Citizens and Government - Responsibility (new poll!)

[patches70]

Because the entire country is responsible you dumbass. You can't throw everyone in jail no matter what they have collectively done. And then there's the technicality, there would be no judge to pass the sentence, because they would all be guilty of whatever crime the US army did as well.

Whoa now, I'm just asking questions is all. I don't believe in this collective responsibility stuff and I'm trying to understand.

So TGD is just as responsible for those deaths of those wedding goers as anyone else, right? And even though TGD is responsible for the deaths, there is no one to hold him accountable, right?

Ok then, but what if someone decided to hold TGD accountable? Say TGD went to Greece as one of his family members is getting married. As he and the bride/groom to be, family and friends are heading to the wedding, a Yemeni citizen (a relative of some of those killed in the Yemen drone attack that TGD is just as responsible as anyone else for), set up a car bomb and blows TGD, his family and friends to little bitty pieces.

Since TGD is responsible for the Yemeni's family's deaths, can we not say that TGD just got was he deserved? That it's right and fair that TGD gets blown up along with his family because they are all just as responsible as anyone else for the Yemeni killings?

And then on top of all that can the US hold Yemen responsible for TGD's death, and by extension, every Yemeni citizen and thus begins indiscriminate drone attacks followed up by bombers and invasion with every citizen executed for their role in TGD's death? All the Yemeni citizens would be responsible for TGD's murder, right?

Where does it end?

[Metsfanmax]

Actually, what I should really ask, if you are responsible for those deaths, why shouldn't you be charged with a crime, sued via civil court or face retaliatory action from the relatives and/or the Yemeni government?

That system should exist. If such a crime is committed and the U.S. government is found guilty by an international court, then reparations should be paid by the American people.

That is, if you are responsible, would it be fair of Yemen to fly a drone over your house and bomb it killing you, your family and whomever else may be in the house with you?

No, that would be vigilante justice; two wrongs don't make a right in this case. Although, if the international judicial system is not in place and innocent Yemenis are being killed left and right, whether it's fair for them to respond that way is an interesting question without an obvious answer to me.

[patches70]

Although, if the international judicial system is not in place and innocent Yemenis are being killed left and right, whether it's fair for them to respond that way is an interesting question without an obvious answer to me.

That's true enough. The idea of collective responsibility without any chance at redress leads to all kinds of bad things happening. The idea of collective responsibility leads also to atrocities, such as were carried out in WWII for instance. Or in Roman times where if a ruler of some kingdom resisted then not only did the rulers get put to the sword but every citizen was as well, or put into slavery.
It's just barbaric.

And of note which I forgot to mention about the Yemen drone killings of the 15 innocent civilians. The Yemen drone program isn't run by the US military. It's run by the CIA. The command and control structure is secret. Does this make any difference?
The US military has a clear chain of command, the CIA is shrouded in secrecy. Does this make any difference in collective responsibility?

What I mean is that in a Democratic system the citizens are supposed to be informed. How can one be held accountable when secrets are withheld and vital information upon which people can make informed decisions are denied?

[patches70]

Oh, and one other thing, Mets, if you would be so kind-

I asked-

That is, if you are responsible, would it be fair of Yemen to fly a drone over your house and bomb it killing you, your family and whomever else may be in the house with you?

And you answered-

No, that would be vigilante justice

So Yemen flying drones over the US would be vigilante justice where as the US flying drones over Yemen isn't?

Why isn't the US's actions vigilante justice? When the operator of the drone that killed the 15 wedding goers, did he have court orders identifying the supposed terrorists where their guilt had been confirmed before he launched the attack? Or did the operator just say- "Looks like terrorists to me." and then got the order to fire? Why isn't that vigilante justice? Did the operator even know the names of who he was bombing? Had confirmed their identities before firing? (He obviously didn't, now did he? Where is the legality in that? And if it isn't really legal then why isn't it vigilante justice gone wrong?)

[thegreekdog]

Cuz it's a standard definition of responsibility:

1.
the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something (BBS) or of having control over someone.



responsibility:
: the state of being the person who caused something to happen (TGD's, but this is indirect cause)

: a duty or task that you are required or expected to do (BBS)

: something that you should do because it is morally right, legally required, etc. (BBS)


So, enough with the causal definition because that's not useful. Do you agree that citizens aren't responsible for the acts of the State--in the above BBS-approved definitions?

That definition is useful (unless your definition of "useful" is "supportive of BBS's argument.") You don't like that definition because it doesn't fit with your narrative. Your narrative relates to guilt (I think). I am responsible but I'm able to go to the next question: do I feel guilty? The answer is no because I'm comfortable with remaining out of prison. You keep equating responsibility and guilt when those two are bifurcatable (if that is not a word, it should be).

[Metsfanmax]

Although, if the international judicial system is not in place and innocent Yemenis are being killed left and right, whether it's fair for them to respond that way is an interesting question without an obvious answer to me.

That's true enough. The idea of collective responsibility without any chance at redress leads to all kinds of bad things happening. The idea of collective responsibility leads also to atrocities, such as were carried out in WWII for instance. Or in Roman times where if a ruler of some kingdom resisted then not only did the rulers get put to the sword but every citizen was as well, or put into slavery.
It's just barbaric.

It can be barbaric, but that doesn't disqualify the idea entirely, especially in a modern society where we have a better legal structure and more sophisticated methods for achieving redress for a crime committed.

And of note which I forgot to mention about the Yemen drone killings of the 15 innocent civilians. The Yemen drone program isn't run by the US military. It's run by the CIA. The command and control structure is secret. Does this make any difference?
The US military has a clear chain of command, the CIA is shrouded in secrecy. Does this make any difference in collective responsibility?

In principle, no. The transparency is not the issue; the issue is, whether or not the leaders of these organizations are responsive to public interest. Since the CIA works for the President, which is elected by the people, in principle if we elect a President that allows the CIA to do the drone strikes (and in this case, seems to personally authorize the drone strikes) then we are still collectively responsible.

Now, this may be different from the rogue operation of a bureaucrat, say, that is not operating within the normal chain of command. In that case it is probably more accurate to use the individual criminal laws rather than a collective responsibility.

What I mean is that in a Democratic system the citizens are supposed to be informed. How can one be held accountable when secrets are withheld and vital information upon which people can make informed decisions are denied?

Well, if no one knows who was responsible for the drone strikes, then no one can be held responsible anyway.

So Yemen flying drones over the US would be vigilante justice where as the US flying drones over Yemen isn't?

It is hard to answer this question accurately without the proper historical context. But, in general, I think they are morally equivalent except in situations where an imminent threat is known. (Of course, that itself is perhaps a dangerous standard in the incorrect hands.)

[thegreekdog]

Because Mets agrees with me on this particular issue and because that bothers me, I'm going to jump into the fray on the reparations bullshit (I mean... important stuff).

I should not pay for reparations (directly or indirectly) for US slavery. Not only did I not own slaves, none of my ancestors were in this country when slavery existed. Therefore, not only do I not feel guilty about slavery, I do not feel responsible (nor would my ancestors... fishermen and fishermens' wives on an island in Greece sometime in the 19th century).

[Metsfanmax]

I should not pay for reparations (directly or indirectly) for US slavery. Not only did I not own slaves, none of my ancestors were in this country when slavery existed. Therefore, not only do I not feel guilty about slavery, I do not feel responsible (nor would my ancestors... fishermen and fishermens' wives on an island in Greece sometime in the 19th century).

So then, to be absolutely clear, you oppose all affirmative action policies that are designed to correct, in part, the longstanding racial inequality that was engendered as a result of slavery?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

You know that a condition of living in Am*rica is paying tax to the Am*rican government. You choose to stay in Am*rica knowing this. If at any point you grow tired of this arrangement then you can take steps to address it.

Like, do you complain when your internet provider says they'll take away your internet unless you keep paying them? 'They are FORCING me to keep giving them money!' No. You chose their service and you knew that to keep getting the same service you would have to keep paying. The trade-offs in this scenario are more trivial but the principal is the exact same.

Assuming that your property belongs to the U.S. gov't.

-TG

[BigBallinStalin]

BBS, if you elect a representative that engages in a terrorist activity, using your tax dollars, do you feel a duty to deal with that by voting that person out of office?

Politicians offer a package of promises--instead of only one promise, so voters have to decide among many promises per politician, and with each promise follows a particular responsibility/duty on part of the voter and the politician. What's the optimal tradeoff among all promises and their consequent duties? I dunno. With that in mind, ceteris paribus, sure, but that is one duty among many duties in terms of reacting to that situation.

[BigBallinStalin]

You know that a condition of living in Am*rica is paying tax to the Am*rican government. You choose to stay in Am*rica knowing this. If at any point you grow tired of this arrangement then you can take steps to address it.

Sure, but leaving is one of many options.

Like, do you complain when your internet provider says they'll take away your internet unless you keep paying them? 'They are FORCING me to keep giving them money!' No. You chose their service and you knew that to keep getting the same service you would have to keep paying. The trade-offs in this scenario are more trivial but the principal is the exact same.

That's a voluntary exchange. If the internet provider requires that you must pay, or they'll send their goons to force you to pay, then that's not a voluntary exchange--that's essentially taxation.

Also, internet providers usually capture a market franchise (thus gain monopoly status) through the power of government, so in this sense, the ISP-customer exchange is founded upon an involuntary exchange.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, BBS, apparently you are responsible for the killing of these 15 people who were on the way to a wedding. They were mistaken for an Al Qadea convoy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/ ... 0O20131212

Since you are responsible, BBS, (and you as well TGD, Mets), how do you feel about being guilty of murdering 15 innocent people?

Personally, if you all are responsible for those deaths then every last one of you ought to be tossed straight in jail. TGD, you are a lawyer, what's the penalty for 15 counts of negligent homicide? Since you are responsible, and being responsible means you have to face the consequences of your actions, then that's what you should be facing. Now if you are responsible but can't be held accountable, then you aren't really responsible, are you?

Actually, what I should really ask, if you are responsible for those deaths, why shouldn't you be charged with a crime, sued via civil court or face retaliatory action from the relatives and/or the Yemeni government?
That is, if you are responsible, would it be fair of Yemen to fly a drone over your house and bomb it killing you, your family and whomever else may be in the house with you?

If not, why?

Because the entire country is responsible you dumbass. You can't throw everyone in jail no matter what they have collectively done. And then there's the technicality, there would be no judge to pass the sentence, because they would all be guilty of whatever crime the US army did as well.

Incorrect. Read first three paragraphs:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=199592&p=4364581&hilit=methodological+individualism#p4364581

[BigBallinStalin]

Cuz it's a standard definition of responsibility:

1.
the state or fact of having a duty to deal with something (BBS) or of having control over someone.



responsibility:
: the state of being the person who caused something to happen (TGD's, but this is indirect cause)

: a duty or task that you are required or expected to do (BBS)

: something that you should do because it is morally right, legally required, etc. (BBS)


So, enough with the causal definition because that's not useful. Do you agree that citizens aren't responsible for the acts of the State--in the above BBS-approved definitions?

That definition is useful (unless your definition of "useful" is "supportive of BBS's argument.") You don't like that definition because it doesn't fit with your narrative. Your narrative relates to guilt (I think). I am responsible but I'm able to go to the next question: do I feel guilty? The answer is no because I'm comfortable with remaining out of prison. You keep equating responsibility and guilt when those two are bifurcatable (if that is not a word, it should be).

I just view responsibility as intermingled with the normative--not a positive/causal explanation. You don't. Okay then.

[Gillipig]

Hey, BBS, apparently you are responsible for the killing of these 15 people who were on the way to a wedding. They were mistaken for an Al Qadea convoy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/ ... 0O20131212

Since you are responsible, BBS, (and you as well TGD, Mets), how do you feel about being guilty of murdering 15 innocent people?

Personally, if you all are responsible for those deaths then every last one of you ought to be tossed straight in jail. TGD, you are a lawyer, what's the penalty for 15 counts of negligent homicide? Since you are responsible, and being responsible means you have to face the consequences of your actions, then that's what you should be facing. Now if you are responsible but can't be held accountable, then you aren't really responsible, are you?

Actually, what I should really ask, if you are responsible for those deaths, why shouldn't you be charged with a crime, sued via civil court or face retaliatory action from the relatives and/or the Yemeni government?
That is, if you are responsible, would it be fair of Yemen to fly a drone over your house and bomb it killing you, your family and whomever else may be in the house with you?

If not, why?

Because the entire country is responsible you dumbass. You can't throw everyone in jail no matter what they have collectively done. And then there's the technicality, there would be no judge to pass the sentence, because they would all be guilty of whatever crime the US army did as well.

Incorrect. Read first three paragraphs:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=199592&p=4364581&hilit=methodological+individualism#p4364581

I can't read BBS, I'm american. You're gonna have to link me to a soundbite or something.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, BBS, apparently you are responsible for the killing of these 15 people who were on the way to a wedding. They were mistaken for an Al Qadea convoy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/ ... 0O20131212

Since you are responsible, BBS, (and you as well TGD, Mets), how do you feel about being guilty of murdering 15 innocent people?

Personally, if you all are responsible for those deaths then every last one of you ought to be tossed straight in jail. TGD, you are a lawyer, what's the penalty for 15 counts of negligent homicide? Since you are responsible, and being responsible means you have to face the consequences of your actions, then that's what you should be facing. Now if you are responsible but can't be held accountable, then you aren't really responsible, are you?

Actually, what I should really ask, if you are responsible for those deaths, why shouldn't you be charged with a crime, sued via civil court or face retaliatory action from the relatives and/or the Yemeni government?
That is, if you are responsible, would it be fair of Yemen to fly a drone over your house and bomb it killing you, your family and whomever else may be in the house with you?

If not, why?

Because the entire country is responsible you dumbass. You can't throw everyone in jail no matter what they have collectively done. And then there's the technicality, there would be no judge to pass the sentence, because they would all be guilty of whatever crime the US army did as well.

Incorrect. Read first three paragraphs:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=199592&p=4364581&hilit=methodological+individualism#p4364581

I can't read BBS, I'm american. You're gonna have to link me to a soundbite or something.

I apologize, my good sir. Have a look at the poll then!

[mrswdk]

I view choosing to live in a society and choosing to use an ISP's service as the same thing (in terms of the principles involved).

If you continue to use an ISP's service without paying (if you manage to pirate it somehow) then goons will show up and punish you, just the same as they will punish you if you use Am*rican society's publically provided goods and services (e.g. roads, police protection) without paying for them.

In both cases you are choosing to consume a service, and in both cases you will be punished if you continue to consume while ceasing to pay.

[BigBallinStalin]

I view choosing to live in a society and choosing to use an ISP's service as the same thing (in terms of the principles involved).

That's because you're failing to distinguish between voluntary exchange and involuntary exchange, so hopefully this post clears up that problem.

If you continue to use an ISP's service without paying (if you manage to pirate it somehow) then goons will show up and punish you, just the same as they will punish you if you use Am*rican society's publically provided goods and services (e.g. roads, police protection) without paying for them.

How does an organization dependent upon voluntary exchange handle this problem? It cuts off the service to you--no need for goons. If you continue stealing from them--e.g. tying your internet cable to a neighbor's, then they'll untangle it and repair the neighbor's. If you keep stealing the service through other means, then the ISP will most likely go to the police/courts in order to stop you from continuing with your involuntary exchange (theft), or they'll keep cutting you off from the service until you stop. (Governments tend to not be so forgiving).

Note: the internet service is provided by people willing and capable of paying for it; they sign a contract which delineates the responsibilities of each party and the price. Internet services wouldn't exist if involuntary exchange (e.g. theft) was the only means of exchange (unless of course government taxes people and subsidizes it, but that's still involuntary exchange).

Your government example ignores how the service was provided in the first place. Without the contract, then there's no voluntary exchange. Without explicit consent, then there's no voluntary exchange. If you compel others through violence to agree to an exchange (e.g. taxation with its consequent outcomes of refusal), then it's an involuntary exchange. If someone free-rides (as in your government example), it doesn't follow that forcing him to pay by threatening violence makes the exchange voluntary. The government simply commits an involuntary exchange while mitigating the free-riding.*

Let's apply your logic consistently. Let's assume saxitoxin's fun-posts create a positive externality, thus people free-ride on the benefits without paying for it. How dare they use saxitoxin's services without paying for them! Let's forcibly compel all such readers to pay for the services rendered; therefore, it's a voluntary exchange [/reductio ad absurdum].

*I will admit that some scope of goods and services provided through involuntary exchange is justifiable; however, it only covers roughly 2% of government's total spending.

In both cases you are choosing to consume a service, and in both cases you will be punished if you continue to consume while ceasing to pay.

So, to understand my position, you have (1) understand the terms of exchange before the consumption occurs, and (2) recognize that although your involuntary exchange entails punishment (e.g. being cut off from a service for stealing it), that doesn't render government's taxation as a voluntary exchange. Besides, government provides many services which people don't voluntarily agree to nor even use themselves (e.g. paying for other people's subsidies, or paying for all sorts of military equipment which is pointless).

To be clear, if the ISP hired security guards (or paid politicians to pass favorable laws which the police would enforce), and said to you, "we're giving you a service/we will give you a service; therefore, you must pay or get punished," then that's involuntary exchange. Coercion compels the exchange.

[mrswdk]

I was talking about how the ISP will set the police on you if you steal their service without paying, same as the government will.

Granted, people don't choose to be born into their country's social system. However, by staying there and consuming its services (while paying the taxes required to consume said services) we can assume that they have accepted the social contract of 'government service in return for contribution to the state'. thegreekdog probably has better insight into this than me - given he's a lawyer - but my understanding is that, legally speaking, you can be considered to have implicitly accepted a contract even without signing a physical document. No one is forcing you to remain within Am*rican society; you are choosing to.

And if you stop paying but continue using public goods then that is theft - you are required to contribute in return for the services you are consuming, but you are refusing to.

Besides, government provides many services which people don't voluntarily agree to

The government is perfectly clear about what most of its money is spent on. If you have chosen to fund it then you can't turn around later and say 'but I didn't want them to use my taxes to pay for health care!'. You knew your money would be used to pay for health care when you handed it over.

[patches70]

To be clear, if the ISP hired security guards (or paid politicians to pass favorable laws which the police would enforce), and said to you, "we're giving you a service/we will give you a service; therefore, you must pay or get punished," then that's involuntary exchange. Coercion compels the exchange.

Wow, that sounds a lot like Obamacare.....

[BigBallinStalin]

I was talking about how the ISP will set the police on you if you steal their service without paying, same as the government will.

The state provides stuff without asking if you wanted it or not (i.e. with or without your approval). The analogy for saxitoxin fun-posts still holds. It doesn't follow that I can go around beating people over the head because they haven't paid me for stuff which I gave them (regardless of whether or not they wanted it in the first place).

It doesn't matter whether you view the consequence as involuntary or not because that doesn't determine if the contract for some service was voluntary or not. For example, some Neighborhood Associations have rules to which you must agree if you want to own a house there. In the contract (Terms of Service, e.g.), if you break a rule, then usually it states that you'll suffer some consequence. The initial agreement upon the rules was voluntary. Being punished for failing to abide by the voluntarily agreed upon contract does not render that initial contract as involuntary or voluntary.

Also, even if the state subsidizes the market for security (police), it doesn't follow that the exchange (taxation) is voluntary (the social contract is a myth).

Granted, people don't choose to be born into their country's social system. However, by staying there and consuming its services (while paying the taxes required to consume said services) we can assume that they have accepted the social contract of 'government service in return for contribution to the state'. thegreekdog probably has better insight into this than me - given he's a lawyer - but my understanding is that, legally speaking, you can be considered to have implicitly accepted a contract even without signing a physical document. No one is forcing you to remain within Am*rican society; you are choosing to.

Right, that's the myth of the Social Contract. It just doesn't exist; otherwise, I can reinvent more myths as to why you owe me and my friends money and why it's okay for us to forcibly take it. It also justifies any form of government (from terrorists to mafia), so it's not logically sound, or if applied to only a certain democracy with certain characteristics, then it becomes increasingly arbitrary (and can still render any depraved act of a democratic government as voluntary).

There's still a clear enough distinction between the two types of exchanges.

It doesn't follow that refusing to eat costs to flee a country means that you voluntarily agree to the rules and decrees of the government which controls some boundary (all through involuntary exchange, of course). The closest support of a contract between a citizen and a state is their constitution, which the USG has violated often enough, thus rendering that contract null and void. Either way you cut the Social Contract argument, it doesn't support your position without being very arbitrary, or it relies on some logical fallacy.

And if you stop paying but continue using public goods then that is theft - you are required to contribute in return for the services you are consuming, but you are refusing to.

Well, it depends on the contract. Your being in CC is free-riding since you're using stuff which you didn't pay for (games and the forum). Does it follow that if CC mods rolled up to your house and forced you to pay, somehow the exchange is voluntary? No, of course not. Does it mean that your free-riding is theft? No, it's explicitly allowed.

If I didn't agree to having those services provided--only by whoever the Government deems as worthy, it still doesn't follow that the exchange is voluntary, nor have I given my consent. Where's the contract between me and the government? There is none.

Besides, government provides many services which people don't voluntarily agree to

The government is perfectly clear about what most of its money is spent on. If you have chosen to fund it then you can't turn around later and say 'but I didn't want them to use my taxes to pay for health care!'. You knew your money would be used to pay for health care when you handed it over.

Suppose a mafia was perfectly clear about what most of its money is spent on. How did you choose to fund their coffers? By involuntary exchange. It's the same with government.

[BigBallinStalin]

To be clear, if the ISP hired security guards (or paid politicians to pass favorable laws which the police would enforce), and said to you, "we're giving you a service/we will give you a service; therefore, you must pay or get punished," then that's involuntary exchange. Coercion compels the exchange.

Wow, that sounds a lot like Obamacare.....

And that's exactly what you've agreed to, patches! It's a voluntary exchange because you've agreed to this invisible contract at a time which you cannot recall, and it seems that you didn't want to eat the full costs of fleeing the country; therefore, you have voluntarily agreed to the crony capitalism. Furthermore, since you have given your consent, you have no grounds for refusing to pay for it, and for good measure, we'll readjust the laws and militarize the police so that your means of dissent become more difficult! (you've agreed to these changes as well. Sorry! It is a Social Contract after all).

f*ck you Thank you, patches.

Sincerely,
The Government

[Metsfanmax]

Granted, people don't choose to be born into their country's social system. However, by staying there and consuming its services (while paying the taxes required to consume said services) we can assume that they have accepted the social contract of 'government service in return for contribution to the state'. thegreekdog probably has better insight into this than me - given he's a lawyer - but my understanding is that, legally speaking, you can be considered to have implicitly accepted a contract even without signing a physical document. No one is forcing you to remain within Am*rican society; you are choosing to.

Right, that's the myth of the Social Contract. It just doesn't exist; otherwise, I can reinvent more myths as to why you owe me and my friends money and why it's okay for us to forcibly take it. It also justifies any form of government (from terrorists to mafia), so it's not logically sound, or if applied to only a certain democracy with certain characteristics, then it becomes increasingly arbitrary (and can still render any depraved act of a democratic government as voluntary).

The social contract is a useful description precisely because people agree to it. Through their actions, not through their words. Every time they accept services from the government, and give money to the government in return, they are agreeing to the importance of this government. It's a useful metaphor because very few people actually would prefer the no-government state to the situation with the government, even if it means freedoms are infringed upon. Can any of you say with a straight face that you would prefer to have complete anarchy?

[Lootifer]

I think if there was one person on this forum who would answer yes to that question it would be BBS.

[BigBallinStalin]

I think if there was one person on this forum who would answer yes to that question it would be BBS.

I have my doubts, but I'm a realist when it comes to calling an involuntary exchange an involuntary exchange. Most people get upset when they have to be logically consistent in these matters. Me? I don't get upset. I deal with it.gif

On anarchy:
I don't see how anarchistic societies could supply sufficient military forces to counter the armed forces of governments (which do not rely on consumer preferences nor prices as does the market). There's definitely a public goods problem there, but that problem falls apart at a neighborhood level (e.g. private security patrol can be paid by neighborhood fees and agreed upon by the contract one signs with the Neighborhood Association).

I don't see how any other public good argument applies, and if they do, I don't see how the nirvana fallacy supports the pro-government stance (except for national defense).

[BigBallinStalin]

Granted, people don't choose to be born into their country's social system. However, by staying there and consuming its services (while paying the taxes required to consume said services) we can assume that they have accepted the social contract of 'government service in return for contribution to the state'. thegreekdog probably has better insight into this than me - given he's a lawyer - but my understanding is that, legally speaking, you can be considered to have implicitly accepted a contract even without signing a physical document. No one is forcing you to remain within Am*rican society; you are choosing to.

Right, that's the myth of the Social Contract. It just doesn't exist; otherwise, I can reinvent more myths as to why you owe me and my friends money and why it's okay for us to forcibly take it. It also justifies any form of government (from terrorists to mafia), so it's not logically sound, or if applied to only a certain democracy with certain characteristics, then it becomes increasingly arbitrary (and can still render any depraved act of a democratic government as voluntary).

The social contract is a useful description precisely because people agree to it. Through their actions, not through their words. Every time they accept services from the government, and give money to the government in return, they are agreeing to the importance of this government. It's a useful metaphor because very few people actually would prefer the no-government state to the situation with the government, even if it means freedoms are infringed upon. Can any of you say with a straight face that you would prefer to have complete anarchy?

I've already addressed how this agreement is coerced. I don't deny that most people agree to it, but it doesn't follow that they voluntarily agree. When the Mafia Don asks to see you, you definitely agree to it; otherwise, you'd get hurt.

Preferences can't be correctly revealed from exchanges when the exchange is forced, so the 'actions not words' argument falls apart. Otherwise, you lead yourself to a lovely field of reductio ad absurdums, which I've already been through.

It's a misleading metaphor built upon a poor understanding on the difference between voluntary and involuntary exchange; however, it is a useful metaphor for legitimizing the use of force in compelling exchanges at reduced cost. If I was a politician, I'd definitely be singing that "Social Contract hurray, serving the Public Good-hurrah!, oh-my the dangers of Anarchy!" song. If I was a head bureaucrat, I'd sing the same song. People then have their preconceived notions confirmed, grumble during tax times, but ultimately schlep along with little resistance (low costs of taxation; happiness increased with government goodies, etc.). I'm not the kind of person who insists on (un)intentionally misleading people in order to legitimize an act of government.