MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘social contract’

The Trouble with the Constitution and the “Social Contract” | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on June 30, 2023

As for the state’s supposedly indispensable role, once we grow up and leave behind the scare tactics from our sixth-grade textbooks — without your public servants you’ll starve, or be poisoned, or drive an exploding car — we discover how little we need the state after all. The historically unprecedented explosion in living standards all over the world had everything in the world to do with market-driven capital accumulation, and zero to do with government spread-the-wealth schemes.

The truth of the matter is this: the only welfare the state is concerned about, at root, is its own.

https://mises.org/wire/trouble-constitution-and-social-contract

Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.

Politics is of its very nature biased in favor of intervention and planning. Even in its “minarchist” or “night-watchman” version, politics is based at root on the idea that some decisions must be made coercively and imposed on unwilling minorities — or even majorities, as the case may be. This is contrary to the principle we observe in private life every day: the consent of both parties is necessary for a transaction to take place.

The state never stays “limited” in the long or even medium run, as we’ve seen for ourselves, and before long it worms its way throughout civil society. Once it becomes entrenched in some area of social life that had previously been managed by voluntary means, people grow accustomed to the state’s new role, even coming to view it as indispensable. The spirit of spontaneous, voluntary cooperation therefore atrophies and dies. This, in turn, is cited as justification for still further state interference, and the cycle continues.

In the modern state politics is coupled with government education in a one-two punch to the voluntary sector. That is, the moral principles and the unstated assumptions that govern politics have already been drilled into the heads of the young well before they become eligible to vote. By that time they have imbibed every comic-book platitude about the selfless public servants who are just out to improve everyone’s well-being. Were it not for the indoctrination of the public from a very young age, the state’s racket would be far more obvious and transparent.

(Incidentally, the first lesson kids in government schools learn is that if enough people want something — “free” education, for example — you should get it by having goons seize the funds from your neighbors. Why, how else could anything get done?)

The best known of the intellectual constructs by which the state seeks to legitimate itself must be the “social contract.” To evaluate this construct properly, consider how contracts function in civil society. You and I are interested in, say, an exchange of services for money. You are going to paint my house, and I am going to give you a cash payment. We spell out the terms of our understanding in a contract.

These terms may include the nature of the work, a deadline by which the task must be completed, and perhaps even the name of an independent arbitration service we agree to consult if one of us believes the contract is not being properly honored.

Contrast this with the state’s so-called social contract. Here, nobody signs anything. You are assumed to consent to the state’s rule because you happen to live within its territorial jurisdiction. According to this morally grotesque principle, you have to pack up and leave in order to demonstrate your lack of consent. The state’s authority over you is simply assumed (or it takes the form of a contract nobody ever signed), with the burden of proof on you, rather than — more sensibly — on the institution claiming the right to help itself to your life and property.

If my cooperation with the system is only under duress, and my repeated insistence that I do not consent, is insufficient to indicate my lack of consent, then what kind of crazy moral system is this?

Is there an analogous situation in the private sector? Do we just assume you intended to buy a car or a house, or to enter into a labor agreement, on the basis of dubious inferences? Do we not instead sign form after form, drafted in meticulous legal language, to ensure that the nature of the activity in question is clear to everyone?

Oh, but the state provides services, and you should pay for them! Again, though, when anyone else provides services, I decide for myself whether I want to use them (in which case I pay), whether I prefer an alternative provider of the service, or whether I choose not to avail myself of the service at all.

Ah, but the services the state provides aren’t the kind that can be provided competitively on the market, so you must be corralled into paying for them, like them or not.

But this is mere assertion. Education is provided on the market, and always has been. Scientific research was funded more copiously per capita before the state became heavily involved. Poverty relief took place on a vast scale long before the world’s welfare states amounted to much of anything. Even security and legal services can be and are quite effectively provided on the free market.

All right, so the state’s social contract may not amount to a hill of beans, and in fact is a transparent attempt to legitimize behavior we would not tolerate from any other actor or institution, but what about written constitutions? Aren’t these at least partly contractual in nature, and don’t they restrain government from the worst abuses?

Let’s consider the United States Constitution as a test case, since conservatives and even many libertarians point to it as one of the most brilliant political documents ever drafted.

The minarchist calls for a “night watchman” state, a state that limits itself to the production of security and adjudication services. (I shall leave aside the cognitive dissonance in warning about the dangers and wickedness of the state on the one hand, while simultaneously proposing the absolute necessity of the state in providing the most important and fundamental services of all.)

Interestingly, the US Constitution actually calls for something less than a night-watchman state, in the sense that most security services are assumed to rest with lower levels of government, and are not a federal function in the first place. So this would appear to be an excellent test of the “limited government” position, for here is a document that begins with such a limited government that it’s even less government than minarchists themselves would call for.

Well, how has it worked out?

For the answer to that question, simply look around you.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Social Contract Theory Idiocy: What Contract? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on February 1, 2023

Have you voluntarily and knowingly delegated by active and legal contract all your decisions about your life, family, war, taxation (theft), government mandated schooling, health care, employment, property ownership, self-defense, licensing, and every other aspect of life to this illegitimate government? Are you just a slave and a resource element of the state? Do you have any real desire to be free? The state does not work or rule by contract, it does not have the consent of all the governed; it is the epitome of force, violence, extortion, torture, theft, and murder.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/01/gary-d-barnett/social-contract-theory-idiocy-what-contract/

By Gary D. Barnett

“And yet we have what purports, or professes, or is claimed, to be a contract—the Constitution—made eighty years ago, by men who are now all dead, and who never had any power to bind us, but which (it is claimed) has nevertheless bound three generations of men, consisting of many millions, and which (it is claimed) will be binding upon all the millions that are to come; but which nobody ever signed, sealed, delivered, witnessed, or acknowledged; and which few persons, compared with the whole number that are claimed to be bound by it, have ever read, or even seen, or ever will read, or see.”

~ Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

The very idea of any ‘social contract’ for any large group of individuals is asinine on its face. It is an impossibility to be sure if freedom is considered, and that is why constitutions, (‘social contracts’) which supposedly require individual explicit or ‘tacit’ consent, neither of which are valid in this context, are completely worthless, and only deceit by the state. Social contracts require that some or most freedoms be relinquished, and submission to the false authority of a ruler or ruling class be accepted for the ‘common good.’ This is usually based on only a majority ‘decision,’ or not, due to the corrupt and evil nature of voting, for the purpose of gaining protection for only those rights considered remaining, and state-supported in the bogus contract. In other words, natural rights are eliminated in favor of ‘legal’ rights created and administered by the state for the sole purpose of monetary gain and mass control. This can only mean that all natural rights are disallowed and non-existent’ in this lie called a social contract.

The assumed starting point for social contract creation in theory is to examine the human condition absent a political order. From here, social contract supporters would seek (assume) to argue that ‘rational’ individuals would voluntarily give up their natural freedom in favor of consent to a governmental (political) ruling system. Thomas Hobbes’ approach to the “state of nature” circumstance and social contracts was telling of his desire to see humanity ruled over by counterfeit documents shifting power from the individual to the state. Hobbes said that in a state of nature, or freedom of the individual, would be a horrible situation where everyone would have unlimited rights to pillage, plunder, rape, and murder, and endless war of all against all would be the result. His solution to his made-up claims, was for all to establish what he called “civil society” through a social contract in order to gain security by giving up natural rights and accepting an absolute sovereign made up of one man (king) or an assembly of men (oligarchy). He saw absolute government as the only option.

The meaning of the term “contract” in its most basic form, is an agreement between two or more parties that defines the terms of an exchange. The five major characteristics for any contract to be valid are:

1) An offer and terms: One party makes an offer to another, which includes a description of terms that the offering party makes to the other, that he is legally bound to honor.

2) An acceptance of an offer is necessary for any contract to be valid.

3) For any contract to be valid, every single individual involved needs to know,

comprehend, and fully understand the entire agreement and every obligation associated with such contract.

4) Some form of consideration (something of value) is necessary for a contract to be legally valid. Any consideration has to be legal, as illegal consideration or activity nullifies the contract.

5) All parties involved in any contract must enter this contract with the clear intent to set up a formal agreement and accept all terms as legally binding.

With this in mind, attempt if you can, to fathom the idea of a magical contract, completely unsigned and legally unaccepted by each party, without a full description of exact terms to be followed. Consider that this contract has to be fully understood by each and every individual involved, and that some form of legal consideration must be present and accepted by each party agreeing to this document. This contract in order to be valid must be set up with clear intent, and with acceptance of each and every term as binding on all parties.

Now consider the fake contract called the law of the land, and described as the U.S. Constitution. This is simply an invalid social contract that does not meet any definition of a legal contract whatsoever, and is assumed to have been accepted, understood, with valid consideration, by 330 million individuals. No one has signed it, no one has legally accepted it, few if any understand it, it can be changed arbitrarily by the so-called contract offeror at any time without approval of each (or any) of those involved, and no accepted consideration is forthcoming. There is no clear intent, actually no intent at all, of any formal agreement and acceptance. In fact, it is completely illegal, and therefore not binding in any regard on any individual.

The state in fact is a scam. It is based on this false notion of an illegal ‘social contract,’ written and forced on society over 240 years ago. It is as illegal now as it was then, and should be, at least in any free society, completely unenforceable. But this is not a free society, and even though in past centuries, freedom was more prevalent, this has never been a truly free country. If government and rule exist, freedom cannot exist.

The entirety of rule in this country and many others, is based on the evil and fraudulent concept of ‘tacit’ (implied without question) approval of an illegal and fictitious social contract called a constitution. “This theory of an implicit social contract holds that by remaining in the territory controlled by some society, which usually has a government, people give consent to join that society and be governed by its government if any. This consent is what gives ‘legitimacy’ to such a government.” Nothing could be more ridiculous and underhanded than such a concept as this one.

The very idea of government in this country is completely dependent on the false illusion that the social contract called the Constitution solidifies and justifies that ‘consent’ for this heinous government is legitimate, because blind ‘consent’ is assumed by that same government. 

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Consent of the Governed? | Robert Higgs

Posted by M. C. on June 19, 2021

I raise this question because 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.

To be GOVERNED is to be kept in sight, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to do so.

https://blog.independent.org/2010/06/01/consent-of-the-governed/

Robert Higgs

What gives some people the right to rule others? At least since John Locke’s time, the most common and seemingly compelling answer has been “the consent of the governed.” When the North American revolutionaries set out to justify their secession from the British Empire, they declared, among other things: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” This sounds good, especially if one doesn’t think about it very hard or very long, but the harder and longer one thinks about it, the more problematic it becomes.

One question after another comes to mind. Must every person consent? If not, how many must, and what options do those who do not consent have? What form must the consent take ― verbal, written, explicit, implicit? If implicit, how is it to be registered? Given that the composition of society is constantly changing, owing to births, deaths, and international migration, how often must the rulers confirm that they retain the consent of the governed? And so on and on. Political legitimacy, it would appear, presents a multitude of difficulties when we move from the realm of theoretical abstraction to that of practical realization.

I raise this question because 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. What monumental effrontery these people exhibit! What gives them the right to rob me and push me around? It certainly is not my desire to be a sheep for them to shear or slaughter as they deem expedient for the attainment of their own ends.

Moreover, when we flesh out the idea of “consent of the governed” in realistic detail, the whole notion quickly becomes utterly preposterous. Just consider how it would work. A would-be ruler approaches you and offers a contract for your approval. Here, says he, is the deal.

I, the party of the first part (“the ruler”), promise:

(1) To stipulate how much of your money you will hand over to me, as well as how, when, and where the transfer will be made. You will have no effective say in the matter, aside from pleading for my mercy, and if you should fail to comply, my agents will punish you with fines, imprisonment, and (in the event of your persistent resistance) death.

(2) To make thousands upon thousands of rules for you to obey without question, again on pain of punishment by my agents. You will have no effective say in determining the content of these rules, which will be so numerous, complex, and in many cases beyond comprehension that no human being could conceivably know about more than a handful of them, much less their specific character, yet if you should fail to comply with any of them, I will feel free to punish you to the extent of a law made my me and my confederates.

(3) To provide for your use, on terms stipulated by me and my agents, so-called public goods and services. Although you may actually place some value on a few of these goods and services, most will have little or no value to you, and some you will find utterly abhorrent, and in no event will you as an individual have any effective say over the goods and services I provide, notwithstanding any economist’s cock-and-bull story to the effect that you “demand” all this stuff and value it at whatever amount of money I choose to expend for its provision.

(4) In the event of a dispute between us, judges beholden to me for their appointment and salaries will decide how to settle the dispute. You can expect to lose in these settlements, if your case is heard at all.

 In exchange for the foregoing government “benefits,” you, the party of the second part (“the subject”), promise:

(5) To shut up, make no waves, obey all orders issued by the ruler and his agents, kowtow to them as if they were important, honorable people, and when they say “jump,” ask only “how high?”

Such a deal! Can we really imagine that any sane person would consent to it?

Yet the foregoing description of the true social contract into which individuals are said to have entered is much too abstract to capture the raw realities of being governed. In enumerating the actual details, no one has ever surpassed Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who wrote:

To be GOVERNED is to be kept in sight, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality. (P.-J. Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, trans. John Beverley Robinson. London: Freedom Press, 1923, p. 294)

Nowadays, of course, we would have to supplement Proudhon’s admirably precise account by noting that our being governed also entails our being electronically monitored, tracked by orbiting satellites, tased more or less at random, and invaded in our premises by SWAT teams of police, often under the pretext of their overriding our natural right to decide what substances we will ingest, inject, or inhale into what used to be known as “our own bodies.”

So, to return to the question of political legitimacy as determined by the consent of the governed, it appears upon sober reflection that the whole idea is as fanciful as the unicorn. No one in his right mind, save perhaps an incurable masochist, would voluntarily consent to be treated as governments actually treat their subjects.

Nevertheless, very few of us in this country at present are actively engaged in armed rebellion against our rulers. And it is precisely this absence of outright violent revolt that, strange to say, some commentators take as evidence of our consent to the outrageous manner in which the government treats us. Grudging, prudential acquiescence, however, is not the same thing as consent, especially when the people acquiesce, as I do, only in simmering, indignant resignation.

For the record, I can state in complete candor that I do not approve of the manner in which I am being treated by the liars, thieves, and murderers who style themselves the Government of the United States of America or by those who constitute the tyrannical pyramid of state, local, and hybrid governments with which this country is massively infested. My sincere wish is that all of these individuals would, for once in their despicable lives, do the honorable thing. In this regard, I suggest that they give serious consideration to seppuku. Whether they employ a sharp sword or a dull one, I care not, so long as they carry the act to a successful completion.

Addendum on “love it or leave it”: Whenever I write along the foregoing lines, I always receive messages from Neanderthals who, imagining that I “hate America,” demand that I get the hell out of this country and go back to wherever I came from. Such reactions evince not only bad manners, but a fundamental misunderstanding of my grievance.

I most emphatically do not hate America. I was not born in some foreign despotism, but in a domestic one known as Oklahoma, which I understand to be the very heart and soul of this country so far as culture and refinement are concerned. Moreover, for what it is worth, some of my ancestors had been living in North America for centuries before a handful of ragged, starving white men washed ashore on this continent, planted their flag, and claimed all the land they could see and a great deal they could not see on behalf of some sorry-ass European monarch. What chutzpah! I yield to no one in my affection for the Statue of Liberty, the Rocky Mountains, and the amber waves of grain, not to mention the celebrated jumping frog of Calaveras County. So when I am invited to get out of the country, I feel like someone living in a town taken over by the James Gang who has been told that if he doesn’t like being robbed and bullied by uninvited thugs, he should move to another town. To me, it seems much more fitting that the criminals get out.

Robert Higgs is Retired Senior Fellow in Political Economy at the Independent Institute, author or editor of over fourteen Independent books, and Founding Editor of Independent’s quarterly journal The Independent Review.
Posts by Robert Higgs | Full Biography and Publications

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »