Nothing new under the sun, but statists sure love this piece of fantasy to death, so I might as well give it a go too.


  • The contract is fictional. It has never existed at any point in history
  • So-called implicit consent cannot trump explicit dissent

It should be obvious. Imagine if your neighbours barged in your house  and asked you at the point of a gun to pay them taxes, which “you implicitly consented to by living here”. A common answer to this objection is that the State has legitimate authority on the land and your neighbours don’t. Which is circular logic : the “Social Contract” is supposed to establish the legitimate authority of the State.  I could take it further but you get into Godwin territory really fast with the “implicit consent by living here” principle. The other arm of the “implicit consent” beast is that you consent by accepting services, the same way you consent to pay when you eat at a restaurant. Except that government services are monopolies enforced by force, paid for by your stolen resources, and there’s no way to opt-out.

  • The “Social Contract” is unilateral

Guess what? The State doesn’t owe you anything. It’s not accountable for its failures to deliver what it promised. Even the so-called regal functions, the ones associated with the “Night watchman State” are not guaranteed, for example the Supreme Court has ruled that the police has no duty to protect you from third-party harm. The State is not bound to the “Social Contract” at all.

  • The “Social Contract” is fraudulent

See the previous point and all the bullshit promises made by  Heads of State

  • A contract entered under duress is void

I know that statists why away from the smoking gun in the room, but it’s still there

  • Voting doesn’t mean you accept the Contract

Either vote is compulsory, in which case it means nothing, or it isn’t, in which case everyone who didn’t vote for the winner hasn’t consented to his specific version of the Contract

  • No, outnumbering me doesn’t make you “Social Contract” valid

What kind of fraudulent contract would that be? Also, you just legitimized gang-rape and any form of minority oppression by a majority.

 

Also, this guy

picture-social-contract-goodfellaI’d like to know how you could make the case that his speech is bullshit and the original by Elizabeth Warren isn’t without going circular and invoking the government’s legitimate authority

 

The “Social Contract” argument should be tossed into the fires of Mordor along with the “General Interest” argument. They’re both empty, poorly-defined concepts that bring nothing to the debate and can be used to justifie anything.