You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Who has killed more people? Nazis? or Communists?
No that's WHAT government is. A mutual voluntary consent... A social contract
No that's WHAT government is. A mutual voluntary consent... A social contract
Ah. "Contract," not "contact." The social contract is a bad analogy that Rousseau came up with to excuse governmental aggression. It does not exist. I'll let the quote below cover the issue in depth.
". . . In regard to the so-called social contract, I have often had occasion to protest that I haven't even seen the contract, much less been asked to consent to it. A valid contract requires voluntary offer, acceptance, and consideration. I've never received an offer from my rulers, so I certainly have not accepted one; and rather than consideration, I have received nothing but contempt from the rulers, who, notwithstanding the absence of any agreement, have indubitably threatened me with grave harm in the event that I fail to comply with their edicts."—Robert Higgs
It's unspoken, that's why it's a social contract. If you walk along a sidewalk and see someone, your unspoken rule is to NOT fight him. Fighting him would lead to harm for you. You've made an instinctual contract with him to mutually exist on the sidewalk without fighting.
Similarly, governments instinctually provide for you and you instinctually be governed. If you disagree, feel free to start attacking police officers and see how instinctual it is to not attack police officers
That's not a contract. That's respect for the equal and reciprocal rights of others. It's recognition that initiatory aggression is illegitimate.
Government is a group of people who operate through initiatory aggression against others. It is a territorial monopoly in violence, even according to mainstream political science, and every "service" provided by government is a monopoly funded through extortion. There is no mutual voluntary consent, only compliance under duress.
I feel you are inflating the cases of tyranny to create a narrative of normality and you are delegitamizing the actual unspoken contracts you establish with your governing body. You are also misrepresenting the benefits you receive from this unspoken contract. You are depicting things in manners that fit only your narrow glasses so that you can sound superior and logical but you don't actually hold any validity when you introduce absurdity without foundation.
There are no contracts, spoken or unspoken. To demand compliance with arbitrary unilateral dictates through threats of violence is the root of tyranny. There is no voluntary consent, no meeting of the minds, no exchange of consideration, and thus no contract. "Social contract" theory is sophistry, plain and simple.
Thanks for validating my point. Cya