The Social Contract isn't a Contract!

Many people who argue against the fact that taxation is no more than petty theft with an heir of legitimacy granted to it believe that John Locke's Social "Contract" somehow justifies taxation as consensual.

Let's first look at what a contract is:

A contract can be defined as an agreement between two or more parties in which all parties consent to the terms given.

The Social "Contract" posits that society mutually agrees to be ruled under government and that this agreement includes the paying of taxes. The problem with this is that society cannot consent to anything. Society is not a sentient being, it is an abstraction used to describe a group of people. For a contract to be valid, all individual parties must consent to the terms. I never consented to taxation, I am forced under threat of violence to pay taxes to the state. This is not contractual or consensual in any way.

This is extortion, plain and simple. It's no different than the mob coming around to collect protection money from shopkeepers that never asked for said protection.

Some may argue that the money taxed is used for goods that I use, such as water or roads etc., this makes no difference.

Imagine if a stranger came to your door and forced you at gunpoint to hand over fifty percent of your paycheck. He then proceeded, to buy you bottled water and a new toaster oven. Well, he did buy you things that you might use, so what's wrong with it?

Coercion is coercion, the point is that no other man should be able to decide what is best for another.

This is obvious in every other situation, yet when it comes to government, people get hung up on it.

 

Is it?

(character minimum)

 

What the?

If you wish to live as part of society and experience the associated benefits like having a police force, roads, bridges, etc., then you have to pay for them.

End of thread.

 

Why are you assuming that all those goods and services have to be coerced out of someone? Why should I have to pay for the police force you think is best for me?

 

Because the populace continues to elect, by a wide margin, the politicians who pass laws and taxes to provide those services.

Anytime the body politic wishes it to stop, it is simply a vote away.

 

So because a majority of people tell me I have to put my money towards it, it becomes okay to steal? Why do I owe my labor to the majority?

 

It's not really about the police force that's best for you. It's more about the police force that's best for guys like Jeffrey Dahmer, which is probably not the police force that he would agree to.

 

Are you implying that if the police force wasn't monopolized, their would be police forces dedicated to serving people like Jeffrey Dahmer?

 

Sonny:

If you don't wish to participate in society, find yourself a desert Island somewhere and go live in solitude.

If, on the other hand, you wish to make use of what society provides, like the internet, then you will pay for it like everybody else. If that is not to your liking, then arrange the election of someone who will change it.

 

Because in the REAL world, no man is an island.

Your house burning down can threaten your neighbors. Your sewage ruins your neighbor's well or starts an disease epidemic. You driving on the left side of the road can kill other people. The roads bring you toast and jam, or military protection, even if you yourself don't drive on them.

It is only children who think so self-centeredly. You can move to the Australian outback, buy some land, and do what you want. Enjoy.

 

Well. Actually, the monopolization of police forces probably increases the danger of that. What I mean is, you may not need to be policed and I may not need to be policed, but Jeffrey Dahmer needs to be policed. We sacrifice some amount of freedom for the goal of keeping our loved ones safe from serial killers and other hazards.

 

And in return for those sacrifices of freedom, the government is authorized to deploy many more much better equipped serial killers at home and abroad.

Name ONE U.S President who didn't kill more people than Dahmer.

 

Are you so brainwashed that you can't think of any other solution to the problem of the commons other than brute force?

Ever heard of homeowner agreements?

As for roads and bridges, look here and here

You're right, no man is an island. We live on earth where we have to interact with each other. You have NO right to impose your will on another man minding his own business. It's childish to think that you have the right to tell another person what to do with his labor and money. Violence is not a solution to social problems...voluntary cooperation is.

 

Of course we need police, but why not have police forces that compete on the free market that are subject to heavy scrutiny and accountability? Instead we have a monopolized police force that commits so much tyranny and violence with little to no accountability for their actions.

That infographic shows the just the tip of the iceberg.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjv-jma8ECk"]Deaf Man shot in cold blood[/ame]

Man brutally murdered in No Knock SWAT RAID

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbwSwvUaRqc"]Police shoot family pet in front of children[/ame]

Two Cops get walk on charges of Police Brutality

That's nothing, go to Copblock.org

They have huge archives of police corruption and brutality. This is what you get when you have a monopoly police force with no accountability. It has always been this way, it will continue to be this way if the state continues it's monopoly rule over justice.

Is this okay with you? Will you keep paying taxes to support these monsters?

 

I'll keep handing them worthless Federal Reserve notes.

 

Yes, they'll be worthless soon enough.



EDIT: Daybreaker, is that what you support? You think the boys in blue are here to protect and serve you? Look at the facts of the sheer amount of brutality they commit. How can you support that?

 

You should go back and read some John Locke and rousseau aka-educate yourself on the people who truely founded the concept of the social contract. Then maybe just maybe you won't make such a stupid thread which waters down and misunderstands one of philosophies great contributions to society!!

P.S Maybe read some hobbes to!.

 

Have anything to say or do you just want to throw Ad Hominem at me?

 

President Carter.

 

And, no contract is valid when only one side has the ability to change the term and the other has no recourse. That leaves the Social 'Contract' more of an allowance from a remote being who has little stake in the process.

 

No the recourse is revolution. This is why i told the OP to go back and read some Locke.

 

The Fact that this is the only recourse to the Social 'Contract' is proof it is no contract.

 

History and our current world have had plenty of "free market police forces".

Somalia and Afghan warlords are just a small sample of what YOUR kind of idea represents, and makes our police misconduct in the USA look like child's play.

No thanks. Real citizen review boards fixes the problems we have just fine.

 

Jimmy Carter presided over U.S. financial and logistical support to the Mujaheddin, whom, by the time the Soviets had withdrawn, had killed more than 14,000 troops, not including civilian casualties.

Jeffrey Dahmer killed 17 people.

 

Ah my friend. You are forgetting all of the benefits you DO get from living in civilized society, such as police, fire, education and the like. There are laws to stop people from stealing your money or coming into your house and killing you. And you do not complain about this one bit. So your analogy is a bit off. If you don't want to pay the taxes, you aren't entitled to the protections of the society either. You can go be an anarchist if you like. That's your perogative. But I would rather not live in a state of nature where it's every man for himself and we all kill each other at random.

And if you think the police are not providing protection, I suggest you read up on what happened when society broke down during Katrina. You may not like taxes, but you are provided protection from many things you would otherwise be subject to if society were not in place.

It's also unclear how you could possibly reap any benefits from the "fruits of your labors" if police were not there to stop thieves from randomly coming in and taking your stuff. And why would jackasses (not everyone, but we all know people like this) honor contracts they agreed to go into with you if there was no authority to ensure bad consequences if they did not?

I haven't established taxation is necessarily a good thing for things besides police and courts, but they are not illegitimate. And if you weren't arguing this, I apologize, but your wording as "taxation as petty theft" seems to be implying you are against all taxes.