4 ms·

The Social Contract is one of the most misleading ideas that has ever been created - it's not a contract, and it's not voluntary. It's a sleight of hand, to fo

The Social Contract is one of the most misleading ideas that has ever been created - it's not a contract, and it's not voluntary. It's a sleight of hand, to for those in power to justify the use of force of on others.

nickbauman 5y ago
If you live in a society, you agree to abide by its rules or to move to a different society that better suits you if they will accept you. Otherwise you are a renegade. I don't see how this is avoidable. A state is considered intact if the government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. A state can become predatory if they abuse that legitimacy, but other than that, if the government loses its monopoly, you have what is referred to as a failed state.
- Proven 5y ago
  > If you live in a society, you agree to abide by its rules or to move to a different society that better suits you if they will accept you. Otherwise you are a renegade. Wut??? How can a person living on their own land be a renegade?
- yCombLinks 5y ago
  Yes, I'd say that agrees with the definition of involuntary. Do what we say, or give up everything you have and leave.
  - commandlinefan 5y ago
    > give up everything you have and leave To nowhere, since there's nowhere else to go.
  - nickbauman 5y ago
    Yeah otherwise laws don't mean anything, right? It's free-for-all. From "stopping at a Red light is optional" to Vigilanteism. Can you explain how that would work? Would you want to live in that kind of state?
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      I don't think you are disagreeing. Both can be true. A) You are born into a system without your permission, and must abide by the rules of those in power or you will be punished. B) Laws can also be morally sound and in place for good reason.
- guerrilla 5y ago
  > you agree to abide by its rules or to move to a different society that better suits you if they will accept you. Except there's no such thing as free immigration right now (except within the EU) and even if there were it would only be a market among offerings and there's no option for non-participation since states dominate all inhabitable territory on Earth.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Iv 5y ago
What is that supposed to mean in English? In French it usually refers to the eponymous book from Rousseau, that basically explains that leaders powers are always in balance against the people's will to overthrow them and that there has to be some kind of mutual gains between leaders and the population they rule for it to be stable. It was mostly an argument in favor of democracy and some kind of redistributive system.
- glial 5y ago
  That's true, but I agree with the parent comment that 'contract' implies an initial negotiation and optional agreement, and none of us had that negotiation nor option. It's just a misleading term to use, so it seems like a bit of sophistry.
  - hammock 5y ago
    > 'contract' implies an initial negotiation and optional agreement, and none of us had that negotiation nor option. Marriage contract? In Rousseau's time many women did not have those either.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      Slave contracts were a thing as well, but I think it is pretty clear that the original concept was one of mutual consent.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  I'm not a scholar on the subject, but in Rousseau's time I don't think the idea of a redistributive system was prevalent. My understanding is it was more about freedom from government intervention. The idea of governments redistributive function is more of a twentieth century development. It looks like the first welfare programs started in France in the form of limited government funding for charity hospitals in the early 1900's, about 150 years after Rousseau's death
- dantheman 5y ago
  Yeah, I'm referring to Rousseau.
dfilppi 5y ago
The "social contract" is not a contract, but the word "contract" is used to infer some kind of responsibility or "norm". In reality it refers to what ever equilibrium has been reach in a certain market context between business owners and everybody else. It is a fiction.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
It's not a contract in the legal sense. It's a contract in the sense that both sides have obligations. When you break a legal contract, you get sued in court. When you break the social contract, the mob rises up and kills you and everyone like you that they can get their hands on. So the rich and powerful had better treat it like it's a real contract, because it's what protects them. It keeps them in a world where they are the rich and powerful, and keeps them from a world where power is only fists and guns. The rich and powerful don't want that world; they want this one. So they'd better keep their side of the social contract.
refurb 5y ago
Yup it’s like the word “living wage”. A nice phrase but no exact definition but can used politically to score points. “You need to give me free education because of our social contract” Which really means “give me free stuff cause I want it”.
petermcneeley 5y ago
This is purely for fun but please define "voluntary"
helen___keller 5y ago
Arguably you could say there something of a contract - a written body of rules that define how society functions and how it evolves the body of rules. It's even voluntary in that you can expatriate. But to expatriate you must find another state to immigrate to, and if you don't like any of the social contracts available then tough luck.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
I don't think the original concept is was very misleading. Essentially the idea was that if rulers infringe on too many freedoms, the people are morally allowed top rise up and kill them. Every day that you aren't trying to overthrow the rulers, you are affirming the contract. We take this for granted today, but it was not always the case. Prior philosophy essentially held that the rulers had a God given right to power, and people had a philosophical duty to obey, no matter how they were treated. There has been a lot of scope creep since the 1700's increasing the scope of government expectations, and deemphasizing the obligation to take action and revolt if you are not happy with the balance. The original idea was very real politik, where people are only entitled to what they are willing to risk their lives fighting for.
- dantheman 5y ago
  Yeah, that's a really great perspective. It's a contract on the rulers - if you do X you'll be thrown out, not so much an obligation on the individual.

nickbauman 5y ago

If you live in a society, you agree to abide by its rules or to move to a different society that better suits you if they will accept you. Otherwise you are a renegade. I don't see how this is avoidable. A state is considered intact if the government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. A state can become predatory if they abuse that legitimacy, but other than that, if the government loses its monopoly, you have what is referred to as a failed state.

Proven 5y ago
> If you live in a society, you agree to abide by its rules or to move to a different society that better suits you if they will accept you. Otherwise you are a renegade. Wut??? How can a person living on their own land be a renegade?
yCombLinks 5y ago
Yes, I'd say that agrees with the definition of involuntary. Do what we say, or give up everything you have and leave.
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  > give up everything you have and leave To nowhere, since there's nowhere else to go.
- nickbauman 5y ago
  Yeah otherwise laws don't mean anything, right? It's free-for-all. From "stopping at a Red light is optional" to Vigilanteism. Can you explain how that would work? Would you want to live in that kind of state?
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    I don't think you are disagreeing. Both can be true. A) You are born into a system without your permission, and must abide by the rules of those in power or you will be punished. B) Laws can also be morally sound and in place for good reason.
guerrilla 5y ago
> you agree to abide by its rules or to move to a different society that better suits you if they will accept you. Except there's no such thing as free immigration right now (except within the EU) and even if there were it would only be a market among offerings and there's no option for non-participation since states dominate all inhabitable territory on Earth.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Iv 5y ago

What is that supposed to mean in English? In French it usually refers to the eponymous book from Rousseau, that basically explains that leaders powers are always in balance against the people's will to overthrow them and that there has to be some kind of mutual gains between leaders and the population they rule for it to be stable. It was mostly an argument in favor of democracy and some kind of redistributive system.

glial 5y ago
That's true, but I agree with the parent comment that 'contract' implies an initial negotiation and optional agreement, and none of us had that negotiation nor option. It's just a misleading term to use, so it seems like a bit of sophistry.
- hammock 5y ago
  > 'contract' implies an initial negotiation and optional agreement, and none of us had that negotiation nor option. Marriage contract? In Rousseau's time many women did not have those either.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Slave contracts were a thing as well, but I think it is pretty clear that the original concept was one of mutual consent.
s1artibartfast 5y ago
I'm not a scholar on the subject, but in Rousseau's time I don't think the idea of a redistributive system was prevalent. My understanding is it was more about freedom from government intervention. The idea of governments redistributive function is more of a twentieth century development. It looks like the first welfare programs started in France in the form of limited government funding for charity hospitals in the early 1900's, about 150 years after Rousseau's death
dantheman 5y ago
Yeah, I'm referring to Rousseau.

dfilppi 5y ago

The "social contract" is not a contract, but the word "contract" is used to infer some kind of responsibility or "norm". In reality it refers to what ever equilibrium has been reach in a certain market context between business owners and everybody else. It is a fiction.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

It's not a contract in the legal sense. It's a contract in the sense that both sides have obligations. When you break a legal contract, you get sued in court. When you break the social contract, the mob rises up and kills you and everyone like you that they can get their hands on. So the rich and powerful had better treat it like it's a real contract, because it's what protects them. It keeps them in a world where they are the rich and powerful, and keeps them from a world where power is only fists and guns. The rich and powerful don't want that world; they want this one. So they'd better keep their side of the social contract.

refurb 5y ago

Yup it’s like the word “living wage”. A nice phrase but no exact definition but can used politically to score points. “You need to give me free education because of our social contract” Which really means “give me free stuff cause I want it”.

petermcneeley 5y ago

This is purely for fun but please define "voluntary"

helen___keller 5y ago

Arguably you could say there something of a contract - a written body of rules that define how society functions and how it evolves the body of rules. It's even voluntary in that you can expatriate. But to expatriate you must find another state to immigrate to, and if you don't like any of the social contracts available then tough luck.

s1artibartfast 5y ago

I don't think the original concept is was very misleading. Essentially the idea was that if rulers infringe on too many freedoms, the people are morally allowed top rise up and kill them. Every day that you aren't trying to overthrow the rulers, you are affirming the contract. We take this for granted today, but it was not always the case. Prior philosophy essentially held that the rulers had a God given right to power, and people had a philosophical duty to obey, no matter how they were treated. There has been a lot of scope creep since the 1700's increasing the scope of government expectations, and deemphasizing the obligation to take action and revolt if you are not happy with the balance. The original idea was very real politik, where people are only entitled to what they are willing to risk their lives fighting for.

dantheman 5y ago
Yeah, that's a really great perspective. It's a contract on the rulers - if you do X you'll be thrown out, not so much an obligation on the individual.