The slavery in taxation

Lockstep · 13-11-2010 11:04PM

Cróga wrote: »

If you were around the times of african american slavery would you say the same that it was violently formed and had gotten its own legitimacy because it became the norm?

Or what about kidnapping women and then selling them off to men to be wedded too.

In both cases the results seem to be "good" for society but does that make it moral?

In both of these cases, the slaves/women have no choice themselves.
The slaves and women weren't free to leave the contract so it's really not a fair comparison at all.

Cróga · 13-11-2010 11:07PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

In both of these cases, the slaves/women have no choice themselves.
The slaves and women weren't free to leave the contract so it's really not a fair comparison at all.

Maybe but lets put them to the test. Am i free to leave the social contract (pretending it exists) and stop paying taxes and not be governed?

Lockstep · 13-11-2010 11:12PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

More as a mix between social democracy and capitalism. A strong welfare state is very compatible with free markets (places like Hong Kong). Capitalist advances have been occuring for centuries but when combined with the massive changes of post-WWII social democracy, saw a massive growth in living standards and quality of life.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The baby boom occurred directly after the war and the economic growth lasted for roughly 30 years (the French know this period as Les trentes glorieuses) so I'm not sure how you can brush this period of rampant economic growth as little more than babies being born.

The problem with some social democratic states is that they aren't changing with the times. For example, France is facing an aging population but stubbornly resists raising the retirement age, even though when social security was brought in, noone was expected to live for so many years after they retired.
Merely that social democracy hasn't changed doesn't mean there is a problem with the entire system.

Lockstep · 13-11-2010 11:14PM

Cróga wrote: »

Maybe but lets put them to the test. Am i free to leave the social contract (pretending it exists) and stop paying taxes and not be governed?

Of course you're free to leave the social contract. Pick out a country you like and move there.
End of your social contract with the Irish State.

Cróga · 13-11-2010 11:14PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Of course you're free to leave the social contract. Pick out a country you like and move there.
End of your social contract with the Irish State.

Why are you equating landmass with a government?

Lockstep · 13-11-2010 11:18PM

Cróga wrote: »

Why are you equating landmass with a government?

I was using country in the sense of "territory of a nation-state". Not "lump of landmass"

Cróga · 13-11-2010 11:19PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I was using country in the sense of "territory of a nation-state". Not "lump of landmass"

grand, so why are you saying to move to another country? Cant i stay where i am?

Lockstep · 13-11-2010 11:22PM

Cróga wrote: »

grand, so why are you saying to move to another country? Cant i stay where i am?

I was saying "move to another country" as you were asking if you were free to leave the social contract.

As by moving to Ireland you are accepting the social contract between the State and its citizens, or by being born here your parents made the decision on your behalf. I'm guessing you're old enough to leave Ireland on your own

Of course you can stay where you are but you are expected to uphold your end of the social contract.

Permabear · 13-11-2010 11:24PM

This post has been deleted.

Cróga · 13-11-2010 11:27PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Of course you can stay where you are but you are expected to uphold your end of the social contract.

Why am i expect to uphold something that doesnt exist that's only a concept in your mind? What happens if i dont?

Lockstep · 13-11-2010 11:29PM

Cróga wrote: »

Why am i? What happens if i dont?

Why are you expected to uphold your end of a contract? I'm not sure I need to explain that one.

What happens if you don't? Punishment. In the same way that would happen if you broke a contract with a company.#

Edit: you edited your above post so I'll respond accordingly.

Cróga wrote: »

Why am i expect to uphold something that doesnt exist that's only a concept in your mind? What happens if i dont?

Merely as a contract isn't written down doesn't mean it's not a contract. I'm sure you're familiar with unwritten contracts.

As above, if you don't uphold your end of the contract, then you can expect for the contractor to seek redress for your refusal to uphold your part of the contract.

Cróga · 13-11-2010 11:31PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Why are you expected to uphold your end of a contract? I'm not sure I need to explain that one. What happens if you don't? Punishment. In the same way that would happen if you broke a contract with a company.

I think you need to explain how it exists or is it just a concept in your mind? A company would be able to show me the contract can you show me yours?

Lockstep · 13-11-2010 11:34PM

Cróga wrote: »

I think you need to explain how it exists or is it just a concept in your mind? A company would be able to show me the contract can you show me yours?

Ha! No it doesn't!

Contracts exist all the time. If you go into a resteraunt and order a meal a contract exists between the two of ye. Likewise, if I go into a shop and buy a book, a contract exists between me and the bookseller.

Surely you know that contracts aren't all signature and documents?

Black Swan · 13-11-2010 11:35PM

simplistic2 wrote: »

This is the same situation you are born into living under an immoral government and just like the slaves born to the plantation providing them with housing and food does not disqualify the original and consistent theft of their output and freedoms.

"Immoral," or means-ends rationally amoral (Max Weber in Economy & Society), or a form of morality that supports the interests of the 2% that controls 80% of the wealth (C. Wright Mills "power elites"). This also raises the question of who is the "government" in reality, not just on paper, or the smiling faces on the telly shaking hands, kissing babies, and spouting platitudes?

simplistic2 wrote: »

Slavery can equal as much as 1% or 100% taxation the amount is irrelevant because slavery is being under constant threat of violence for not complying with your masters.

Reminds me of a variation on the theme found in One Dimensional Man by Herbert Marcuse, but with more emphasis on the value produced by labour, rather than on the psychological nature of domination of the many by the few.

Cróga · 13-11-2010 11:36PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

What happens if you don't? Punishment.

First you said im free to leave/end the imaginary social contract now you're saying if i end it i will punished. Why are you advocating the initiation of violence against me?

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Merely as a contract isn't written down doesn't mean it's not a contract. I'm sure you're familiar with unwritten contracts.

As above, if you don't uphold your end of the contract, then you can expect for the contractor to seek redress for your refusal to uphold your part of the contract.

Im not familiar with unwritten contracts, tell me all about them please.

Lockstep · 13-11-2010 11:39PM

Cróga wrote: »

First you said im free to leave the imaginary social contract now you're saying if i leave i will punished. Why are you advocating the initiation of violence against me?

You aren't being punished for leaving in the same way that you won't be punished for leaving a contract (unless there are specific provisions penalising you for doing so)
You will be punished for attempting to avail of the benefits of a contract without providing your end of the contract. Fairly standard contract law really.

I didn't say that you are free to end a social contract while claiming you will be penalised for attempting to leave the contract.
I said you are free to leave the contract (ending it) and you can be penalised for not fulfilling your end of the contract.

Please don't twist my words or construct strawmen.

Cróga wrote: »

Im not familiar with unwritten contracts, tell me all about them please.

Basically, contracts exist in every day life. Every sale and transaction between you and a vendor is an unwritten contract.

Cróga · 13-11-2010 11:42PM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Ha! No it doesn't!

Contracts exist all the time. If you go into a resteraunt and order a meal a contract exists between the two of ye. Likewise, if I go into a shop and buy a book, a contract exists between me and the bookseller.

Surely you know that contracts aren't all signature and documents?

Sure i understand what you're saying here. I buy a book or a meal we have voluntarily contracted.

What i'd like to know is the contract between government and me moral(voluntary) or immoral(coercive)?

constance tench · 13-11-2010 11:46PM

"We can only be kept in the cages we do not see"

A brief history of human enslavement...Human/Tax Farms by Canadian Philosopher Stefan Molyneux.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

Lockstep · 13-11-2010 11:50PM

Cróga wrote: »

Sure i understand what you're saying here. I buy a book or a meal we have voluntarily contracted. And these are with things that are tangible in reality.

There is no written contract but you are receiving tangible benefits (such as access to education and defense by the armed forces)
Similarly, there is no written contract for private sector services but you receive tangible benefits.

Cróga wrote: »

What i'd like to know is the contract between government and me moral or immoral? Is it voluntary or coercive?

As with all contracts, it is both voluntary *and* coercive. Voluntary to enter into and leave, coercive if you try to abuse the contract (such as not upholding your end)

Black Swan · 13-11-2010 11:52PM

constance tench wrote: »

"We can only be kept in the cages we do not see"

Only if we are uninformed (Thomas Gray's ignorance is bliss) or in denial of the Iron Cage (Max Weber).

Cróga · 14-11-2010 12:03AM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

There is no written contract but you are receiving tangible benefits (such as access to education and defense by the armed forces)

No im not and dont want them.

Similarly, there is no written contract for private sector services but you receive tangible benefits.

As with all contracts, it is both voluntary *and* coercive. Voluntary to enter into and leave, coercive if you try to abuse the contract (such as not upholding your end)

What i was asking is the contract voluntary or coercive in the first place? For example, the mafia stealing from me every month is coercion and theft because i did not voluntarily agree to this. Same with government, i own my body, my labor and my land yet the governments steals(taxation) because i have not agreed to be governed and dont want to be governed but if i stop the government will initiate aggression against me. I think its silly for you to say i've agreed to something because of where im standing(on my own land by the way) or because of my ancestors. Thats like saying its ok for the mafia to steal from me if my parents were initially aggressed against. If you're saying its ok for a group of people to create a "social contract" well then you have to agree to it being universal as in myself and others can create our own social contract and force it on you but if i was to do that it would be immoral just like its immoral for the government to do it.

PanchoVilla · 14-11-2010 12:05AM

Cróga wrote: »

Maybe but lets put them to the test. Am i free to leave the social contract (pretending it exists) and stop paying taxes and not be governed?

I think you can declare yourself an outlaw. Outlaws are not subject to the laws of the country but are also not protected by those laws. Basically, anyone can kill you without the fear of arrest. I'm not sure if this still exists though. From what I can understand, your birth certificate is what binds you to the laws created by the country you were born in. Maybe if you have your birth cert destroyed and declare yourself as a sovereign entity you can get away with not paying tax or following the laws etc.

Cróga · 14-11-2010 12:18AM

PanchoVilla wrote: »

I think you can declare yourself an outlaw. Outlaws are not subject to the laws of the country but are also not protected by those laws. Basically, anyone can kill you without the fear of arrest. I'm not sure if this still exists though. From what I can understand, your birth certificate is what binds you to the laws created by the country you were born in. Maybe if you have your birth cert destroyed and declare yourself as a sovereign entity you can get away with not paying tax or following the laws etc.

Im not getting away with anything. By the way laws dont come from government anyway, legislation, victimless crimes do. e.g. Its 'illegal' to smoke marijuana but not unlawful, or, its 'unlawful' to kill someone but not illegal - because a government is only a concept in peoples minds it cant make something thats already unlawful lawful or vice versa. (you can look up how they phrase these in the irish statute book website). Saying this it doesnt actually matter to me because i dont care about the effects of having a government or not im curious about the cause, the morality of it.

Lockstep · 14-11-2010 12:33AM

Cróga wrote: »

No im not and dont want them.

Yes you are.
You may not want them but you are still making use of them.

Cróga wrote: »

What i was asking is the contract voluntary or coercive in the first place? For example, if the mafia stealing from me every month is coercion and theft because i did not voluntarily agree to this.

Mainly as the Mafia don't have any basis for taking your cash except for theft whereas democratic governments are there by the consent of the governed. Now, if you moved onto a street where the landlords demanded rent in order to pay for a private security force you'd have the choice to move on, seek to alter the arrangement or pay up.

Cróga wrote: »

Same with government, i own my body, my labor and my land yet the governments comes and steals because i have not agreed to be governed and dont want to be governed but if i stop the government will initiate aggression against me.

ONce again, by moving to IReland you are consenting to being governed (or by being born here, your parents consent on your behalf until you reach maturity)

Cróga wrote: »

I think its silly for you to say i've agreed to something because of where im standing or because of my ancestors.

Not where you're standing. Where you're living.
If you walk into a gym or a cinema, you are held to have agreed to something.
Parents aspect has been spelled out extensively at this point.

Cróga wrote: »

Thats like saying its ok for the mafia to steal from me if my parents were initially aggressed against.

Eesh, again with the strawmen.
Your parents made the decision to raise you under the terms of the social contract where you didn't pay taxes, aside from sales tax (I doubt you were earning enough to put you over the income tax threshold). They accepted the social contract on your behalf and now that you're old enough to work full time and pay your own way, you can end this at any time.

Let me put it this way: a group of people own a compound and organise a system where everyone pays a portion of their wages in exchange for access to facilities and a security force. Kids are born and grow up in the system.
Now, one day a kid grows up and demands to be allowed stay and partake of social goods (education and health-care) along with public goods (security and clean air) but he refuses to pay his share while staying in the compound and using their resources.
Should he be allowed to do this?

Cróga wrote: »

If you're saying its ok for a group of people to create a "social contract" well then you have to agree to it being universal as in myself and others can create our own social contract and force it on you but if i was to do that it would be immoral just like its immoral for the government to do it.

But noone is forcing the social contract on you. As I have been saying, again and again, you have the option of renouncing it at any time.
By moving to Ireland, you are accepting the basic social structures and the idea that the government provides services in exchange for taxation. If you don't like this fundamental precept (in common with other nations) then why are you here?

I've work in the morning so I have to head off. I'll continue this discussion with you in the morning.

Cróga · 14-11-2010 01:36AM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Yes you are.
You may not want them but you are still making use of them.

Mainly as the Mafia don't have any basis for taking your cash except for theft whereas democratic governments are there by the consent of the governed. Now, if you moved onto a street where the landlords demanded rent in order to pay for a private security force you'd have the choice to move on, seek to alter the arrangement or pay up.

ONce again, by moving to IReland you are consenting to being governed (or by being born here, your parents consent on your behalf until you reach maturity)

Not where you're standing. Where you're living.
If you walk into a gym or a cinema, you are held to have agreed to something.
Parents aspect has been spelled out extensively at this point.

Eesh, again with the strawmen.
Your parents made the decision to raise you under the terms of the social contract where you didn't pay taxes, aside from sales tax (I doubt you were earning enough to put you over the income tax threshold). They accepted the social contract on your behalf and now that you're old enough to work full time and pay your own way, you can end this at any time.

Let me put it this way: a group of people own a compound and organise a system where everyone pays a portion of their wages in exchange for access to facilities and a security force. Kids are born and grow up in the system.
Now, one day a kid grows up and demands to be allowed stay and partake of social goods (education and health-care) along with public goods (security and clean air) but he refuses to pay his share while staying in the compound and using their resources.
Should he be allowed to do this?

But noone is forcing the social contract on you. As I have been saying, again and again, you have the option of renouncing it at any time.
By moving to Ireland, you are accepting the basic social structures and the idea that the government provides services in exchange for taxation. If you don't like this fundamental precept (in common with other nations) then why are you here?

I've work in the morning so I have to head off. I'll continue this discussion with you in the morning.

You're saying that if im on someone else's property that i have to pay for any of their services i use? It would be wrong for me to just go and steal from these owners (directly or not paying for their services) or attack them with a weapon, right? Well then you would also have to agree it's wrong for anyone else to do it to me on my own land right?

I'd like to define what the social contract is to further this debate. Is it right for me to say that the social contract is the idea that citizens of a country must obey the state, remaining in a country and having the right to vote constitutes a form of voluntary "contract" between citizen and government.. thus the social contract is geographical (country), unilateral (state -> citizen), and implicit (not signed/formal).

Right so any methodology which claims validity must itself be subject to its own contraints "no one is above the law". The scientific method must itself be subject to the scientific method. Logic and evidence must be subject to logic and evidence (reality and consistency). Atheism cannot claim to be true as a result of "divine visions." - rank self contradiction "god told an atheist that there is no god".

The government proposes itself as the highest and only agency of justice in the land. The government claims justification based on the social contract. Thus the social contract must be the highest and most moral contract in existence - since it is the root of all other contracts enforced by the state thus the opposite of a social contract must be unjust/immoral. basic logic if(A = Just) then anything opposite of A is unjust.

As mentioned, the social contract is geographical, unilateral and implicit. Thus all contracts that fulfill these requirements must also be just (if the social contract is just). For example, Social Contract Car Dealership.. if i send a letter to every household in a 10 block radius telling the occupants i have bought a car on their behalf, that they can choose whether it is a Volvo or a BMW if they want and if they wont choose i will send them whatever the majority chose. The car will be delivered to them next week and cannot be returned. I am enclosing a bill for 30,000 and if they dont want the car they have to move out of the neighborhood where they can choose another car (just like the threat of moving to another country).

Lets say i bring this contract to my government and ask them to enforce it, what will their response be? They will call me insane and laugh at me. If i then take a gun and go to pick up my 30,000 i will be considered to be an immoral aggressor and will be thrown in jail for many years right? Yet I am perfectly fulfilling the requirements of the social contract - geographical, unilateral, implicit.

Since the government claims as its justification the universal validity of the social contract but will attack as evil and unjust anybody who attempts to enforce an identical contract. The social contract is thus considered to be the highest moral good, and the greatest moral evil simultaneously. If the social contract is the highest good, then the government should defend it for everyone, but the government does the opposite and attacks competing social contracts, therefore is evil. If the social contract is the greatest evil, then government by definition is evil because that is what it claims as justification for its power.

Perhaps we say the social contract only applies to governments? well thats not true because for it to be valid the social contract has applies to everyone (taxpayers). If the social contract were to apply to everyone, everyone can create and enforce a social contract. Well the government can say my social contract allows me to send a bill for 10,000 for taxes and i say ok i will send you back through my social contract a bill for 10,000 - nothing is achieved it all cancels out. Therefore the social contract is only possible if it is the highest good and the greatest evil simultaneously. Good for government, evil for me.

If it is morally good for Person A to impose the social contract on Person B, but morally evil to do the reverse. Thus exactly to the degree that the social contract is morally good, the government is morally evil for attacking competing impositions of a universally good moral contract. Exactly to the degree that the social contract is morally evil, the government is morally evil since that is what it uses to justify its own violent power. Thus the social contract utterly, and completely and totally invalidates the social contract.

constance tench · 14-11-2010 02:30AM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

... everyone pays a portion of their wages in exchange for access to facilities and a security force. Kids are born and grow up in the system.
Now, one day a kid grows up and demands to be allowed stay and partake of social goods (education and health-care) along with public goods (security and clean air) but he refuses to pay his share while staying in the compound and using their resources.

their resources?...apparently the system is an impostor!

simplistic2 · 14-11-2010 10:21AM

kickoutthejams wrote: »

No, I'm saying that the previous act is a separate issue from it in it's current state.
My ancestors were turfed off their land by English settlers and most of us would agree that kicking someone off their land is a very bad thing and a fairly black/white issue.
However, their descendants have been living on that land for centuries so it becomes a much, much more complex issue.

No its not very complex. The simple principle of the argument is that an institution was violently imposed on an area and its people then some years later a majority of them accepted it as valid.

The reality is people never wanted government just like people dont want violence and because people dont want violence they grudgingly accept and obey the threats that the government is backed up by. The propaganda of patriotism or "the love for a nonexistant line" helps people swallow the situation. Surly if they want all this then it would have been conceived voluntarily ?And all taxes would be donations?

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Keep in mind that governments are elected on the ideas of providing services in exchange for taxation so they have a legitimacy that being raped (forced to have sex) does not.

Again you can apply that same principle to the rapist. If a majority of people like the rapists ideas and folded up papers and put them in ballot boxes is it right for rapist to rape those that do not agree with the process of electing rapists?

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Also, rape is an act that can apply to everyone (noone forces you to work so that if you wish to avoid being stolen from, you can immediately leave)
However, being raped can apply to anyone, regardless of their own decisions (even if you are on your way to leave the country, you can still be raped)

Like the M50?

kickoutthejams wrote: »

But you're not. Your parents had the choice of where you were born and were free to renounce this contract at any time. Now that you're old enough, you're accepting it yourself.

If you emigrated into Ireland, then you accepted the contract on your own behalf.

Look there is no contract and there is no contract because because not even a mad man would sign a social contract. If the government says you "owe us taxes" and you say "show me the contract" then clearly there must be some form of written contract since the governments effect on your life is huge. Can you imagine even getting a loan by tacit acceptance you wink at the bank manger "SOLD" "NO no there was just something in my eye" "take it or go to prison".

If you firmly believe in the democracy then would you have any problem with people being asked to sign a social contract?

Lockstep · 14-11-2010 10:28AM

Cróga wrote: »

You're saying that if im on someone else's property that i have to pay for any of their services i use? It would be wrong for me to just go and steal from these owners (directly or not paying for their services) or attack them with a weapon, right? Well then you would also have to agree it's wrong for anyone else to do it to me on my own land right?

You don't *have* to pay for services on someone else's land. It's infinitely more complicated than that. If I go into a cinema or a gym, it is implied that I will pay for these services. If I go into a private business and start playing with the computers, then payment is a seperate issue.
It would be wrong for someone to merely march in and take stuff from the owners or threaten them, however, I'm sure both you and I would agree that contractors have the right to enforce their contract which is what the state is doing. It can't go to your house and take your TV, but it can give you a fine for not paying your taxes.
My brother used to be a debt collector (thank God he's out of it now) and when someone hadn't paid their debts (ie: failed to adhere to their side of a contract) his organisation would go onto their private property to seek remuneration. Do you disagree with companies being able to do this? As that is effectively what the government is doing.

Cróga wrote: »

I'd like to define what the social contract is to further this debate. Is it right for me to say that the social contract is the idea that citizens of a country must obey the state, remaining in a country and having the right to vote constitutes a form of voluntary "contract" between citizen and government.. thus the social contract is geographical (country), unilateral (state -> citizen), and implicit (not signed/formal).

The social contract is an implied contract between a group and their government where they consent to ceding some sovereignty to a government in exchange for things like a rule of law and varying degrees of public goods, depending on the culture.

Geographical: Yes. States have territory. Although you can head to a region where the State's ability to collect revenue
Unilateral: No. A unilateral contract is one where only one party makes a promise (in contract law, the classic example is a reward contract) and where the other party can't require the the first party to act (I can set a reward and must give it to you if you find my dog, however, I cannot force you to go out and find my dog) Given that the social contract is a mutual one between the state and its citizens, it's a bilateral contract.
Let's say you and your friends buy a house together and agree on a set of rules with everyone having an equal voting weight. If you later decide you don't like the rules, you can vote with your feet or try to persuade the majority to accept a chance.
Implicit: Yes, implied contracts are extremely common (if I go into a restaurant, sit down and eat their food, an implied contract took place)

Cróga wrote: »

Right so any methodology which claims validity must itself be subject to its own contraints "no one is above the law". The scientific method must itself be subject to the scientific method. Logic and evidence must be subject to logic and evidence (reality and consistency). Atheism cannot claim to be true as a result of "divine visions." - rank self contradiction "god told an atheist that there is no god".

Law isn't a science and scientific method is a non-issue here.

Cróga wrote: »

The government proposes itself as the highest and only agency of justice in the land. The government claims justification based on the social contract. Thus the social contract must be the highest and most moral contract in existence - since it is the root of all other contracts enforced by the state thus the opposite of a social contract must be unjust/immoral. basic logic if(A = Just) then anything opposite of A is unjust.

No, the government does not. The courts are separate from the government (separation of powers) and the courts are the agency of justice: if you borrow loads of money from a private citizen it is through the courts (not the government) that they will seek redress.
I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the social contract is the highest and most moral contract. Contracts are morality neutral.

Cróga wrote: »

As mentioned, the social contract is geographical, unilateral and implicit.

Geographical, bilateral and implicit.

Cróga wrote: »

Thus all contracts that fulfill these requirements must also be just (if the social contract is just).

What a colossal straw man.
"A has a few common characteristics with B, therefore A must have the exact same status as B".

Cróga wrote: »

For example, Social Contract Car Dealership.. if i send a letter to every household in a 10 block radius telling the occupants i have bought a car on their behalf, that they can choose whether it is a Volvo or a BMW if they want and if they wont choose i will send them whatever the majority chose. The car will be delivered to them next week and cannot be returned. I am enclosing a bill for 30,000 and if they dont want the car they have to move out of the neighborhood where they can choose another car (just like the threat of moving to another country).

Mainly as that's not how the social contract works. The car dealership has no territorial claim to the surrounding areas which the State does. Likewise, it has no consent to do this act from the people in the surrounding area.

Cróga wrote: »

Lets say i bring this contract to my government and ask them to enforce it, what will their response be? They will call me insane and laugh at me. If i then take a gun and go to pick up my 30,000 i will be considered to be an immoral aggressor and will be thrown in jail for many years right? Yet I am perfectly fulfilling the requirements of the social contract - geographical, unilateral, implicit.

First of all, the government doesn't enforce contracts. That's the judiciary's job.
You are fulfilling *some* of the same requirements of the social contract: they are implicit and geographical. Other than that, what similarities are there?
To use that logic, I can compare a contract with my bookseller (it is implicit, it makes me happy) with an implied contract letting me shoot a randomer in the street (they walked by that lampost, they are therefore consenting to me shooting them)

Cróga wrote: »

Since the government claims as its justification the universal validity of the social contract but will attack as evil and unjust anybody who attempts to enforce an identical contract. The social contract is thus considered to be the highest moral good, and the greatest moral evil simultaneously. If the social contract is the highest good, then the government should defend it for everyone, but the government does the opposite and attacks competing social contracts, therefore is evil. If the social contract is the greatest evil, then government by definition is evil because that is what it claims as justification for its power.

Your argument relies on the basis that the social contract is the only one in existence whereas they exist for pretty much every democracy. A social contract exists in the US as it does in the UK, which both States defend: the contracts are universal and many benefits (such as the police) apply even to those who are not citizens.
As contracts, they're neither moral nor immoral.
My family owns a small piece land in Connemara and have the necessary contract sorted out. There is only one contract for this piece of land and now matter how much you might want it, it belongs to my family and you, me and various others can't all be the owners with exclusive contracts.. This does not prevent you from creating contracts for similar tracts of land.
In the same vein, the social contract exists for the nation of Ireland and multiple social contracts and governments in Ireland are incompatible. However, other social contracts exist for other States.

Cróga wrote: »

Perhaps we say the social contract only applies to governments? well thats not true because for it to be valid the social contract has applies to everyone (taxpayers). If the social contract were to apply to everyone, everyone can create and enforce a social contract. Well the government can say my social contract allows me to send a bill for 10,000 for taxes and i say ok i will send you back through my social contract a bill for 10,000 - nothing is achieved it all cancels out. Therefore the social contract is only possible if it is the highest good and the greatest evil simultaneously. Good for government, evil for me.

If it is morally good for Person A to impose the social contract on Person B, but morally evil to do the reverse. Thus exactly to the degree that the social contract is morally good, the government is morally evil for attacking competing impositions of a universally good moral contract. Exactly to the degree that the social contract is morally evil, the government is morally evil since that is what it uses to justify its own violent power. Thus the social contract utterly, and completely and totally invalidates the social contract.

Person A isn't imposing the social contract on B, A and B are part of a society which has collectively decided to form this social contract as such, the community is expecting B to adhere to his side of the social contract.

The government is the executive branch of the State and as such, is doing what its citizens are demanding; ie, fulfilling the contract. Social contracts aren't one-size-fits-all and various forms exist around the globe.
The contract itself is neutral but multiple contracts cannot be enforced for the same area. This is why there is one social contract for Ireland.

simplistic2 · 14-11-2010 10:32AM

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

"Immoral," or means-ends rationally amoral (Max Weber in Economy & Society), or a form of morality that supports the interests of the 2% that controls 80% of the wealth (C. Wright Mills "power elites"). This also raises the question of who is the "government" in reality, not just on paper, or the smiling faces on the telly shaking hands, kissing babies, and spouting platitudes?

The government is non existent , Ive never actually been able to find one. But I have found many who use the concept of the government to extort money from their surrounding citizens. Id see it as a conceptualized gun that different groups of people hold to others heads. The military ,the unions, the bankers, corporate lobby groups there all at it.

Other have argued that government is a projection caused by childhood trauma and the institution of family (The Origins of War in Child Abuse by Lloyd deMause) and (On Truth by Stefan Molyenux)

Lockstep · 14-11-2010 03:04PM

constance tench wrote: »

their resources?...apparently the system is an impostor!

What?

simplistic2 wrote: »

No its not very complex. The simple principle of the argument is that an institution was violently imposed on an area and its people then some years later a majority of them accepted it as valid.

But the institution is fundamentally different. The feudal era was one without any democratic legitimacy.

If North Korea morphed into a stable, capitalist democracy with popular consent tomorrow, its past as a totalitarian basket case doesn't change the fact that it it now a government chosen by the people.

simplistic2 wrote: »

The reality is people never wanted government just like people dont want violence and because people dont want violence they grudgingly accept and obey the threats that the government is backed up by. The propaganda of patriotism or "the love for a nonexistant line" helps people swallow the situation. Surly if they want all this then it would have been conceived voluntarily ?And all taxes would be donations?

How do you know this?
Given that they vote in their governments and are free to leave or form political parties at will, the burden of proof is on you to show that people do not want what they are partaking in.

simplistic2 wrote: »

Again you can apply that same principle to the rapist. If a majority of people like the rapists ideas and folded up papers and put them in ballot boxes is it right for rapist to rape those that do not agree with the process of electing rapists?

Again, you seem hell bent on using rape as an example, despite the obvious differences (if I dislike paying taxes, I can leave the country easily. If I dislike being raped, then even on my way to the border, I can still be raped and forced to do something I don't want to)
Now, if you voluntarily enter into a house where you *know* persons meet with the purpose being to have wild uninhibited sex, then your presence in the house can be taken as an implied acceptance that you are there to have sex.

simplistic2 wrote: »

Like the M50?

What does the M50 have to do with rape?

simplistic2 wrote: »

Look there is no contract and there is no contract because because not even a mad man would sign a social contract. If the government says you "owe us taxes" and you say "show me the contract" then clearly there must be some form of written contract since the governments effect on your life is huge. Can you imagine even getting a loan by tacit acceptance you wink at the bank manger "SOLD" "NO no there was just something in my eye" "take it or go to prison".

Yes, there is a contract. As I have illustrated, implied contracts all the time: going into resteraunts being a prime example.
If a bank manager said "If you take this money, you are agreeing to the terms and conditions of the bank's contract" and you then took the money, you'd have a hard time wriggling out of it, even if you didn't sign anything.

You are universalising your own personal views: that not even a mad man would sign a social contract.

simplistic2 wrote: »

If you firmly believe in the democracy then would you have any problem with people being asked to sign a social contract?

Well, I'm an army reservist so I've already expressed my consent to the social contract when being sworn in, likewise, we do the same when taking citizenship pledges, taking political office or swearing in for jury duty.

I'd be grand with persons being asked to sign something along the lines of "I accept the need for a State and government, in exchange I will pay taxes".
Are you saying the majority of Irish people are anarchists who would happily abolish the State?

The slavery in taxation

Comments