A Social Contract?

Spin-off from derail beginning in this post. I'd recommend reading from there to the end, then returning to this topic, for all who were not involved in the derail.

Basic gist, however, ran like this: I posit that there is a social contract, that we sign by reaping the benefits of society, such as safety and stability. The contract stipulates that you follow all the rules of the society, and that you will be punished if you fail to do so.

Thoreau, King, and Gandhi had some pretty decent works regarding this, which I would find for anyone interested.

Anyway, starting from where we left off in the derail, I'm sure you're all familiar with the Burning Man festival. If not, it's basically a big party where everyone gets to lose social inhibition and be an anarchist for a few days. It was started by a bunch of people who decided that society sucked, so they went out in the desert and had a drug-fueled orgy. This continued annually for a while, until the number of attendees grew to exceed the limit that anarchy can be any kind of successful with. Now, if you want to go to Burning Man, you have to sign a massive, dozens-of-pages long, literal contract, that defines what you are and are not allowed to do. That contract, and those rules, are what make Burning Man fun and safe.

Discussion?

Yes, there is a social contract, and yes, people should generally be expected to follow it.

That doesn't make the law objectively good, however. Lawful Good is simply Lawful Stupid. However, the law, in this case, would be subjectively good, assuming the government is democratic and representative. However, that doesn't mean that people who disagree with the law are necessarily "bad," or "immoral." Their actions can be judged to be immoral, by the general consensus of society, but dissent, generally speaking, is never immoral... or moral, necessarily, either.

Point is, if you'd like to live in a society, you cannot be surprised if they expect you to follow the rules. If you don't like the rules, go away. If you can't, then too bad, you're following the rules. Don't like the rules, then vote, or perhaps run for office. If there's no democracy, then you might have bigger problems to deal with.

Though even in a non-Democratic society, if a majority disagrees with the government, the government is going down. French Revolution, for example.

Also: You seem to be getting pretty deep into moral relativism. I don't know if I buy that, honestly. I think there's one set of morals that is objectively best. I'm not sure that we know what it is, because if we did everyone would be getting in on that action, but I think it exists. Edit: Which means that I think we should treat whatever contract we're operating under as objectively "best", or, failing that, at least change it so it fits your definition of "best".

edited 3rd Dec '11 4:32:31 PM by TheEarthSheep

Well, sometimes they don't entirely dispose of the government—order versus justice, etc., etc.—but largely speaking, yes.

Point is, let's take anti-tax libertarians. Ok, you don't want to pay taxes.

That's fine. You just aren't allowed to buy any products that receive subsidies from the government, use any government services, drive, call 911, or expect the military to give a damn about you during an invasion. Etc.

Therein lies the inherent foolishness of Right-wing Libertarianism. Left-wing Libertarianism (big-L for distinction) is... afflicted with its own, differing brand of issues...

So what you're saying is that it's a socially bad thing not to pay taxes, because you'd lose those benefits, but it's ambiguous whether it's morally bad or not?

I guess I can dig that.

Well, taxes are morally acceptable so long as the people get useful things out of their taxes. So, right now, the system is kind of shitty, because we pay lots of taxes for stupid things like an overdone military and the suppressing of illicit substances and not very much at all for social services like healthcare.

However, I consider paying taxes to be an integral part of citizenship, so yes, it is socially bad to not pay taxes. Morality is contextual, however.

Could you define "contextual", as used in your previous post? It's good to be clear on this kind of thing, before going further.

As in, whether or not taxes are morally good or bad depends entirely on what their used on, and what individuals and, eventually, society thinks of that usage.

Wouldn't that mean, though, that there is a moral absolute? I got the impression that you were decrying the concept..?

...no... because whether or not what the taxes are being used on is good depends entirely on what standards society adopts.

If a society decides that a gigantic military used for imperialism is all that taxes should go towards, and that's what the government does, then for that society this is correct behavior. Etc.

Now hold on a moment. Just a minute ago you said that taxes could be used for morally good or bad things. That last post only mentioned socially good or bad things. I'm sorry for nitpicking, but there is actually a significant difference between the two, as we've discussed. As you said,

whether or not taxes are morally good or bad depends entirely on what their used on

You did go on to mention social issues, but that's irrelevant to my question. It seems to me that to say that a tax could be /morally/ good or bad is to say that there is such thing as a moral good, AKA a moral absolute.

Holy shit, same time!

edited 3rd Dec '11 5:16:55 PM by TheEarthSheep

I posit that the contract, on itself, is an unjust imposition: It's both unconscionable (since it bans victimless actions, enforces socioeconomic injustices, and its punishments are typically very disproportionate to the crime, and in both ways) and imposed under duress, since there is no practical way to break free from it (or to opt out in the first place).

Its closest analogy is a gang of thugs ruling a neighborhood: They get the ultimate say, and they reserve the right to take away everything you have, up to and including your life and liberty. The only way out of the gang's rule is fleeing from their turf: Which is complicated because of the fact that there's an equivalent gang of thugs on every turf.

Since it's just an imposition from a buncha thugs (whose legitimacy I dispute), it's plainly obvious that law has no inherent moral value: At best, these dictates might be equitable and sensible. At worst, they're tyrannical abuses. We're gonna need to get our ethics elsewhere. We're going to need a set of assumptions to define what is just: Inevitably, these are ideological.

As a libertarian socialist, I envision individual sovereignty as the basic, underlying ethical assumption. Consequently, I envision justice as a series of negative freedoms, in order of importance:

• Freedom from coercion.
• Freedom from harm.
• Freedom from exploitation.
• Freedom from want.

By and large, when a law doesn't punishes consensual activity, doesn't violate people's rights (I'll make a comprehensive right of what those are if you want) and doesn't perpetuate/reinforce socioeconomic inequality and exploitation, it's not unjust. When it does, it's unjust.

I think unjust laws shouldn't be enforced at all, and they should be fought by all means at our disposal: From peaceful reform to obstruction to subversion to abolishing them by force, depending solely on which of those you currently have at hand. I'll humor the contract metaphor: these laws are like unconscionable clauses (void and unenforceable).

When a law is not unjust, whether to enforce it comes to an utilitarian cost-benefit ratio: Does enforcing the law achieve the desired results, or at least puts us closer to them than we are now? If so, is it cost-effective to enforce it? If the answer to both questions is yes, then enforcing that law might be a good idea (assuming that the means to enforce it are not unjust themselves).

That's my take on law, its moral value, and its ethical implications. Feel free to gnaw at it!

EDIT: Sorry for the wall of text!

edited 3rd Dec '11 5:18:34 PM by SavageHeathen

Moral relativism does not imply that there cannot be a "good" or "bad." These things are simply defined by society, and are malleable and subject to change.

The simplest problem I take with your—and all big-L Libertarians'—ideology is that it assumes that the enforcer of the contract is the problem, rather than the contract itself.

Well, that, and you'd use force to change the contract, and deprive people of the right to make their contract as they wish as a whole society, rather than simply helping to build a contract that precludes abuses via a constitutional system.

edited 3rd Dec '11 5:21:56 PM by USAF713

The only way out of the gang's rule is fleeing from their turf: Which is complicated because of the fact that there's an equivalent gang of thugs on every turf.

Sorry, we've dismissed this. This won't fly.

it's plainly obvious that law has no inherent moral value

But we've also demonstrated that the social contract is democratically alterable, and indeed has been democratically altered since the first Homo Sapien killed his patriarch because he was taking too much food. I don't think you'd argue that democracy has no moral value..?

I think unjust laws shouldn't be enforced at all

Who gets to decide which laws are just or not?

From peaceful reform to obstruction to subversion to abolishing them by force

This is where my problem comes in. Isn't the imposition of your will on another through force just as bad as the "thug" imposing his will on you?

Edit: , So are you saying that morality = society?

edited 3rd Dec '11 5:25:07 PM by TheEarthSheep

I don't think democracy confers legitimacy either. There's no such thing as legitimate authority: Authority is either unobtrusive and thus tolerable or oppressive and thus deserving of overthrowal.

edited 3rd Dec '11 5:25:53 PM by SavageHeathen

For that particular society, yes.

Is there such thing as legitimate law? Legitimate morality? Legitimate fact?

Alright, I guess I can jive with that. I vehemently disagree, but I get where you're coming from.

I'm a sociologist by nature and, eventually, by trade. Cultural relativism is kind of a big deal for me.

As for not thinking democracy confers legitimate authority, I think if such basic premises are not shared then we're not going to get very far in debating with you, Savage. I can say that we're basically out for the same ideals... sort of... through wildly different means: you, through anarchist-communism, and me, through what largely amounts to social democracy.

I don't think democracy confers legitimacy either. There's no such thing as legitimate authority: Authority is either unobtrusive and thus tolerable or oppressive and thus deserving of overthrowal

That's you're opinion.

To an extent, there's valid ethics, even "political" ethics: Some of its principles can be derived from basic common sense.

• Common sense dictates that inflicting gratuitous harm on other people is wrong: I don't think there's a way to reasonably dispute it.
• Initiating aggression is also clearly wrong: Retaliation, however, is justifiable (for without retaliation you can't protect your rights).
• If people are sovereign over their own lives, subject only to other people's own sovereignty over themselves, and coercion is aggression, it follows that restrictions on consensual activity are immoral.
• Since people own themselves, they own their labor: The economic exploitation of other people is unacceptable. That's why I believe that the means of production should belong to the workers.
• Natural resources were here before us and they're likely to outlive us: They're the common heritage of mankind. We own the things we make out of them, not the resources themselves.
• It's self-evident that loyalty is generally to be rewarded: Typically, an appropriate reward is being loyal in return. That's what enables people to have, say, friendships or partnerships.
• We're all better off if we're always entitled to certain services: It ensures that no matter how hard's the fall, there's a way to get back up.

True. Still, as I do think that, I'll object to the notion that government (and law) are legitimate... So I'll judge each of their actions on a case-by-case basis : Even an illegitimate government (to an extent, all are) can do things that are not unjust.

There are some fundamentals on which we're gonna have to agree to disagree, yes. Still, I might suggest a less stupid/fascist replacement for a moronic or oppressive law, or say why I think a particular law is bullshit and we should go nuclear on it.

You might think that a particular anarchist way to achieving X is impractical and suggest a more sensible or cost-effective alternative.

To an extent, debate between anarchists and statists can be productive.

edited 3rd Dec '11 6:00:38 PM by SavageHeathen

Ah, now we can discuss. I have only one question:

Wouldn't that mean that any law that prevented gratuitous harm or initiating violence, and punished those who did those things anyway, be a legitimate law? And that one who would only enact "legitimate" laws would be a "legitimate" ruler?

This is all I dispute, because in a properly-regulated mixed market capitalist economy, there would never be exploitation. I would put out a job offer and somebody would go, "oh, I like that job." Then they'd come work for me, they'd get paid X wage, where "X" is at least liveable and is ideally fair for the work done, as decided by whatever union that worker happens to work with, which would be restrained by law to avoid letting them strangle small businesses.

Capitalism itself is quite workable, given a government that is willing to kick it on its ass when things get too concentrated. Not that cooperatives shouldn't be allowed—far from it—but I find it to be entirely and utterly wrong to say that all means of production should simply be taken, when the majority of businesses are not transnational conglomerates and should not be treated in the same fashion.

Theoretically, and only in part: A government that didn't commit injustices wouldn't be unjust. If they're not unjust, they wouldn't be illegitimate. They'd keep their legitimate status as long as they didn't do illegitimate stuff. That's not to say that people would have ethically binding duties toward that entity, but they'd have no reason to overthrow it (it wouldn't be worth the effort, and it probably wouldn't improve things).

Their laws still wouldn't have any inherent moral value, since law by definition doesn't have that. As long as these laws had clear, non-evil objectives, employed non-oppressive means, were at least somewhat useful in achieving them and were (somewhat) effective and practical-ish to enforce, they'd be good laws, which is as good as a law can get.

Note that these laws can still have a little (or a lot) of practical value. Let's imagine we got an understandable and equitable law to solve small claims. That law would be practical, I won't deny that.

In short, whether a law has any moral value is determined by its content. That's why I don't accept it's the law as meaningful ethical argument. If the law does a non-evil thing in a non-evil way, then it's a valid law: We've gotta judge the law on its merits before we apply it to an ethical discussion (or to anything, really).

In a mixed socialist economy you could try that, but cooperatives and contractors would be hogging all the labor. All things being equal, why work for someone else's bottom line when you can join a co-op and work for your own bottom line?

Actually, you could probably find some workers: Perhaps none of the cooperatives are hiring that week. Perhaps someone is staying temporarily at some place and just wants a quick buck to buy X, not a long-term career. Perhaps I'm a freelancer and you have a non-permanent project going on... And setting up a democratic co-op with all its trappings may not make sense under a certain set of circumstances.

edited 3rd Dec '11 6:38:34 PM by SavageHeathen

Well, the law isn't really ethically bending, but you can't exactly complain if you get arrested for doing illegal things. They told you they wouldn't allow it, after all, and we are a democracy.

The goal really should be to dispose of all the laws that criminalize non-harmful and/or non-consensual activity in a practical manner. Also, though you may not have an ethical tie to a government (i.e. no reason to keep it afloat for its own sake), you do have an ethical tie to your society, and thus should have a vested interest in upholding your government if it's a representative and(/or) good one, or if whatever will replace it will be much worse...

You can't act surprised if they bust you, but you certainly can be pissed off and complain if the law is unjust.

In fact, there's a lot of stuff that can be done to disrupt bad laws: Don't snitch (it's none of the pigs' business), don't testify (you didn't see a damn thing), don't convict (if you're a juror, nobody's guilty). There's legal challenges, there's campaigns against those laws, there's subversion, there's having a safety culture (making policing less practical)...

There's a whole lotta stuff that can be done against a law (or a case thereof): Different tactics apply to different stages of the process.