Citizens and Government - Responsibility (new poll!)

[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?

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.

The legitimacy of the social contract as a valid description does not require voluntary exchange, so your comments are irrelevant. What you're missing here is that even though when the tax man comes along it is a form of involuntary exchange, it's only involuntary if you do not agree to the legitimacy of the government. If you did agree that there is a legitimate authority for that government to collect taxes, then calling it an involuntary exchange is absurd because you clearly agreed to the exchange (at least implicitly). That is to say, if you think the government is legally allowed to collect taxes, and that you consent to the legal structure of the government, then you simply cannot describe taxation as involuntary exchange in the way you mean it.

The mafia analogy only applies if you don't already agree that the US has a legitimate authority to collect taxes from you, but then you don't agree to the social contract anyway, and you are essentially legally enslaved.

[BigBallinStalin]

If the social contract argument makes government acts legit, then anything by government becomes legit. Again, reductio ad aburdum. Jim Crow laws = legit. Crony Capitalism = legit. Any form of political corruption becomes legit--unless they pass laws which explicitly outline which forms of corruption are illegal. This is why constitutions are useful--it's the closest you get to a contract between you and government; otherwise, your imaginary social contract keeps reaffirming any act of government as legitimate. See my post to patches. Similarly absurd conclusions will be reached if we consistently adhere to the implications of you and mrswdk's positions.

But you're still missing the bigger points.
1. Consent without the threat or use of violence determines if an exchange is voluntary. You don't get legitimate consent otherwise since the consent/agreement is forced, so the difference between voluntary and involuntary exchange still matters. Being a victim of involuntary exchange doesn't mean that the aggressor (government) is acting legitimately. I thought this was pretty clear, so the "legitimacy of the social contract as a valid description does" require voluntary exchange.

2. There is no 'social contract' because (1) there is no contract*, and (2) 'social' doesn't add anything meaningful to the noun. It's just as erroneous as your collectivist reasoning about 'The American People' being held responsible for drone strikes, dead innocents civilians, funding terrorists/freedom fighters, and what not.

*If contract = US Constitution, then that's been rendered null and void awhile ago, so you're back to having an illegitimate government.

I've never stated that certain acts of government are legitimate. Their necessity is debatable; that's it. It still doesn't change the nature of the exchange. I can view Cox Cable as a legitimate provider of the Internet access, but it doesn't follow that if Cox Cable forces me to pay for their services, that somehow it's magically voluntary. Also, legality is irrelevant because laws can be self-serving (e.g. the first paragraph about corruption).

Final correction: I wouldn't say I'm legally enslaved, but a portion of my labor is exploited in the enslavement sense. It doesn't have much to do with legal or illegal (those are matters of formal institutions like governments).

[mrswdk]

You choose to live in Am*rica. You are, therefore, choosing all of the things that come with that. This means that everything that you are required to do to stay in the US (follow its laws, pay taxes etc.) is something you have consented to.

If you were North Korean then you could argue that you are held captive in your country and so don't have a choice about doing what your government tells you, but you live in Am*rica and so you do have at least these two choices:
- if you accept it, stay
- if you don't accept it, leave

If you hate paying income tax then there are countries you can go to that won't tax your income. You could even stay in the US and find a job that pays so little that you fall into the income bracket that doesn't get taxed.

[Metsfanmax]

If the social contract argument makes government acts legit, then anything by government becomes legit. Again, reductio ad aburdum. Jim Crow laws = legit. Crony Capitalism = legit. Any form of political corruption becomes legit--unless they pass laws which explicitly outline which forms of corruption are illegal. This is why constitutions are useful--it's the closest you get to a contract between you and government; otherwise, your imaginary social contract keeps reaffirming any act of government as legitimate. See my post to patches. Similarly absurd conclusions will be reached if we consistently adhere to the implications of you and mrswdk's positions.

You're strawmanning and abusing the term "legitimate" by using it in multiple contexts. The social contract argument doesn't make individual government actions moral; it makes the authority of that government legitimate. It has little to do with whether a particular law is moral or immoral. Legitimate here doesn't mean "good" or "just" or "moral;" it just means that there is agreement that the government has the legal authority to make laws, etc.

But you're still missing the bigger points.
1. Consent without the threat or use of violence determines if an exchange is voluntary. You don't get legitimate consent otherwise since the consent/agreement is forced, so the difference between voluntary and involuntary exchange still matters. Being a victim of involuntary exchange doesn't mean that the aggressor (government) is acting legitimately. I thought this was pretty clear, so the "legitimacy of the social contract as a valid description does" require voluntary exchange.

The consent is not forced. No one forces you to agree that the government is legitimate. They may force you to give up your possessions or your money, but it's up to the individual to determine whether they believe the authority to take such actions is legitimate. The social contract argument is that people, in general, do agree that the government has legitimate authority.

2. There is no 'social contract' because (1) there is no contract*, and (2) 'social' doesn't add anything meaningful to the noun. It's just as erroneous as your collectivist reasoning about 'The American People' being held responsible for drone strikes, dead innocents civilians, funding terrorists/freedom fighters, and what not.

Well, the beauty of the English language is that you can put two unrelated words together to coin a phrase, and the phrase doesn't necessarily mean the sum of the two words.

[patches70]

You choose to live in Am*rica. You are, therefore, choosing all of the things that come with that. This means that everything that you are required to do to stay in the US (follow its laws, pay taxes etc.) is something you have consented to.

If you were North Korean then you could argue that you are held captive in your country and so don't have a choice about doing what your government tells you, but you live in Am*rica and so you do have at least these two choices:
- if you accept it, stay
- if you don't accept it, leave

If you hate paying income tax then there are countries you can go to that won't tax your income. You could even stay in the US and find a job that pays so little that you fall into the income bracket that doesn't get taxed.

You should probably look into US tax law and you may amend what you are saying here. In this regard the US has a unique relationship that is not practiced in any other nation in the world. That is the US citizen is the USG's tax cow. It doesn't matter where a US citizen lives in the world, he must still pay US taxes, must file a US tax return every year.

You, as a US citizen can be living hin France for the last decade but you'd be required to file a tax return and report any income earned and be taxed on that income, even though you made that money in France (and France would tax you as well). You should remember Timmy G, former US treasury sec that had a small problem at his confirmation regarding this, which he blamed on turbo tax (LOL).

Anyway, one must not only move but also give up his citizenship. That's the kicker. You see, you could be denied the ability to revoke your citizenship, it takes time for it to happen (even years) and it's illegal to renounce one's citizenship over taxes. That is it's illegal to move to France, attempt to renounce one's citizenship and claim it's for tax reasons. Your application to revoke your citizenship would be denied and you'd be arrested by French police and extradited to the US to face tax evasion charges (if you didn't pay your taxes that is).

So a US citizen cannot simply move away to avoid the taxes. That's illegal.

In every other nation on the planet no one is taxed if they made money while living in another country. The US citizen is quite simply a tax cow and the government is the farmer. He's not squeezing milk from your teats but he is squeezing every dollar he can and has made it virtually impossible to leave this farm legally.

The US is unique in the world in this regard, a little known or understood fact it appears. I encourage you to look into it yourself and you'll see. You'll even find that in just the last year or two or three there have been new laws and harsher penalties enacted preventing and punishing tax dodging emigration.

What's his name, the French actor who moved to Russia over taxes in France. Had he tried that in the US he'd be charged with tax evasion the instant he failed to file a tax return. Wouldn't make a difference at all if he had a Russian passport or not, or even if Russia declared him a Russian citizen if the US hadn't allowed one to revoke one's citizenship.

Even those with dual citizenship with the US must file US tax returns every year.

[mrswdk]

Well okay, yeah. In the case of the US you also have to get citizenship of a new country and ditch your US citizenship. I've heard of people doing that though. Come on, dude. Who gives their official reason for renouncing US citizenship as 'tax dodging'? Just say some other bullshit like cultural affinity. It's not like they can stop you.

[patches70]

Well okay, yeah. In the case of the US you also have to get citizenship of a new country and ditch your US citizenship. I've heard of people doing that though. Come on, dude. Who gives their official reason for renouncing US citizenship as 'tax dodging'? Just say some other bullshit like cultural affinity. It's not like they can stop you.

Yeah they can. Tina Turner got Swiss citizenship and relinquished her American citizenship. Now lets look at how easy it was for her. She moved there in 1994. So let's start with that. By 2013 she had sold almost all her property in the US. It was in January she began the actual process of getting Swiss citizenship and relinquishing her American citizenship.
She had to pass a Swiss citizenship test, which included that she had to speak German fluently as well as knowledge of Swiss civics and history and what not. Being as she'd lived there for so long she obviously passed, but if she had wanted to get Swiss citizenship in 1994 she wouldn't have been able to pass.

So it was in January 2013 when she began the formal process. She got her Swiss passport and citizenship near the end of April 2013. She officially relinquished her American citizenship in October of 2013. Just the formal process took about ten months and it was that fast because she had been living in Switzerland for so long anyway.

So really it took her from 1994 until 2013 to to finally free herself from the US tax system. And she didn't do it over taxes. She married a guy who lived in Switzerland. That's why she was living there, it's where her husband lived.

You can't just move somewhere, not know the native language fluently, not know the country well down to how the civics run and expect to be able to snap your fingers and get a new citizenship and relinquish your American citizenship. It's just not that easy.

And you can't just say anything, you have to have documentation.

Just remember, people have been howling about how rich Americans hide their money overseas and it's not right that they not pay taxes. The USG took lots of steps to address that. In fact, if BBS doesn't have a Swiss bank account now, he can't get one. Not if he's an American citizen. The Swiss banks stopped letting Americans do that because of laws passed by Congress. It exposes the Swiss banks to risk so they just cut out Americans. Now that's not really widely known. That's a fairly recent development.
If you go trying to renounce your American citizenship the first thing that's attempted to be determined is if you are doing it to avoid taxes. It's up to the applicant to say he's not. And one best have a very convincing, and documented, story to prove that's not the case.

So in conclusion, it's not so easy as you think it is to just relinquish one's American citizenship. The USG isn't that keen on letting their livestock go to another farm. And that's what we are, livestock.

Does a cow have a contract with a butcher? Hahahaha! I suppose, but it's not a contract that the cow fully understands I bet!

[mrswdk]

I know people capable of passing a citizenship test (or marrying a local) more quickly than 19 years after emigrating. And in the mean time, I know Am*ricans who hide their income from Uncle Sam. Tina Turner is very famous and chose to emigrate to a tax haven, so obviously she had to be 100x more careful than your average guy off the street.

Are people who dodged the Vietnam draft still in violation of Am*rican law (if they never went back to the US to get punished)? If so then my old professor was able to live in the UK (of all places) for decades while in violation of US law, and nothing ever happened to him.

[patches70]

I know people capable of passing a citizenship test (or marrying a local) more quickly than 19 years after emigrating. And in the mean time, I know Am*ricans who hide their income from Uncle Sam. Tina Turner is very famous and chose to emigrate to a tax haven, so obviously she had to be 100x more careful than your average guy off the street.

Actually, Tina Turner pays more in taxes in Switzerland than she did in the US.....

Some actually tried to accuse Turner of tax dodging, but it was clearly not the case at all. She hadn't lived in the US for almost 20 years when she relinquished her citizenship and Switzerland has higher tax rates than the US.

Also, and this is important to note, Tina Turner relinquished her citizenship, which is all together a completely different thing than renouncing one's citizenship. Relinquishing one's citizenship is the easier path to go and has no associated penalties or taxes.
Renouncing one's citizenship opens one up to penalties and tax obligations and is a much lengthier process. If you go to the USG and say you want to give up your citizenship because you hate how the US is behaving in the world, then you are renouncing your citizenship. Heck, it might work, but part of the deal will be you pay a fine and still have to pay taxes for a certain period of time (usually up to ten years).

So, again, it's not as clear cut as you are trying to make it out to be.

Are people who dodged the Vietnam draft still in violation of Am*rican law (if they never went back to the US to get punished)? If so then my old professor was able to live in the UK (of all places) for decades while in violation of US law, and nothing ever happened to him.

They could have been in trouble with the law if all draft dodgers hadn't been pardoned. Jimmy Carter, on the day after his inauguration issued a pardon to all draft dodgers.
Before that, Nixon offered amnesty to any draft dodgers if they would agree to work alternate service occupations instead of military.

So, it's quite safe for your old professor to come to the US if he wants. He won't be thrown in jail. Hasn't been anyone prosecuted for such things since the 80's, and that was dodging the Selective service program. Vietnam draft dodgers were all given pardons or amnesty. Though quite a few did go to jail before the amnesty programs and Carter's pardon. Those in jail were released on Carter's pardon, as were all who living abroad were given pardons.
Read up more man!

I know Am*ricans who hide their income from Uncle Sam.

I'm certain that there are. So? Hey! Did you know that you could get a substantial cash reward if you turn in these American's you know are hiding income from the IRS? Just visit the IRS site to learn more about that particular program. I believe you get paid a percentage of what is recovered. Depending on how much these tax dodgers you know are hiding, you could get yourself a nice payday if you wanted to be a dirty, disgusting rat.
Hehe, That's completely true BTW (with possibly the exception of the dirty rat business, some might say you are being a patriot, not me, but some people might).

[mrswdk]

They don't earn enough. I'd best go find myself a rich Am*rican tax dodger and cash in on my reward!

Is there any difference between renouncing and relinquishing, other than the paperwork involved? The extra hassle involved in renouncing seems ridiculous just for the sake of sticking a tiny finger up at the Am*rican government.

[BigBallinStalin]

You choose to live in Am*rica. You are, therefore, choosing all of the things that come with that. This means that everything that you are required to do to stay in the US (follow its laws, pay taxes etc.) is something you have consented to.

If you were North Korean then you could argue that you are held captive in your country and so don't have a choice about doing what your government tells you, but you live in Am*rica and so you do have at least these two choices:
- if you accept it, stay
- if you don't accept it, leave

If you hate paying income tax then there are countries you can go to that won't tax your income. You could even stay in the US and find a job that pays so little that you fall into the income bracket that doesn't get taxed.

Now you're just repeating your argument. Staying in one spot doesn't mean that you voluntarily agree with whatever the terms of trade are--you need a contract for that. This is possible. The US could at least offer immigrants a contract to sign, but it doesn't. It doesn't work that way because there's no contract, thus there's no means for voluntary agreement--without imaginging things like Social Contracts, 'Implied' Consent, and so on. That position requires leaps and bounds to make its point, which in itself is ridiculous.

North Koreans can flee the country. It's much more costly for them to do so, but they still can. [insert all implications which follow from your argument], e.g. those North Koreans who stay voluntarily agree to the way their government treats them. They want their government to do as it pleases, obviously.

Same applies to Mets' position. He's making up way much more than you are though.

[patches70]

They don't earn enough. I'd best go find myself a rich Am*rican tax dodger and cash in on my reward!

Is there any difference between renouncing and relinquishing, other than the paperwork involved? The extra hassle involved in renouncing seems ridiculous just for the sake of sticking a tiny finger up at the Am*rican government.

It seems to do with circumstance which determines the paperwork.

You'd have to go through the US code to get into specifics. It was in 2008 when Congress enacted the "heroes earnings assistance and relief act" in which an expatriation tax (exit tax) is imposed on certain people who renounce their citizenship or long term permanent residence in certain cases.
The tax is meant to extract from the expatriate taxes that would have been paid had he remained a citizen.

You can look up expatriate taxes on the IRS website for more information.

It's a fairly tangled weave and one should probably have a lawyer working with them who specializes in immigration issues I'd think. To keep one's self from getting raped by taxes upon expatriating one's self.

To learn more about the difference between "renounce" and "relinquish" one need read Statement of Voluntary Relinquishment of U.S. Citizenship under Section 349 (a)(1) of the INA” — the Immigration and Naturalization Act (relinquishing)
and
349(a)(5) Immigration and Nationality Act (renouncing).

Or just read the entire Immigration and Nationality Act to get the full picture.

[BigBallinStalin]

If the social contract argument makes government acts legit, then anything by government becomes legit. Again, reductio ad aburdum. Jim Crow laws = legit. Crony Capitalism = legit. Any form of political corruption becomes legit--unless they pass laws which explicitly outline which forms of corruption are illegal. This is why constitutions are useful--it's the closest you get to a contract between you and government; otherwise, your imaginary social contract keeps reaffirming any act of government as legitimate. See my post to patches. Similarly absurd conclusions will be reached if we consistently adhere to the implications of you and mrswdk's positions.

You're strawmanning and abusing the term "legitimate" by using it in multiple contexts. The social contract argument doesn't make individual government actions moral; it makes the authority of that government legitimate. It has little to do with whether a particular law is moral or immoral. Legitimate here doesn't mean "good" or "just" or "moral;" it just means that there is agreement that the government has the legal authority to make laws, etc.

But you're still missing the bigger points.
1. Consent without the threat or use of violence determines if an exchange is voluntary. You don't get legitimate consent otherwise since the consent/agreement is forced, so the difference between voluntary and involuntary exchange still matters. Being a victim of involuntary exchange doesn't mean that the aggressor (government) is acting legitimately. I thought this was pretty clear, so the "legitimacy of the social contract as a valid description does" require voluntary exchange.

The consent is not forced. No one forces you to agree that the government is legitimate. They may force you to give up your possessions or your money, but it's up to the individual to determine whether they believe the authority to take such actions is legitimate. The social contract argument is that people, in general, do agree that the government has legitimate authority.

2. There is no 'social contract' because (1) there is no contract*, and (2) 'social' doesn't add anything meaningful to the noun. It's just as erroneous as your collectivist reasoning about 'The American People' being held responsible for drone strikes, dead innocents civilians, funding terrorists/freedom fighters, and what not.

Well, the beauty of the English language is that you can put two unrelated words together to coin a phrase, and the phrase doesn't necessarily mean the sum of the two words.

So, now you're making an argument which transcends human actions, thus is beyond the realm of... reality. You're pretty much making unfalsifiable claims which are very similar to 'cuz God' arguments. Cuz Social Contract. Cuz Imaginary Authority.

I'm fine with your stance as it is. It's been pushed into the realm of nonsense.

Nothing in my first paragraph talks about the normative, and you're repeating yourself about 'agreement', which I've already addressed. The problems of your position in terms of conveying agreement are not addressed by simply shifting to an appeal to Magical Authority. It reminds me of the Divine Right of Kings, the Pope being the infallible Voice of God, the Mandate of Heaven, and so on.

Again, if you consistently applied your reasoning, you'd run into silly reductio ad absurdums. Appealing to the beauty of English doesn't rectify the fact that the Social Contract reasoning is erroneous. Once you've dropped your collectivist reasoning, you'll start getting it.

[patches70]

Ahhh, mrsmdk, I looked into it a slight bit more.

Relinquishing is caused by committing an "expatriating act". In the case of Turner, her getting a Swiss citizenship was an expatriating act. That is she got the citizenship with the intention of giving up her US citizenship. That's how her paperwork cited it. (The US has to quarterly report all such things and make the report public. That's how we know exactly how many people every year are giving up their US citizenship).
Renouncing is simply making a formal renunciation of nationality under § 349(a)(5) or (6).

There is probably more to it. One can be denaturalized as well. Where as relinquishing and renouncing are voluntary, denaturalization is involuntary. That's where the US strips one of citizenship.

Take the case of Snowden. There isn't a chance in hell he'll be able to get the US to allow him to renounce or relinquish his US citizenship nor will the US strip him of his citizenship. The US wants to get their hands on him and he not have the protections of another State but be under the thumb of US law (if the US ever does one day get a hold of Snowden).

So for someone like Snowden it's quite impossible for him to give up his citizenship. Officially at least. In practice he pretty much has but that's not legal nor is it recognized by court of law.

[thegreekdog]

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?

Here is the social compact, as I see it:

There are two parties: Citizen and Government
Citizen chooses (chooses!) to engage in the following: paying taxes and getting services
Government chooses to engage in the following: Affordable Care Act

Citizens collectively have the ability* to change the government's activities if they so desire. They may have to give up services (or, in extreme cases, give up residency, citizenship, money, or status) to change the government's activities. This is a choice. I choose to pay taxes to a government that I otherwise do not support because (a) I like living here; (b) I like staying out of jail. If the benefit of leaving the country outweighed the cost of leaving the country, I would leave the country. But it doesn't, so I don't.

*Ability to change the government - This is the problematic element that may give some credence to BBS's argument. I do not have the same ability to affect change in government as I signed up for or as I should have. The question is whether this is changeable and again we go back to a cost-benefit analysis. What costs would I incur if I tried to change rent-seeking? Are those costs worth the benefits? Right now, the answer is that the costs are not worth the benefits, therefore I will not incur the costs to change the nature of government.

[mrswdk]

I would imagine that people who renounce and people who relinquish all have new nationalities, in which case relinquishing would nearly always be an option. I don't see why you would 'renounce' other than to make a political statement, especially given all the expatriation fines (sorry, taxes) you get stuck with.

I'm sorry but I have absolutely no intention of reading a legal bill in full. Thanks for the researches though

[mrswdk]

Staying in one spot doesn't mean that you voluntarily agree with whatever the terms of trade are--you need a contract for that. This is possible. The US could at least offer immigrants a contract to sign, but it doesn't. It doesn't work that way because there's no contract, thus there's no means for voluntary agreement

Not just staying in one geographic place, but also participating in the society (paying its taxes, following its laws, using its services, voting for its government). Your voluntarily participation in the system carries an implicit acceptance of the terms of participation, and I imagine that this is how it works legally as well.

If you wish to take the US government to an international tribunal for extorting money from you then I will wholeheartedly support you (although I'm a little short on money to donate right now - soz).

[patches70]

I'm sorry but I have absolutely no intention of reading a legal bill in full.

Then you can't really make the claim "you've consented because you don't leave. If you don't consent then you can just leave" like it's all easy peezy. Since you don't really know jack about the expatriation process, then how can you say that with any authority at all? You can't.

For those who have wealth and affluence, it's not that hard to do as you say, and those do all the time (some 1,800+ people expatriated this year) or who already have roots in place elsewhere in the world.

For the regular Joe Schmoe it's not so easy as just leave.

Not to mention, one must get permission anyway to leave, to expatriate. These things are denied routinely. There are plenty of cases where one is not going to be allowed a passport or if one has a passport isn't going to be given permission to enter certain countries. One must ask for permission to leave and one must ask permission to enter other countries*.

You're really just like the hard right wingers who would say to those who back in the day protested the Iraq war- "If you don't like it then leave!" I think I remember Billary Clinton screeching her disagreement with that particular line, not to mention those being told they should leave if they don't like it. Usually by hard core nationalistic pricks who might not realize that their side won't always be the one making the decisions in the future.
It's not a valid retort or valid option to just say "then you can just leave if you don't like it!".

As BBS correctly points out, we aren't talking about a voluntary exchange here at all. It's no where close. And if you think a contract is valid if it's not voluntarily entered into then you should just look up some cases about contract law. If I hold a gun to your head and make you sign into a contract with me, you'll be able to get that contract voided pretty darn easily in court (at a later date obviously, and one shouldn't tell another who is forcing one into a contract that you intend on disputing it at the first opportunity).


It's really just a cop out when you think about- "Oh, you could just leave if you wanted to". And that line doesn't add one bit of credence to this supposed social contract. It's not very social at all and it's no valid contract in any way. It's just a thing people say to get other people to shut up about this policy or that policy.

You and Mets should keep that in mind, the pendulum swings in the realm of politics and the day will come when when you'll be the ones told- "Well if you don't like it then get the f*ck out!" To which, of course, you'd balk. And rightfully so IMO.

Haha, now that I think about it, that could be one's standard response to the both of you, "Just get out because that's the way it is and nothing you say will change it!"




*The EU has agreements that allow citizens to pass from one country to another fairly freely without the need for visas, but there are exceptions and conditions depending on which nation one is considering. The US used to have such agreements with Canada and Mexico, but alas, the war on terror has ended those days.

[Metsfanmax]

As BBS correctly points out, we aren't talking about a voluntary exchange here at all. It's no where close. And if you think a contract is valid if it's not voluntarily entered into then you should just look up some cases about contract law. If I hold a gun to your head and make you sign into a contract with me, you'll be able to get that contract voided pretty darn easily in court (at a later date obviously, and one shouldn't tell another who is forcing one into a contract that you intend on disputing it at the first opportunity).

As I pointed out to BBS, the fact that the word "contract" is in the phrase does not mean the "social contract" is like a legal contract. Criticizing it this way completely avoids the main point. If you look up the original sources on this subject (e.g. Hobbes), you'll see that the argument there is that people will inevitably gravitate towards creating a State because a legal system is better than an anarchic system.

It's really just a cop out when you think about- "Oh, you could just leave if you wanted to". And that line doesn't add one bit of credence to this supposed social contract. It's not very social at all and it's no valid contract in any way. It's just a thing people say to get other people to shut up about this policy or that policy.

You and Mets should keep that in mind, the pendulum swings in the realm of politics and the day will come when when you'll be the ones told- "Well if you don't like it then get the f*ck out!" To which, of course, you'd balk. And rightfully so IMO.

Unlike mrswdk, I don't view the argument that "you can just leave" as an argument in support of the social contract. The whole point of the social contract is that it's better for you to stay than to leave. Almost every person agrees with this.

[mrswdk]

So now I'm a nationalistic prick? That's boring. If I wanted ad hominem I'd pick up the phone and call my girlfriend.

I've never said 'if you don't like this or that policy then you can gtfo'. All I have been saying is that people who choose to fund a government are marginally responsible for what that government does with their money.

Simple question: is it possible for you to leave the US? Not 'is it difficult to leave?' or 'is it costly to leave?' - is it possible to leave? Are you allowed to leave?

If the answer is 'yes, it is possible', then you are choosing to stay in Am*rica. You are, therefore, choosing to do all of the things that come with being a resident of Am*rica (paying its taxes, using its services, voting for its government, following its laws). As such, your continued contribution to US government coffers is, ultimately, a voluntary action.

If the answer is 'no, I have no choice but to spend the rest of my life confined to the US' then you, patches, are a metaphorical farm animal, and as such cannot be said to voluntarily contribute to the Am*rican government. In this case, consider yourself absolved. Congratulations.

[patches70]

Unlike mrswdk, I don't view the argument that "you can just leave" as an argument in support of the social contract. The whole point of the social contract is that it's better for you to stay than to leave. Almost every person agrees with this.

As I said, you'd be right and just to say "screw you" to anyone who said "if you don't like then just leave!".

So it is your contention that because people don't leave the country then that, in itself, does not necessarily constitute acceptance of this social contract?

If so, then maybe you should be the one to remind mrswdk of such.

If you look up the original sources on this subject (e.g. Hobbes), you'll see that the argument there is that people will inevitably gravitate towards creating a State because a legal system is better than an anarchic system.

I believe that Hobbes said that there is no sovereign above the State and that the State and only the State can impose social contract laws.
I do believe that was the exact word Hobbes used, imposed. If something is imposed upon someone, how can you say it's voluntary?


If you want to make the claim of voluntary acceptance into some sort of social contract, then you'd have to point toward Locke. And Locke's version of the social contract is quite a bit different than Hobbes. That is the State doesn't impose anything, it is merely an impartial agent in the disputes of free men. This is where the "consent of the governed" comes from, maybe.
Thus, when government begins taking sides then they have null and void whatever this social contract thing you speak of, as that's a violation of the terms of the contract.

Social contract theory is a contract, pretty much like any other contract. You have two parties. The sovereign and the people. The two exchanges something. The people give the sovereign authority and the sovereign uses that authority to protect the people and safeguard rights.

Your version of the social contract needs coercion. You could say that the coercion is for my own good, that it is for my benefit (Mets:The whole point of the social contract is that it's better for you to stay than to leave). But, if this is indeed for my own good, then you say that I have willed it, that I have accepted it even if my brain, fingers and mouth reject the theory and I struggle against those who would so benevolently impose social contract laws upon me for my own good.
I find little benevolence in government and especially little benevolence in politicians.

And this is what the social contract theory relies on, the benevolence of those who are in charge. A fatal flaw, as man is man and always works towards self interest. Especially politicians. Take self interest, add authority over other people and you got yourself the perfect recipe for some pretty nasty things.

<shrugs>

[Metsfanmax]

Unlike mrswdk, I don't view the argument that "you can just leave" as an argument in support of the social contract. The whole point of the social contract is that it's better for you to stay than to leave. Almost every person agrees with this.

As I said, you'd be right and just to say "screw you" to anyone who said "if you don't like then just leave!".

So it is your contention that because people don't leave the country then that, in itself, does not necessarily constitute acceptance of this social contract?

If so, then maybe you should be the one to remind mrswdk of such.

I just think that the discussion you and mrswdk are having misses the point, because there are very few places to move nowadays that aren't claimed by a sovereign nation (and the barriers to picking up and moving are not trivial anyway).

If you look up the original sources on this subject (e.g. Hobbes), you'll see that the argument there is that people will inevitably gravitate towards creating a State because a legal system is better than an anarchic system.

I believe that Hobbes said that there is no sovereign above the State and that the State and only the State can impose social contract laws.
I do believe that was the exact word Hobbes used, imposed. If something is imposed upon someone, how can you say it's voluntary?

I didn't say that something imposed upon someone is voluntary. The discussion about the social contract being voluntary or involuntary is a red herring, as I have pointed out in my discussion with BBS.

If you want to make the claim of voluntary acceptance into some sort of social contract, then you'd have to point toward Locke. And Locke's version of the social contract is quite a bit different than Hobbes. That is the State doesn't impose anything, it is merely an impartial agent in the disputes of free men. This is where the "consent of the governed" comes from, maybe.
Thus, when government begins taking sides then they have null and void whatever this social contract thing you speak of, as that's a violation of the terms of the contract.

Social contract theory is a contract, pretty much like any other contract. You have two parties. The sovereign and the people. The two exchanges something. The people give the sovereign authority and the sovereign uses that authority to protect the people and safeguard rights.

That's true, but because no one actually explicitly agrees to this contract, describing it as similar to other contracts is prima facie absurd. It's like other contracts only in the sense that the exchange occurred. Saying that it is involuntary and therefore not a contract is simply a tautological argument.

Your version of the social contract needs coercion. You could say that the coercion is for my own good, that it is for my benefit (Mets:The whole point of the social contract is that it's better for you to stay than to leave). But, if this is indeed for my own good, then you say that I have willed it, that I have accepted it even if my brain, fingers and mouth reject the theory and I struggle against those who would so benevolently impose social contract laws upon me for my own good.
I find little benevolence in government and especially little benevolence in politicians.

And this is what the social contract theory relies on, the benevolence of those who are in charge. A fatal flaw, as man is man and always works towards self interest. Especially politicians. Take self interest, add authority over other people and you got yourself the perfect recipe for some pretty nasty things.

Social contract theory very generally relies on the "state of nature" being worse than the State.

[patches70]

In this case, consider yourself absolved. Congratulations.

I believe in individualism and reject collectivist thought. I have no ability to stop my government from bombing people around the world. I have no ability to stop my government from committing terrorist actions. I gave no consent for my government to act in such ways. I gave no consent that my government ignore laws, it's own laws BTW.

I am not responsible for when the government does such things, but by guilt of association I could be held accountable by people who do not differentiate the difference between individuals and the group. I cannot help if people do that, just as I cannot stop the group from doing insanely stupid, unethical and immoral things.
The only thing I can do is to lend my voice in opposition and attempt to reach others in an effort to penetrate the group think.

Who is responsible for the example I provided of the 15 wedding goers killed for no reason other than "opps"? Something you and Mets claim you are responsible for (even though you aren't)?

The person who pushed the button to drop the bombs. His/her immediate supervisor and right on up the chain of command from there.


The concept of the group makes it easy to deflect responsibility. That's why you and Mets can claim you are responsible for the murder of 15 innocent people because you figure you'll never have to face any real consequences for it. Someone else in this large group called The State will. Yeah, that's responsibility all right.....

The reason you won't have to face any real consequences of those actions is because you simply aren't responsible. Though some crazy just might hold you accountable one day, but that's on them, not you.

Individualism is just so much more easier and logical than any collectivist. Each individual is responsible for their actions. Where as earlier Mets agreed that there is a problem when there is no recourse, with individualism that's easily solved. Through courts. No such entity exists that can hold whole nations accountable in the way you all describe (except the US, but who holds the US accountable? no one!)

By God if you detonate a car bomb and kill a bunch of people on the streets you'd be held accountable for that action. And if you go dropping a bomb on 15 innocent people then by God you should be held accountable for that as well. Do that and I bet there will be a lot fewer drone deaths of innocent civilians when you toss the commander in chief in prison for it and every military officer in the chain of command that leads to the very poor schmuck who pushed that button!

But, that'll never happen, because in group think individuals do bad things and it's the group who has to pay for it. That's not very effective for stopping such things from happening. Because the responsibility is deflected to everyone else.

So now I'm a nationalistic prick? That's boring. If I wanted ad hominem I'd pick up the phone and call my girlfriend.

I didn't say you were one, only that you are sounding like one. Your whole "Because you don't leave means you are guilty for all the bad things your country does" is pretty lame. You've got to come up with something better than that.

[patches70]

Social contract theory very generally relies on the "state of nature" being worse than the State.

You know, and I'll give you this, that may well have been true back during the enlightenment days when this whole fiction of the social contract was dreamed up, but that was a loooongggg time ago.

Maybe some more current thinking may be a tad more enlightening?

Oh yeah, and that's word for word Hobbes.....
For some reason I don't think your actually advocating for Hobbes version of the social contract, though I could be wrong.

[Metsfanmax]

Who is responsible for the example I provided of the 15 wedding goers killed for no reason other than "opps"? Something you and Mets claim you are responsible for (even though you aren't)?

The person who pushed the button to drop the bombs. His/her immediate supervisor and right on up the chain of command from there.

This leads to obvious absurdities as well. Does this mean that the President is directly responsible for every immoral action taken by a member of the United States government? The problem with this is that if the person who engages in the immoral action is doing so as part of the normal legal structure, then you cannot indict that person without also indicting the entire legal structure (i.e., indicting the society collectively).

You know, and I'll give you this, that may well have been true back during the enlightenment days when this whole fiction of the social contract was dreamed up, but that was a loooongggg time ago.

Maybe some more current thinking may be a tad more enlightening?

Oh yeah, and that's word for word Hobbes.....
For some reason I don't think your actually advocating for Hobbes version of the social contract, though I could be wrong.

It's true in any version of social contract theory. If the existence of a State is worse than the anarchic state of nature, then people would not naturally establish a State. The only difference between now and then is whether it's still true that anarchy is better than a legal system. But the basic idea, given that assumption, will always hold true.

My view is closer to the stance that consent of the governed is what grants a government its legitimacy. I view social contract theory more as a phenomonological description.