Is The Social Contract Legit? \ stacker news ~libertarian

pull down to refresh

The social contract is a description of “the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.” The social contract asserts that all of us have consented to surrender some of our rights to a ruling group, in exchange for the protection of our remaining rights.

The question I’ll address today is whether this is a legitimate contract.

view all related items

46 sats \ 1 reply \ @JesseJames 21 Jun

Nope. Contract is when two sides agree on something. This ain't it.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Bell_curve 21 Jun

Exactly

10 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lux 21 Jun

Did you sign it? ;)

1 sat \ 5 replies \ @anon 21 Jun

I don't know if contract is the right word really. It's an interesting idea but i'm not sure being a citizen of a country by birth versus some user agreement for MS outlook is comparing apples to apples.

21 sats \ 4 replies \ @Lux 21 Jun

33 sats \ 2 replies \ @zapsammy 21 Jun freebie

so um... inscribe a foreign national govt constitution into the time chain, issue cashu tokens, and notify the fed thru OC-10 agreement? 🤔

who will join sammy's club? 😂

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @Lux 21 Jun

hmmm..

i was thinking we can make something like Stacker Nation, inscribe it to the chain and everyone that identifies as Stacker can have nationality, and diplomatic immunity

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @zapsammy 24 Jun

that would be effing dope

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Lux 21 Jun

https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=8-USC-1203952667-1201680065&term_occur=999&term_src=

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @TNStacker 22 Jun

Pax Americana is DEAD!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @StoneCodlHodl 21 Jun

pFFFF. No. Show it to me. And show me where I signed.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @03a1da6e72 29 Jun freebie

No, since in standard contract doctrine as it applies in any other context, there are at least three important principles about valid contracts:

Both parties must have a reasonable way of opting out, where this does not include one party being compelled to undertake enormous costs that the other party has no independent right to impose on him. For example, I cannot make you an employment offer and then declare that if you don’t agree to work for me, you must signal this nonagreement by cutting off your left arm; that is not a reasonable way of opting out.
If one party explicitly states that he does not agree, then one cannot claim that he implicitly agreed anyway.
Both parties must undertake obligations to each other, and if one party explicitly repudiates his obligations under the contract, then the other party is no longer bound to do his own part.

The putative social contract violates all three principles.

First, because governments have taken control of every habitable land mass on the planet, there is no way of opting out.

Second, even if you explicitly state that you don’t agree, the government will still impose its conditions on you.

Third, the government recognizes no obligation to do anything for you. This position has been established in a number of court cases in which plaintiffs have sued the government for negligently failing to protect them; in each case, the court summarily dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that the government isn’t obligated to protect any specific individual.