Quote:
Originally Posted by ashideena";p="
Truthbringer: Just because the social contract has some unique features does not mean it is not a contract. In fact, the contract for the United States is explicitly written up in the form of the Constitution.
|
The Constitution is in fact not a valid legal contract either, and in truth binds no one to anything. I happen to like many things about the Constitution because it was an attempt to create a limited government that protected natural law and invidual rights, but it was a flawed document from the beginning. Lysander Spooner destroys the argument that the Constitution is a social contract here:
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm
I'm not saying do away with Constitutions, I'm just saying they must reflect a full protection of individual rights or they are in truth null and void. As long as people do not use force or fraud to deprive others of rights, they should have unlimited right to voluntary contracts.
Quote:
|
Also, specific examples of governments that abused their powers do not prove that governments are inherently bad
|
Certainly doesn't prove they're inherently good either.
Quote:
|
(no more so than corporations who abuse the environment and their workers prove that all corporations are bad).
|
While corporations can definitely commit crimes, a corporation is always less dangerous than a government because they do not have the ability to use LEGALIZED FORCE against people. If you say "I don't want to shop at Wal-Mart", then you don't have to. It's just that simple. Wal-Mart can't retaliate and send armed goons to your house to drag you into their store and force you to buy their products, but government can do that if you don't "buy its services". Corporations can defraud people, there's no doubt about it, but so can government. Usually, corporate criminals attempt to buy off politicians so the government will look the other way while they commit crimes. But who does the fault lie with there? With the government. So we need severe penalties - I would say life in prison with no parole - for government officials who do these types of things. THEN, you can clean up corporate crime for the most part.
Quote:
|
And I would suggest that religious/ethnic wars have killed more people than governments.
|
You might suggest that, but I don't think the evidence is on your side, although sometimes the lines may seem a little blurred. Bottom line - who raises armies? Governments. Who pays and conscripts soldiers? Governments. Who manufactures and/or buys weapons of war? Governments.
Quote:
|
As far as your argument about leaving... You are both free to leave, and free to attempt to modify the existing social contract by voting.
|
People were free to vote in the Soviet Union, but of course they were somewhat limited in their choices... And apparently their "social contract" did not allow them the ability to leave... But regardless, voting in and of itself does not equal freedom. And the majority does not have the right to vote down rights of the minority.
Quote:
|
If you had a lease for an apartment, and you discovered that some of your landlord's policies were repugnant to you, would you demand that your landlord leave?
|
In that case, you VOLUNTARILY agreed to live there. Your landlord wasn't FORCING you to do things in order to stay on the property. And you shouldn't DISCOVER new policies - you should have signed a contract in the beginning with FULL KNOWLEDGE and FULL DISCLOSURE. If your landlord failed to do that, then he violated the contract and he becomes liable. You can sue him and force him to live up to his end of the bargain.
Quote:
|
I agree with you, Truth-Bringer, that the free market was a good idea. It is a powerful tool for making everyone's life better. However, there are many things it does NOT do well. Among other things, it deals poorly with environmental issues, health care(see cable tv infomercials), social safety nets, education, etc. We can argue about the desirability of those things, but it does not change the fact that the free market deals poorly with them.
|
I think the free market is perceived as not handling these things well due to government corruption in the past. If government takes action when someone has a legitimate violation via force or fraud, then there's no reason any of things should be a problem. No system can ever be perfect. But as I said earlier, at many times in the past you've had business owners paying off government officials to have them look the other way when they committed crimes. We need a system that makes government officials more accountable for their misdeeds - because if they're compromised, then there's no opportunity for true justice.
Quote:
|
And this brings me to a question for you. If a government should have a minimal role like defense, how is the government paying for it? Would it be a voluntary contribution system? Some kind of use-fee arrangement? I would like to be clear on your view, because when I first read it it seemed.... contradictory.
|
Well, we should have a much cheaper defense because we should remain neutral and have a national militia similar to Switzerland, but without involuntary conscription. We should first repeal the income tax and begin privatizing as many aspects of government as possible. Then we should at some future time repeal all internal taxes and fund the government via a flat tariff. The basic functions could easily be met like this, because inflation will disappear once a precious metals standard is restored to the currency and the Federal Reserve is abolished. Eventually, we should experiment with voluntary user fees if everything else works out as intended.
Quote:
Free market environmentalism:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/E...reeMarket.html
A note: This url is pro environmental free market practices, yet admits current practical difficulties with it. And this would require fairly massive, invasive government intervention to implement.
|
Pollution is a violation of rights and there should be a mechanism within government to deal with it. The environmental issue isn't that hard to solve if you extend private property rights like England did. All the details are here:
http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap8.html
http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap14.html