Social Contracts and Sacred Rituals
"You consented, but I can't prove it."
The "Social Contract" non-argument for taxation and government is logically self-detonating. How does one acquire the right to form a social contract with other people without their consent? The magic of mob rule euphemistically known as "the democratic process"?If individuals can delegate this right to others, it must be because they themselves have the right to form social contracts. If individuals do have the right to form social contracts then all individuals must have this right. If some individuals claim that other individuals are bound by social contract to submit to taxation, those other individuals could simply respond by saying that the first set of individuals are bound by social contract to submit to a taxation request tax. The first set of individuals could simply respond in turn by saying that the second set of individuals are bound by social contract to submit to a taxation request request tax for the original taxation request tax for the original taxation, and the cycle could repeat ad infinitum...
...assuming no one points guns at each other to get what they want, which isn't a safe assumption at all given that we're talking about statists.
So either EVERYONE has the right to create and enforce social contracts or NO ONE does.
If the truth isn't the latter, the "I want you thrown in jail for resisting but taxation is still voluntary because you agreed to a social contract by being here so leave if you don't like it" line of "reasoning" (if it can be called that) could also be used to justify "I might have a gun to your head but rape at gunpoint is consensual because you agreed to a social contract by being here so leave if you don't like it."
The implication is that everyone owns everyone, which is collective slavery. The individual is the most oppressed minority in all of human history. There is no such thing as a social contract; there are only people trying to mask their preference for slavery with euphemistic gaslighting and religious appeals to the legitimacy of physical aggression. I don't know about you, but I'm against all forms of slavery.
What types of slavery do you support?
Leave if you don't like it.
Given that there are taxes for expatriation and mandates for government issued passports, it can't legitimately be claimed that people are "free to leave" America if they dislike the outcome of an election or the fact that "the state" is just a superstitious delusion held by individuals who imagine they have the moral authority to initiate physical aggression against others for some fictitious "greater good".
Statists who attempt to make this claim start from the false presumptions that "the people" are "the state", that "the state" owns all individuals, and that the existence of an individual constitutes that individual's implied consent to be owned and ruled by others - especially if that individual participates in the ritual of symbolic consent called "voting".
It may be true that statists also claim non-voters have no right to complain but their erroneous appeal to the imaginary "social contract" is primarily derived not from non-participation but rather from the notion that those who participate in the political process are doing so with the implied understanding that all participants will accept and abide by the outcome even if it's not the one they each personally prefer.
So in other words, from the perspective of an individual statist, the participation of other people in the political process strengthens the delusion that elections give some individuals the moral authority to inflict physical aggression on others without provocation.
That's why political action only reinforces statism but never reduces it.
You can't reduce the power of a delusion by indulging the delusional.
About the Author
I'm Jared Howe! I'm a Voluntaryist hip hop artist and professional technical editor/writer with a passion for Austrian economics and universal ethics. You can catch my podcast every Friday on the Seeds of Liberty Podcast Network.
Hello rage-flag boy,
Indeed the social contract is ridiculous but you can renounce your U.S Citizenship and go live in Liberland, an an-cap nation in Europe with absolutely no problem. 2 friends of mine did just that. Another one lives now in Kuwait and another in Sweden. They accepted all of them them with no problem after filing the form for political asylum. It's time consuming but it can be done.
You can't expect others to give up their dellusions just because you have a different set of morality in a place where you were borned much later on. Simply, it won't happen. Tradition is a very strong influence on someone. They don't care about logical fallacies. Logic gets you from A to B when you define the constituents of an argument. For example "I love my country ---> therefore I follow its rules". Go tell a Murica man that he is doing an "appeal to emotion" argument. Simply, this college-tier arguments are just intellectual jerk circle that belong only in safe spaces like college campuses.
This is why doing (like living in Liberland) is much more effective than talking — especially when you do it in the most philopolemical nation of this planet, the US-of-f'in-A. It's like preaching to cannibals in the Amazon that human consumption is wrong and that it violates individual rights. You might be correct in your western-anarcho-voluntaryist glass bubble, but they simply don't care.
Remember. Morality is subjective. This is why you shouldn't bother with other people's morality whether they are stoning people in the street, burning women along their husbands (india), drowing young girls (china), executing people (usa), etc etc. If your way of life is more efficient in liberland then more people will join constituting USA or any other "social contract" nation obsolete. In this way you become a voluntaryist (like moi), minus the whining.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/060515/why-people-renounce-their-us-citizenship.asp
PS: Here is how voluntaryism is done
Anyone who disagrees with you can have force initiated against them for trying to leave without permission?
Violence isn't an argument. Morality isn't subjective. We've already covered this on other posts.
Are you really suggesting that these things are moral from a certain perspective? I wouldn't bother with their "morality" because these things are immoral.
I'm not sure why I would need to subject myself to the initiation of force in order to not have force initiated against me.
Again, appeal to the cudgel isn't an argument, sophist.
Depends on the principles of morality of that particular country. I don't agree with it but that's just the way it is
You seriously need to open a dictionary. Same applies to your cheerleaders
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality
: beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior
: the degree to which something is right and good : the moral goodness or badness of something
What is good and what is bad is also subjective. Depends on the environment and culture. I can't believe I have to spell these things to you...but i guess if you accept this your entire tinfoil philosophy crumbles.
Whether you like it or not you belong in a society that rules with a democratic rule. One of the rules is the initiation of force as a moral constituent.
Try again. I am explaining basic definitions from the dictionary. You are the sophist since you use the words as you wish.
Truth and morality aren't democratic. Doubling down on your appeal to force doesn't prove your definitions; it just makes you an asshole. Fuck off bro
But they are democratic. I am not making the rules. Nature does. Whatever you considere "moral" is the cumulative will of the people under specific enviromental conditions.
This has been true throughout human history. Also, how the heck you can live with your hypocrytical self when you restrict freedom of speech and then reply on top about voluntaryism?
We obviously have 2 sets of morality and insist that morality of objective. room temperacture I.Q my dear SJW.
(make the gf picture bigger...probably the best thing that happened to you after your long term relationship with your hand in your mom's basement)
@kyriacos, indeed many can leave, pay their slave fee of renunciation and establish a freer life abroad. There are many places we could go and be freer as immigrants than as property of US Inc. Of course, immigrants in the US can enjoy more freedom than their home countries in many cases, as well as more freedom than US citizens residing in the US. But that's another topic.
Some of us find it incredibly difficult to leave because of various responsibilities. I, for one, am enslaved to a medical system that I have tried for years to escape. It's not my health. I have been blessed with a healthy body. But my wife had cancer and is unable to manage her health without modern medical assistance. It's not terribly difficult, but still constant and necessary. In order to move abroad I must find a viable means to provide the medical attention she needs. Making such a transition is incredibly arduous.
I was two months from leaving just two years ago, when my plans fell through due to external manifestations I had no control over. So I've been back to the drawing board, attempting to figure out a way to make this work.
You accuse folks of broad brushing in their comments about government. But a few breaths later and you're broad brushing people who want to make a change locally because expatriation is too difficult in their current circumstances, or they just aren't yet willing to do what it takes. In my case, I'll do it, and would have already if it was just me. But I cannot drag a wife with compromised health someplace where she cannot be taken care of.
I would advise some study of empathy and de-escalating debates. Disagreeing is fine. You and I have traded disagreement politely, I think. But some of your comments come across as the proverbial bull in a China shop. There is a wide arc around your swings that might be better served with more graciousness, compassion and surgical precision.
Much like the rest of guys complaining you have to weight the good and the bad. Obviously USA has a shit goverment, plenty of initiation of force (worst country i ever lived) BUT
has plenty of comfy shit as well that nobody seems to complain about. You see it is one thing to be an idealist, a couch philosopher and another thing to actually live by the things you believe.
Yeah, sitting around complaining doesn't really do any good, and will ultimately breed bitterness. Learning how to think rightly and acting accordingly is the goal. It still has some tremendous obstacles for many though. Others feast on whining anyway, so will never do anything about it. There are those that really want to but never overcome the fear of the unknown. Yet others understand the challenge and choose to stay for various other reasons, because there really are some wonderful opportunities, incredible beauty and a great deal of wealth here.
LOL! They will force $3000+ out of you to leave or they will also throw you in a cage.
Great article man! I'm following you and tweeting this on twitter. Good stuff!
For anyone who wants to appeal to force and tell me to "renounce my citizenship".
I've already covered this. Citizens don't exist. Threatening me with force isn't an argument.
citizen
ˈsɪtɪz(ə)n/
noun
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/citizen
"a legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized"
Logic 101:
Premise 1: A legal system exists in USA
Premise 2: Legality is subject to interpetation
Logical output: A citizen, is a title given to a human being under a given legal system.
A citizen exists by those who aknowledge the legality of a given system.
Nobody said is an argument. Human existence is not based on logic but on force and influence. Steemit works much the same (aka flagging or Steem Power). Similarly the State does it because they can.
don't forget to flag! flagging is always an argument Mr. Hyprocrite :D
Except for all that markup and programming code you mean?
I did flag because you are spamming non-responsive answers that contradict themselves. Trying to disprove the existence of logic through the use of logic is a performative contradiction.
You're not trying to add anything to the conversation; you're just trying to stop it through the use of fallacy. Typical SJW.
You flag because you are a butthurt spoiled brat. You even flagged my posts that didn't have anything to do with it. My responses are solid ones. You don't even bother to adress the arguments.
i am not trying to disprove logic you dimwit. I gave you a dictionary definition of morality, citizens and things you think you understand the meaning.
Last thing I am is a SJW. It is obviously that you are one with your "lets us all share the same morality and live in a voluntarist utopia"...only communists are as dellusional as that.
Dan's last post is spot on. it seems like it was written for spoiled brats like you :)
Threatening you with force is not a valid moral argument, but it's a reality.
"If you refuse to pay unjust taxes, your property will be confiscated. If you attempt to defend your property, you will be arrested. If you resist arrest, you will be clubbed. If you defend yourself against clubbing, you will be shot dead. These procedures are known as the Rule of Law." -- Edward Abbey
No one said that force doesn't exist, but an expropriating property protector is a performative contradiction. If there is no reciprocal obligation of protection and allegiance, there is no citizen.
You have obligations and you have rights. If you behave you get protected. If you are not you get fucked.
I don't agree with the whole state coercion. I told you before but you are way too thickheaded to listen to what I am saying. First hour I was in the US of A I got arrested for public intoxication just for drinking a beer. Get it through your tinfoiled head. I agree with your ideology. I just don't agree with the means that you want an entire country to follow your SUBJECTIVE morality. google the darn word. open a dictionary. take a philosophy class before you become a "voluntaryist".
You can become a voluntaryist ONLY with those that agree with your philosophy. You can't force an entire nation to follow your wishes. Exactly how spoiled are you?
What's your evidence? I thought you didn't care about logic. Now you're making claims and attempting to use logic? Are you a liar or just stupid?
So who do you want to initiate force against?
You spam my posts with these ad-homs and non-arguments. How am I forcing morality onto people by suggestion that people shouldn't initiate force against each other? That is literally retarded
The fact that I don't initiate force doesn't mean I don't use force against people who initiate it against me. I don't know who you think you're responding to but it isn't me, shitlib
even if we were free to leave, we'd run the risk of becoming victimized by the state's foreign policy.
if i ever vote again, it wont be for a person, it'll be on state questions, that would reduce the danger of imprisonment associated with certain activities, or otherwise reduce the scope of the state's involvement in personal matters. that's about as pragmatic as i can be.
Spot on Jared. Let's also not forget that every right that can be practiced has a corresponding right NOT to be practiced. That is to say, the right to keep and bear arms (as an example) has with it a corresponding right NOT to keep and bear arms. The right still protects you, because you COULD be armed ... Like and follow (or whatever passes for that on Steemit) to come!
The only right is might.
Whatever helps you sleep at night, chief.
cogent response.
Some great points in this article, thanks for sharing!
100000 thumbs up.
I always relate consent with rape, always hits home, can't argue against it.
In other words:
Can you use the government to enforce a social contract with implied consent.
Imagine a car dealership moving into the neighborhood and because he does he requires everyone who lives within a mile of the dealership to buy a $20000 car from him.
This is a social contract.
Would anyone believe that this is a valid social contract? I would think this social contract is evil. But you want me to believe that by staying in a county, state, country that I am giving you my consent to be taxed.
So in this case we have the social contract being both good and evil at the same time. Since you cannot have a social contract that is both good and evil at the same time, you cannot use the argument that a social contract is valid.