Jon, while I did not explicitly use the term 'social contract' I did not reject the general concept of one, either.
Reciprocal comprehensive physical autonomy for each person is the LIBERTARIAN 'social contract' Don't hit me and I won't hit you; and so on. We in general , as beings with conscious volition and agency automatically enter into a 'physical aggression truce' with other such beings as it's in our own self interest to so do. In my previous reply I dealt with the 'exceptors' to this 'truce' or 'social contract' However, Jon says that it's not enough to have a universal duty to not violate another person. He's also asserting a 'duty' for each person to be coerced into a duty to provide another's defense. I say that should be the province of 'love' not 'duty' Please also see what I wrote in 'Your Freedom and the Rights of Others' at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/22990 -Terry Liberty Parker --- In [email protected], Jon Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For those you may have come in late, this is an ongoing debate between > Terry and myself, with others joining in. What Terry is reaching for, > while avoiding the terminology, is the notion of the "social contract", > developed by John Locke and others, which underlies our constitutional > republican system of government. The problem he seems to have with doing > that arises from the fact that the terms of the social contract are a > duty to mutually defend the rights of the members of society, by force > if necessary, the term for which is /militia/. It is an attempt to enjoy > the benefits of mutual protection without doing one's duty to provide > that protection, imagining perhaps that everyone can secure himself by > his own private means, perhaps by hiring bodyguards, something that is > not feasible for most people in most situations. > The debate inevitably turns to attempts to define the terms, "force", > "initiate", "aggression", etc., and finding it is not that easy to apply > these broad terms to specific, complex situations. Such application > calls for more detailed principles for how to apply them, meaning, as > mathematicians put it, the simple NAP formulation "lacks sufficient > structure" to be adequate as a guide to decisionmaking. The "terms > "force" and "aggression" soon lead to "fraud", "breach of contract", and > "neglect of a public duty/negligence". In other words, one soon > reinvents the entire subject matter of law and courts to adjudicate it. > Anyone who measures the services of the justice system against the need > soon discovers the inadequacy of both the justice system and private > remedies outside that system. One also finds that the traditional > mechanisms that controlled human behavior through social pressure, such > as families and churches, have broken down, and the prospects for > replacing them are not evident. We are becoming a nation of barbarians > as new generations of people appear without being adequately > "socialized" to behaving as responsible citizens of a constitutional > republic. That is a formula for eventual breakdown into a Hobbesian "war > of all against all". > I don't claim to have all the solutions. I offer a few things that might > help, most of which are related to restoring compliance with the > Constitution of 1787 as originally understood, but I don't claim that is > a complete solution. Part of the problem is affluence, and it is > difficult to argue that it would be morally better for people to be > poor. Better would be to prepare people to handle affluence without > letting it degrade their morals. > > -- Jon > > Terry L Parker wrote: > > >Jon, how did you conclude that I called for NO govt? > > > >GOVERNMENT: that agency which is exercising the greatest ability > >for enforcing compliance to its aims in a given arena > >(hint: it's not always a formal state) > > > > > >Also, I think that if we're not able to go into general society > >and tell any person that it's NOT 'ok' to physically attack an > >innocent person, we should retire our mouths :) > > > >The core libertarian principle is not some radical unknown, > >untried concept; it's the basis for civilized society throughout > >history and in our world today. We're only insisting that people > >be more consistent about the premise they (VIRTUALLY ALL), > >consciously or unconsciously, already use. ACTUAL sociopaths > >are a relative small percent of the population. > > > >Here's what I've written before: > > > >Without consistency to a 'physical agression truce' the common ground > >for 'liberty & justice for all' in the material world just vanishes! > > > >While MOST people, MOST of the time, on MOST issues, consciously or > >not, will abide by this 'truce' many seek 'exceptions' for their own > >causes. So, they will claim that such a 'commonality' doesn't exist; > >and that those who say otherwise are being absurd. Of course, > >people, including these 'exceptors' would NOT be able to walk out > >their door each day if there was no effective physical aggression > >truce already working. But, that observation seems not to disuade > >these exceptors from attempting to con other people about the > >matter. > > > >The truth is, that it is CONSISTENCY to this 'physical aggression > >truce' (aka NAP 'non aggression principle, ZAP 'zero aggression > >principle' and so on) which protects the 'self-ownership' autonomy of > >virtually all persons. Most people DO seem to inherently understand > >and usually apply the needed reciprocity; even if they don't know how > >to spell that word, let alone consciously define it. This, in fact, > >is the underlying principle for UNIVERSAL libertarianism; > >aka 'liberty & justice for ALL' > > > >So, a question to would be 'exceptors' is: what makes you think you > >have the right to initiate, or do a credible threat to initiate, > >physical force against the person or justly held possessions of > >another? > > > >PleaseSee: What's at the Heart of What Libertarians are Selling? > >at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/30419 > > > > > >-Terry Liberty Parker > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Our efforts depend on donations from people like you. Directions > for donors are at http://www.constitution.org/whatucando.htm > Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 > 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
