Today as I was debating in high school lincoln-douglas debate, I used the idea that the social contract signed between the sovereign and citizens that states the rights and duties of each. My opponent argued that it is unfair for a sovereign to force this contract upon its citizens. I already know where I stand and just want to see how you guys think on the idea of the social contract.
without enforcing something on your citizens you have no government.
what is the social contract, exactly? what is the sovereign?
is this just like a government except that you’re supposed to be not oppressed on the grounds that you don’t get the heck out of the country?
i think the social contract idea if it’s even possible is just an interesting way of doing things and not much more. and it depends on how it’s implemented… can the citizen refuse to sign the contract and thus give citizens more democratic power? if not, why does it make a difference? what would the country do with a citizen that doesnt sign? just say “well, if you’re not going to sign, we’ll just have to let you do whatever you want”? kick him out of the country? not let him use any basic services like roads, ambulances, police protection, and currency? that would make it impractical for anyone to say “no”. etc.
What’s wrong with that?
without going into that question, my only point was that a) social contracts are not an alternative to government, or b) there’s no significant difference between normal styles of government and social contracts.
How do you force a contract on someone?
Give them a choice between arbitary laws and a very long jail sentence. You’re not ‘forcing them’ but you might as well have the gun pointed at them.
The social contract theory was a better idea a few centuries ago when it was more practical to expect that one could reject society, move miles away, and live off the land. That was back in an era when a substantial portion of the Earth’s livable surface was uninhabited and unclaimed (except for the aboriginals, of course).
Today, that’s not really much of an option anymore, so I guess the social contract seems much less fair when viewed in this light. There’s nowhere, practically speaking, for one to “escape”. Instead, the contract seems to offer the option of either living by society’s rules and receiving all the rights and benefits that are supposed to come with it, or live as a homeless beggar. Sure, it’s a choice, but not much of one.
On the brighter side, there are quite a few “good deals” around the globe - prosperous and just societies that hold promising future for its citizens - and this might be thought of as the modern day equivalent of the uninhabited and unclaimed lands of a few centuries ago.
If it’s a question of whether one wants to live in society or none at all, then yes, this option seems to be a thing of the past, but the counter-point to that is that back a few centuries ago, the equivalent lack of options were those of chosing to live in a society as fair and prosperous as those we have today or one whose rules and stipulations were grossly unfair (not everyone thinks of living off the land as a decent alternative).
’
The “Social Contract” is not an immutable document. It is an ideal whose contents shift and adjust with the time as circumstances change. The modern day social contract is more about getting along and putting up with others behavior that ones find offensive in the name of precluding a widespread and wholesale destructive reordering of society such as massive rioting and civil war would bring about.
These days no one social group has the power to dominate so the perrogative is towards accomodation acceptance and cooperation.
The social contract is no contract at all.
It does however remain a ongoing perpetual unrealistic demand on individuals in the face of their lives…
good ideas guys
But how is the mutable document of the social contract any more mutable than the laws of a democracy? and at least in a democracy the mutations of the documents are determined by, well, democracy. in social contract it’s unclear how the common will will inform the mutations. although i agree with anything that’s for putting up with others’ behavior. in democracy you have that, except for some religious notions like not having anal sex. the question is how social contract will be different and in which direction.
A social contract to me is an unwritten understanding which assigns itself to moral and ethical tenets. This type of contract can not be upheld, unless it in a way comprimises a statute being enforced by a written law… i.e. disturbing the peace while being loud etc.
However if some sort of social contract is made with a sovereign (and for pete’s sake why?) and signed with both parties privy to the outcome of a certain offense, then there has to be satisfaction due to the infraction. Plus, this arbitrament should be held before a neutral source of judgement. At least then there should be a balanced outcome.
Belief in the concept of a “social contract” is just a new type of religion.
Just look at history: it is a convenient instrument that arose to replace divine authority when people were gradually questioning their old religious authorities.
For the longest time, statesmen were granted authority by churches. Eventually, people started to realize that they can pick and choose their churches.
There is a good reason why: all tyrants/sovereigns/governments are powerless if the entire population objects to their rule.
I would like to draw a parallel to the Falun Dafa in China. The Falun Dafa do not promote violence but still, technically, they do not accept the “social contract” as dictated by the Chinese government. The Chinese government treats the Falun Dafa as a very serious threat for one reason: they do not accept the Chinese government as having any moral authority to determine right from wrong.
The laws are the only tangible part of the social contract.
Because we didn’t sign it, and receive no guaranteed compensation for our compliance.
In living as a homeless beggar, one still must live by society’s rules, but the rights and benefits are not necessarily available, or useful.
An actual contract with specified responsibilities, rights, and compensation, could be far more just, and reasonable.
I don’t get this. If a part is intangible, how is it enforced? And if it’s not enforced, what is its use? It seems morality/behavior would come down to peer influence, awareness, religion, etc., the same things it comes down to anyway.
The social contract on principal is still the most important element in social science today. The prospect that a person affected has to concsiously agree. The problem is that whose affected and what you can do are completely arbitrary to the expanse of resources.
It’s a good merit if money has a physical benchmark (Eg: Penny MUST contain x% copper). Land or “surface rights” is also completely arbitrary. Its only basis is still whom managed to pillage and conquer the best a few centuries ago, who’s lucky enough to find new resources, and who’s capable of defending it the best. If we truly want to have a civil basis for society as a whole, we need to completely uproot the fundamental rationality behind resources. Revolutionize money. Something that banks won’t ever do under bomb threat.
Psychology and technological progress has helped many nations become more civil on a social level, but the basis of all nations is still the same savage, mindless, survival-of-the-greediest as ever before. A smarter system of rules to govern whom gets those basic resources will be found if any group of lamen carefully THINK about it.