Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Social contract

thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 4:58:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Can someone please give me a rational explanation as to how this theory isn't laughed out of the arena of debate/discussion (when applying it to the status quo)? I really really can't see any logical justification for it. Yes people always use "societies" services, but they don't exactly have an alternative choice.

Will someone please tell me how the US or any other country is a contractual entity.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:10:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think the logic is:
1. Man was born free, with all rights intact (i.e. he can do anything he wants)
2. Man freely sacrifices some rights (no more raping and killing) to establish a society/government, which serves to offer justice/security/maximize liberty.
3. Government is a contract with the individual, an exchange for rights for certain protections.

I think people use this to remind people that the government is the oppressor of rights, and people inherently have them and willingly give them up. The say this in an effort to weaken/shrink the government.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:13:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I always saw the social contract theory be used as an argument for why people establish governments, not so much as a reason for why the government gets to do just about anything the public isnt 100% united against
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:14:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:10:46 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
I think the logic is:
1. Man was born free, with all rights intact (i.e. he can do anything he wants)
2. Man freely sacrifices some rights (no more raping and killing) to establish a society/government, which serves to offer justice/security/maximize liberty.

Raping and killing are not rights, they're property violations

3. Government is a contract with the individual, an exchange for rights for certain protections.


Except it's not. Not a single person living today agreed to the constitution or had any part in writing it (except maybe a handful of legislators involved in passing amendments). That was my main problem with it, where did I sign away my rights and life to the state?

I think people use this to remind people that the government is the oppressor of rights, and people inherently have them and willingly give them up. The say this in an effort to weaken/shrink the government.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:20:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
When you enter a country, you form an implicit contract based on the Constitution (in the US) that the government does X and Y for you and you do Z and U for the government. It's a contract because neither is it forced, but it can also be avoided or escaped from.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:21:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 4:58:00 PM, thett3 wrote:
Can someone please give me a rational explanation as to how this theory isn't laughed out of the arena of debate/discussion (when applying it to the status quo)? I really really can't see any logical justification for it. Yes people always use "societies" services, but they don't exactly have an alternative choice.

Will someone please tell me how the US or any other country is a contractual entity.

Somehow teaching in government run schools that the government takes away your freedoms for no reason seems a bit counterproductive.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:21:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:20:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
When you enter a country, you form an implicit contract based on the Constitution (in the US) that the government does X and Y for you and you do Z and U for the government. It's a contract because neither is it forced, but it can also be avoided or escaped from.

What justifies the original contract i.e., the Constitution as legitimately binding over the entire territory? Like I can just willy nilly say this neck of the woods is mine and if you come in you have to do what I say. No one is necessarily forced to come in and I can always let people leave. But why is my holding of the title in itself legitimate?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:22:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:14:15 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:10:46 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
I think the logic is:
1. Man was born free, with all rights intact (i.e. he can do anything he wants)
2. Man freely sacrifices some rights (no more raping and killing) to establish a society/government, which serves to offer justice/security/maximize liberty.

Raping and killing are not rights, they're property violations
If I am truly free, can I not do what I want, whenever I want (assuming I am able)?

Regardless, I think you saw my point for the logic.

3. Government is a contract with the individual, an exchange for rights for certain protections.


Except it's not. Not a single person living today agreed to the constitution or had any part in writing it (except maybe a handful of legislators involved in passing amendments). That was my main problem with it, where did I sign away my rights and life to the state?

Your forefathers did. You are not obligated to live here. You are allowed (in the US) to change the laws.

I think people use this to remind people that the government is the oppressor of rights, and people inherently have them and willingly give them up. The say this in an effort to weaken/shrink the government.
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:23:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:20:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
When you enter a country

I never voluntarily entered the US. Very few of us did--I can see immigration being a contractual agreement, but not birth, unless you think peoples autonomy can be sold of/taken at birth

, you form an implicit contract based on the Constitution (in the US) that the government does X and Y for you and you do Z and U for the government. It's a contract because neither is it forced, but it can also be avoided or escaped from.


That seems like a really big contradiction. If I want to get away from something but cant, that's force is it not?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:25:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:21:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:20:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
When you enter a country, you form an implicit contract based on the Constitution (in the US) that the government does X and Y for you and you do Z and U for the government. It's a contract because neither is it forced, but it can also be avoided or escaped from.

What justifies the original contract i.e., the Constitution as legitimately binding over the entire territory? Like I can just willy nilly say this neck of the woods is mine and if you come in you have to do what I say. No one is necessarily forced to come in and I can always let people leave. But why is my holding of the title in itself legitimate?

Contracts are binding over a territory as long as either a) the holder of the contract has force over the territory or b) the inhabitants of the territory accept it. It's also nice if nobody owns the territory before, but that's not a must. The US government both has the force to eliminate those who chose to accept the contract and not follow it or those who they believe are trying to subvert the contract. As well, the majority of the United States citizens probably support the State.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:25:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:22:46 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:14:15 PM, thett3 wrote:

Except it's not. Not a single person living today agreed to the constitution or had any part in writing it (except maybe a handful of legislators involved in passing amendments). That was my main problem with it, where did I sign away my rights and life to the state?

Your forefathers did. You are not obligated to live here. You are allowed (in the US) to change the laws.

I know I don't have to live here. What justifies the State's right to monopolize control inside the borders?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:25:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:23:01 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:20:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
When you enter a country

I never voluntarily entered the US. Very few of us did--I can see immigration being a contractual agreement, but not birth, unless you think peoples autonomy can be sold of/taken at birth

, you form an implicit contract based on the Constitution (in the US) that the government does X and Y for you and you do Z and U for the government. It's a contract because neither is it forced, but it can also be avoided or escaped from.


That seems like a really big contradiction. If I want to get away from something but cant, that's force is it not?

but at the same time, there's nothing stopping you from leaving the country. There might be some barriers to entry (especially when entering a developed nation) but you could probably easily enter a developing or undeveloped country.

Your still voluntarily staying in the US.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:26:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:22:46 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:14:15 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:10:46 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
I think the logic is:
1. Man was born free, with all rights intact (i.e. he can do anything he wants)
2. Man freely sacrifices some rights (no more raping and killing) to establish a society/government, which serves to offer justice/security/maximize liberty.

Raping and killing are not rights, they're property violations
If I am truly free, can I not do what I want, whenever I want (assuming I am able)?

Regardless, I think you saw my point for the logic.

3. Government is a contract with the individual, an exchange for rights for certain protections.


Except it's not. Not a single person living today agreed to the constitution or had any part in writing it (except maybe a handful of legislators involved in passing amendments). That was my main problem with it, where did I sign away my rights and life to the state?

Your forefathers did. You are not obligated to live here. You are allowed (in the US) to change the laws.

I think people use this to remind people that the government is the oppressor of rights, and people inherently have them and willingly give them up. The say this in an effort to weaken/shrink the government.

I forgot to add that the same argument you are making is the same logic that any leader of any country can ignore any treaty that was ever signed.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:26:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:23:01 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:20:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
When you enter a country

I never voluntarily entered the US. Very few of us did--I can see immigration being a contractual agreement, but not birth, unless you think peoples autonomy can be sold of/taken at birth

, you form an implicit contract based on the Constitution (in the US) that the government does X and Y for you and you do Z and U for the government. It's a contract because neither is it forced, but it can also be avoided or escaped from.


That seems like a really big contradiction. If I want to get away from something but cant, that's force is it not?

You're underage and therefore don't have individual mobility rights. Your choice to enter or leave the contract is based on your parents/guardians.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:27:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:25:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:21:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:20:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
When you enter a country, you form an implicit contract based on the Constitution (in the US) that the government does X and Y for you and you do Z and U for the government. It's a contract because neither is it forced, but it can also be avoided or escaped from.

What justifies the original contract i.e., the Constitution as legitimately binding over the entire territory? Like I can just willy nilly say this neck of the woods is mine and if you come in you have to do what I say. No one is necessarily forced to come in and I can always let people leave. But why is my holding of the title in itself legitimate?

Contracts are binding over a territory as long as either a) the holder of the contract has force over the territory

Well no who signed the contract is alive so....

or b) the inhabitants of the territory accept it.

And for those who don't?

It's also nice if nobody owns the territory before, but that's not a must.

Because stealing is different if it's a country.

The US government both has the force to eliminate those who chose to accept the contract and not follow it or those who they believe are trying to subvert the contract.

I never chose to accept the "contract".

As well, the majority of the United States citizens probably support the State.

Since when does majority rule equal legitimacy? Oh wait you're a relativist.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:27:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:26:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:23:01 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:20:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
When you enter a country

I never voluntarily entered the US. Very few of us did--I can see immigration being a contractual agreement, but not birth, unless you think peoples autonomy can be sold of/taken at birth

, you form an implicit contract based on the Constitution (in the US) that the government does X and Y for you and you do Z and U for the government. It's a contract because neither is it forced, but it can also be avoided or escaped from.


That seems like a really big contradiction. If I want to get away from something but cant, that's force is it not?

You're underage and therefore don't have individual mobility rights. Your choice to enter or leave the contract is based on your parents/guardians.

He's 18 brah. He can do whatever the fvck he wants.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:28:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:25:11 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:22:46 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:14:15 PM, thett3 wrote:

Except it's not. Not a single person living today agreed to the constitution or had any part in writing it (except maybe a handful of legislators involved in passing amendments). That was my main problem with it, where did I sign away my rights and life to the state?

Your forefathers did. You are not obligated to live here. You are allowed (in the US) to change the laws.

I know I don't have to live here. What justifies the State's right to monopolize control inside the borders?

The contract that our forefathers made, and we have yet to change.
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:28:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:22:46 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:14:15 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:10:46 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
I think the logic is:
1. Man was born free, with all rights intact (i.e. he can do anything he wants)
2. Man freely sacrifices some rights (no more raping and killing) to establish a society/government, which serves to offer justice/security/maximize liberty.

Raping and killing are not rights, they're property violations
If I am truly free, can I not do what I want, whenever I want (assuming I am able)?

That's a strawman of anti statism that literally no one holds. It's freedom from coercion, freedom from force, not freedom to do whatever you want. I know you're trying to so "oh, in a state of nature man would be so violent" but thats just an unwarranted assertion, and it doesnt followthat giving a bunch of people power over others will make things better


Regardless, I think you saw my point for the logic.

3. Government is a contract with the individual, an exchange for rights for certain protections.


Except it's not. Not a single person living today agreed to the constitution or had any part in writing it (except maybe a handful of legislators involved in passing amendments). That was my main problem with it, where did I sign away my rights and life to the state?

Your forefathers did.

I see. So I'm held to contracts made by my forefathers...so I suppose I still owe military service to the heirs whatever land owner my feudal ancestors lived under

You are not obligated to live here. You are allowed (in the US) to change the laws.

That's a stupid argument dude. So if the chinese took over America and decided to subject youto their laws and tax your income 99%, would you be alright if I said "well bro, stop complaining because you dont have to live there"?


I think people use this to remind people that the government is the oppressor of rights, and people inherently have them and willingly give them up. The say this in an effort to weaken/shrink the government.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:28:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:25:31 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:23:01 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:20:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
When you enter a country

I never voluntarily entered the US. Very few of us did--I can see immigration being a contractual agreement, but not birth, unless you think peoples autonomy can be sold of/taken at birth

, you form an implicit contract based on the Constitution (in the US) that the government does X and Y for you and you do Z and U for the government. It's a contract because neither is it forced, but it can also be avoided or escaped from.


That seems like a really big contradiction. If I want to get away from something but cant, that's force is it not?

but at the same time, there's nothing stopping you from leaving the country. There might be some barriers to entry (especially when entering a developed nation) but you could probably easily enter a developing or undeveloped country.

Your still voluntarily staying in the US.

Hypothet: Some dude comes to your house and says as long as you stay inside the house you do what he says. Though you can leave whenever you want. This doesn't legitimate anything. And it's the problem with people saying "oh well you can leave brah". Why should I have to leave?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:29:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I personally think that Social Contract theory is ridiculous, but I will do my best to explain it and defend it.

Essentially the only theory of it that I've heard and think is slightly legitimate says that before any contractual formation, society is in the State of Nature, which is essentially chaos and anarchy on steroids. The state of nature is a god-awful place to be, and we naturally want to get out of a bad place like that. To get out of the state of nature, we form a social contract that we give up a portion of the rights we had in the state of nature in order to give us protections from the harms of the state of nature.

Questions?
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:29:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:28:12 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:25:11 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:22:46 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:14:15 PM, thett3 wrote:

Except it's not. Not a single person living today agreed to the constitution or had any part in writing it (except maybe a handful of legislators involved in passing amendments). That was my main problem with it, where did I sign away my rights and life to the state?

Your forefathers did. You are not obligated to live here. You are allowed (in the US) to change the laws.

I know I don't have to live here. What justifies the State's right to monopolize control inside the borders?

The contract that our forefathers made, and we have yet to change.

Can I sign a contract binding my progeny to anything? You're utilizing special pleading bro.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:29:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:27:24 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:25:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:21:55 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:20:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
When you enter a country, you form an implicit contract based on the Constitution (in the US) that the government does X and Y for you and you do Z and U for the government. It's a contract because neither is it forced, but it can also be avoided or escaped from.

What justifies the original contract i.e., the Constitution as legitimately binding over the entire territory? Like I can just willy nilly say this neck of the woods is mine and if you come in you have to do what I say. No one is necessarily forced to come in and I can always let people leave. But why is my holding of the title in itself legitimate?

Contracts are binding over a territory as long as either a) the holder of the contract has force over the territory

Well no who signed the contract is alive so....

Unless the contract was for a specific time frame, that is completely irrelevant.

or b) the inhabitants of the territory accept it.

And for those who don't?

Move.

It's also nice if nobody owns the territory before, but that's not a must.

Because stealing is different if it's a country.

Stealing is fine if people are fine with it.

The US government both has the force to eliminate those who chose to accept the contract and not follow it or those who they believe are trying to subvert the contract.

I never chose to accept the "contract".

Move.

As well, the majority of the United States citizens probably support the State.

Since when does majority rule equal legitimacy? Oh wait you're a relativist.

Dat.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:30:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Mostly because you could (theoretically) always leave and set up another society on an abandoned oil rig.

But I don't particularly like it, mostly because that doesn't really deal with moral factors of what one should do. I simply use a utilitarian argument.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:31:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:27:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:26:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:23:01 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:20:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
When you enter a country

I never voluntarily entered the US. Very few of us did--I can see immigration being a contractual agreement, but not birth, unless you think peoples autonomy can be sold of/taken at birth

, you form an implicit contract based on the Constitution (in the US) that the government does X and Y for you and you do Z and U for the government. It's a contract because neither is it forced, but it can also be avoided or escaped from.


That seems like a really big contradiction. If I want to get away from something but cant, that's force is it not?

You're underage and therefore don't have individual mobility rights. Your choice to enter or leave the contract is based on your parents/guardians.

He's 18 brah. He can do whatever the fvck he wants.

I'm not familiar with US law but isn't the age 21? In Canada it's 18 but I thought it was different in the US.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:31:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:29:13 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I personally think that Social Contract theory is ridiculous, but I will do my best to explain it and defend it.

Essentially the only theory of it that I've heard and think is slightly legitimate says that before any contractual formation, society is in the State of Nature, which is essentially chaos and anarchy on steroids. The state of nature is a god-awful place to be, and we naturally want to get out of a bad place like that. To get out of the state of nature, we form a social contract that we give up a portion of the rights we had in the state of nature in order to give us protections from the harms of the state of nature.

Questions?

(A) Why accept that statelessness is necessarily worse of than statism?
(B) What does "we" mean in this context? No one alive engaged in this contract and most people alive when it was formed had no part in the matter.
(C) What binds further generations to the decisions of their unimaginative forefathers?
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
thett3
Posts: 14,349
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:33:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:29:13 PM, Zaradi wrote:
I personally think that Social Contract theory is ridiculous, but I will do my best to explain it and defend it.

Essentially the only theory of it that I've heard and think is slightly legitimate says that before any contractual formation, society is in the State of Nature, which is essentially chaos and anarchy on steroids. The state of nature is a god-awful place to be, and we naturally want to get out of a bad place like that. To get out of the state of nature, we form a social contract that we give up a portion of the rights we had in the state of nature in order to give us protections from the harms of the state of nature.

Questions?

Yeah, it seems to be more of a defense of initially forming a state, not maintaining one. My question is where does the theory justified the continuing existence of governments after all of those legitimately subjected to the contract are dead?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:34:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:28:44 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:25:31 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:23:01 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:20:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
When you enter a country

I never voluntarily entered the US. Very few of us did--I can see immigration being a contractual agreement, but not birth, unless you think peoples autonomy can be sold of/taken at birth

, you form an implicit contract based on the Constitution (in the US) that the government does X and Y for you and you do Z and U for the government. It's a contract because neither is it forced, but it can also be avoided or escaped from.


That seems like a really big contradiction. If I want to get away from something but cant, that's force is it not?

but at the same time, there's nothing stopping you from leaving the country. There might be some barriers to entry (especially when entering a developed nation) but you could probably easily enter a developing or undeveloped country.

Your still voluntarily staying in the US.

Hypothet: Some dude comes to your house and says as long as you stay inside the house you do what he says. Though you can leave whenever you want. This doesn't legitimate anything. And it's the problem with people saying "oh well you can leave brah". Why should I have to leave?

I don't own any property bro. Its not my house. Its my parents house and I rent an apartment from a landlord.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:35:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:31:05 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:27:56 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:26:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:23:01 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:20:36 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
When you enter a country

I never voluntarily entered the US. Very few of us did--I can see immigration being a contractual agreement, but not birth, unless you think peoples autonomy can be sold of/taken at birth

, you form an implicit contract based on the Constitution (in the US) that the government does X and Y for you and you do Z and U for the government. It's a contract because neither is it forced, but it can also be avoided or escaped from.


That seems like a really big contradiction. If I want to get away from something but cant, that's force is it not?

You're underage and therefore don't have individual mobility rights. Your choice to enter or leave the contract is based on your parents/guardians.

He's 18 brah. He can do whatever the fvck he wants.

I'm not familiar with US law but isn't the age 21? In Canada it's 18 but I thought it was different in the US.

Alright, he can do whatever the fvck he wants, besides have a beer.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:35:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:29:44 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:27:24 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:25:04 PM, Lordknukle wrote:

Contracts are binding over a territory as long as either a) the holder of the contract has force over the territory

Well no who signed the contract is alive so....

Unless the contract was for a specific time frame, that is completely irrelevant.

Yeah it is. I sign a contract binding myself to work for an unspecified period of time. I die. My kids aren't bound to that contract. Contracts only bind their signatories or those who their signatories represent. Best case scenario: everyone alive at the time was obligated and no one else.

or b) the inhabitants of the territory accept it.

And for those who don't?

Move.

Presupposed legitimacy brah.

It's also nice if nobody owns the territory before, but that's not a must.

Because stealing is different if it's a country.

Stealing is fine if people are fine with it.

Relativism ftl. This is why relativism is useless. Just come out and be a nihilist like a man. The ethico-ontological nature of stealing isn't altered in the slightest by out perception of it.

The US government both has the force to eliminate those who chose to accept the contract and not follow it or those who they believe are trying to subvert the contract.

I never chose to accept the "contract".

Move.

Refer to the above.

As well, the majority of the United States citizens probably support the State.

Since when does majority rule equal legitimacy? Oh wait you're a relativist.

Dat.

Relativism is incoherent. Therefore your argument is incoherent.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 5:36:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 5:34:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:28:44 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 10/9/2012 5:25:31 PM, darkkermit wrote:

but at the same time, there's nothing stopping you from leaving the country. There might be some barriers to entry (especially when entering a developed nation) but you could probably easily enter a developing or undeveloped country.

Your still voluntarily staying in the US.

Hypothet: Some dude comes to your house and says as long as you stay inside the house you do what he says. Though you can leave whenever you want. This doesn't legitimate anything. And it's the problem with people saying "oh well you can leave brah". Why should I have to leave?

I don't own any property bro. Its not my house. Its my parents house and I rent an apartment from a landlord.

Stop playing silly brah. Yall know what I mean.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.