly. As explained by me and others, in contractarian political theories, there is no actual contract to sign; it is merely a tacit agreement.

Reply 12

Lawz-

tom - you understand that its not a legal contract right? It's a synonym for agreement or accord. No one is going to court to enforce it per se.

Also - yes - there is coercion involved in that you have little choice but to buy in to society's contract. But then, if you choose the view that you owe nothing to society, then equally society owes nothing to you, and can coerce you all it likes without feeling one pang of guilt. It’s a reciprocal relationship.

Reply 13

ForeverIsMyName

A contract doesn't have to be signed for it to be in effect; Imagine if you refused to pay for a meal after a restaurant because you hadn't signed for the fact you were going to pay for it?

Reply 14

gideon2000uk

I'm afraid I disagree with the academic characterisation of the contract theories. Fundementally, they all failed precisely on the strength of the objection that there never was an original position of equality and no opportunity to agree to a contract.

It is more useful therefore to look at it as being a useful thought experiment.

It fails even as a tacit acceptance in my view, even though I find social contract theories very engaging and convincing.

Reply 15

tommorris

I know about contractarian theory. I just thought it would be a bit of fun to prove to a few of the people who rely on it to prove the validity of the State.

It seems that the State is a morally unjustified usurpation of our liberty. Contractarian theory seems to be a bit of a ridiculous way of justifying the unjustifiable. It only proves that if those who criticise the State while accepting it's benefits are hypocritical (though not totally - they be relying on the State services because there is no alternative which would exist if the State did not exist - for instance, I would like to use a private rail system, but they don't really exist because of the State monopoly).

Reply 16

Champagne Breakfast

tommorris

Apparently, the reason why I have to obey the buffoons in Whitehall is because of the "social contract".

The reason you have to obey the buffoons in Whitehall is because otherwise they will lock you up.

Reply 17

Ferrus

There is no Marxist contract he dismisses the idea as an idealist (in the sense that it is not materialist), invention of the social superstructure.

It's associated primarily with Hobbes and Locke (plus other minor 17th/18th century thinkers), and Rousseau as it were attachs this idea to principles of "ancient liberty" as Constant would see it.

Reply 18

Socrates

It seems that the State is a morally unjustified usurpation of our liberty.

If someone robs your possession, don't call the police.

If a country invades this country, they have the moral right to take it over.

It is a ridiculous assertion. Even the most hardened libertarian recognises that a state, regardless of the form it takes, is necessary, even if it is a "nightwatchman" state.

Reply 19

Ferrus

Socrates

It is a ridiculous assertion. Even the most hardened libertarian recognises that a state, regardless of the form it takes, is necessary, even if it is a "nightwatchman" state.

Libertarian Capitalists, Anarchists would argue that the state is only necessary in these contexts because of the distorting nature of authority and private property on human nature.