Isn't the "social contract" a little bit overdue? And who agreed to it in the first place?

I managed to get myself into a discussion with someone a while ago, and I decided to act somewhat "difficult". Most of the time I don't care to get into discussions with people. I usually save my enthusiasm for people who want to listen and learn. But sometimes I just go apeshit principled on their asses.

The person brought up the "social contract" as an argument.

" But, we have a social contract. You give up some of your rights so that someone else's rights are looked out for"

she said with an overbearing and angry voice.

Say what? That was her argument. I told her;

" First of all, I never signed any social contract. I would never sign a contract that stupid and self destructive. Second, it doesn't make any sense. Why would it be moral for me to give up MY rights so that someone else can benefit from my loss of rights?"

A cup of hot coffee in my face later, at home, I started thinking about this "Social Contract" and how absurd it is. Politicians and parrots..I mean, people, throw it around like it's an argument. Like it's something that wins the discussion. But the social contract. Ah, but you see, we have a social contract. If you don't like it, leave.

Right..where would I leave? To another country with the same social contract? Which country doesn't have this "social contract"? Somalia? I think I'll stay here with the "social contract" and criticize it instead. Funny enough, some people will look at that answer and think they have won a prize or something.

"Ah! So you don't want to move to Somalia!? Why not? They have your beloved anarchy"

If you have to explain why Somalia is not anarchism (free market, voluntaryism, private property and people exercising the non-agression principle) to someone, then there is no hope.

 

So, the "social contract". What is it? Is it something more than just a phrase, like "who is John Galt"?

 

Actually it is

Internet tells me this;

" The/A social contract is an implicit agreement (implicit means understood, indirect) among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection."

These theories became popular by Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke in the 16th and 17 century

It doesn't sound too bad. Even an anarchist or minarchist will accept a state that protects your freedom. However, I don't quite see why what we are sacrificing by having police, military and a legal system to protect our property rights? Some money perhaps? 2-5% tax? I'd be happy with that.

But the social contract today is much more than that. It's a constructed "contract" where we are forced to pay half our salary in taxes, and where an ever increasing number of people exploit the labour of others to sit on their asses. So lets take a look at some modern thoughts on the "social contract".

Theory of Justice (1971)

Building on the work of Immanuel Kant (the devil) John Rawls proposed a contractarian approach where rational people in a hypotethical original position. This idea is basically insanity. In short, original position is about people making choices about the basic structures of the society they want to live in by firstly deprive participants of information about their particular characteristics like ethnicity, social status, gender and crucially CONCEPTION OF GOOD.

Yes, this is just madness. Relativist madness.

Republicanism (1997)

Philip Pettit has argued, that the theory of a social contract, classically based on the consent of the governed, should be modified. Instead of arguing for explicit consent, which can always be manufactured, Pettit argues that the absence of an effective rebellion against it is a contracts only legitimacy.

 

I think we can draw a conclusion here.

Neither arguments are very good in my opinion. The arguments of Kant, Hobbes and Rousseau that we must sacrifice some personal freedom for the sake of others is altruist at best, but absurd at worst. Altruism is the most self destructive behavior a person can exercise , yet it has been hammered into our minds from when we were kids that the well being of others is more important than the well being of ourselves. This mindset leads to anxiety, depression and miserable lives.

The argument made by Pettit that unless we rebel against it, it is legit - is also absurd. If you are taken prisoner by a slave owner, it is OK as long as you don't rebel. And if you should rebel, you would risk death, prison or the loss of your family? Does that really make the contract OK? So just because people aren't breaking out into civil war, the "social contract" is legit?

The "social contract" is just as much a contract as you would have with Vito and Sal showing up at your shop and telling you that you either pay them each month or they will break your legs. Oh, unless you rebel against them! Only if you rebel against Vito and Sal the contract is illegit. No problem. Just throw a fist at Vito next time, and you'll show them what's up!

Clearly, we can conclude that there is no such thing as a "social contract". And also, I think the world is way overdue to thrown this so called "contract" away in the dustbin of history. And again..this is such an exciting time to be alive, because with blockchain technology and decentralization and people like everyone here on Steemit, either you are an anarchist or not - we are actually in the fast lane of making this happen. We are slowly (or quite fast) saying no to this "contract".