4 ms·

The point he's making is that it is immoral for the same reason theft is. Whether it meets the full technical definition of theft is beside the point. Most peo

• ajkjk 10y ago
  That's fine, but when you get the concepts of 'government' and 'social contract' involved, you have be willing to revise that assessment. You don't get to both 'give away a freedom to the government via the social contract in exchange for protection of your other freedoms' and then also say "hey, it's immoral to not have this freedom; Give it back!". It's one or the other.
  • aminok 10y ago
    A social contract is not a real contract. In fact, it is in some aspects exactly the opposite of a contract. The term is extremely misleading, and basically invented for propaganda purposes. A group of people calling themselves the government and creating ideological constructs like "social contract" are still committing a human rights violation when they throw someone in prison for refusing to hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade.
  • dnautics 10y ago
    It's funny how people say that the social contract is the price we pay for an ordered society... But no one says, you know, it's okay to choke an unarmed man to death for selling loose cigarettes because that's part of the social contract and necessary for 'keeping order'.
    • ajkjk 10y ago
      What's your point?
  • icebraining 10y ago
    You don't get to both 'give away a freedom to the government via the social contract in exchange for protection of your other freedoms' and then also say "hey, it's immoral to not have this freedom; Give it back!". It's one or the other. Hum, the whole point of anarchism is that they don't even recognize the first as valid, let alone wanting both.
    • ajkjk 10y ago
      Right, but we don't live in an anarchy, and I for one don't want to for that reason exactly.