Tiervexx
New member
Alright,
I've been waiting for responses for some time now so I'm just going to go into some angry anarchist rant.
Lets talk about...The social contract theory!
The social contract theory really is the early political scientists' attempt at magic. I think that on some level they understood that the state was, is and will always be indefensible so they needed a way to justify it, so they came up with the social contract theory:
"yeah, you never signed this contract, and you've probably never heard of it but it's binding because....because........IT SIGNED YOU!!"
Of course there have been some serious attempts at rationalizing the damn thing, like saying that we consent to government by using government services for example. However, this argument would still need a preexisting social contract to make sense because a) government uses force to grant itself monopoly privileges over the production of many things, and b) we are forced to pay even for services we don’t use so by using government services we are really just trying to get some of our money BACK.
Another attempt at justifying the state is to say that we consent to it by being living on land that it allegedly owns. This argument would also need a preexisting social contract to make sense because governments “own” land simply be declaring ownership of it. John Locke, who had some libertarian ideas understood that you gain ownership of something that was previously unowned by “mixing you labor” with it. Man has a natural right to self-ownership, and with that a natural right to their labor, so through their labor can own what they use and produce.
This homesteading argument is admittedly not perfect but it still makes a whole lot of sense compared to the way governments own land by what Murray N Rothbard called the “Columbus Complex” where they simply declare that it is theirs.
I've been waiting for responses for some time now so I'm just going to go into some angry anarchist rant.
Lets talk about...The social contract theory!
The social contract theory really is the early political scientists' attempt at magic. I think that on some level they understood that the state was, is and will always be indefensible so they needed a way to justify it, so they came up with the social contract theory:
"yeah, you never signed this contract, and you've probably never heard of it but it's binding because....because........IT SIGNED YOU!!"
Of course there have been some serious attempts at rationalizing the damn thing, like saying that we consent to government by using government services for example. However, this argument would still need a preexisting social contract to make sense because a) government uses force to grant itself monopoly privileges over the production of many things, and b) we are forced to pay even for services we don’t use so by using government services we are really just trying to get some of our money BACK.
Another attempt at justifying the state is to say that we consent to it by being living on land that it allegedly owns. This argument would also need a preexisting social contract to make sense because governments “own” land simply be declaring ownership of it. John Locke, who had some libertarian ideas understood that you gain ownership of something that was previously unowned by “mixing you labor” with it. Man has a natural right to self-ownership, and with that a natural right to their labor, so through their labor can own what they use and produce.
This homesteading argument is admittedly not perfect but it still makes a whole lot of sense compared to the way governments own land by what Murray N Rothbard called the “Columbus Complex” where they simply declare that it is theirs.