The Social Contract Theory: Defined and Demolished in under 5 Minutes

16 posts / 0 new
Last post
TheFirstLeftist
TheFirstLeftist's picture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNj0VhK19QU

Comments

ah2
Lol.  This guy is an

Lol.  This guy is an idiot.

If A is just, then anti-A us unjust.

This is formal logical fallacy.  He has presumed that any other option outside of SC theory is "anti-Social contract theory" which is incorrect.  It also presumes that SC theory lays claim that it is the ONLY just system which is also incorrect.  In other words, If A is just, then what is not A could either be just or unjust based on its own merits.

He is also incorrect on the formulation of what social contract theory is.  It is NOT a contract between the government and the individual, it is a contract BETWEEN ALL INDIVIDUALS IN A SOCIETY.  The government is NOTHING MORE THAN A CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITIZENS.  The government IS the social contract, not a party of that contract.  Additionally, he mistates when he says "government claims justification based on the SC."  That is really concealing the point that ALL social contract theory legitimizes governance through CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

You know what, this guy was such an idiot that I had to tell him directly.  Here are my series of youtube comments to this moron:

If A claims to be just, other options are not "the opposite of A" or "anti-A." They are just different types. Social contracts do not claim to be the ONLY option for a just societal arrangement. You have committed a formal logical fallacy at 1:36. This is completely incorrect. If A is just, what is not A is either just or unjust based on its own merits irrespective of A. Be cool, stay in school.....

You commit another fallacy at 1:50. You are are using an example as rule fallacy. You have implied that the only criteria that SC theory bases its claim to justice on is that it is Geographical, implicit, and unilateral which it doesn't. You have intentionally set up your argument trying to get your listener to adopt your false assumption by ignoring all of the other possible criteria SC theories must meet in order to claim just-ness.... The most glaring one being CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.

While we're at it, lets point out that your claim that social contracts are unilateral is false. Social contracts are contracts between citizens, not individuals and the government. The government is the RESULT of the contract between the people within the contract. In other words, the citizens agree to cooperate and the entity that will manage that cooperation and relationship is the government which all parties agree to become subject to.

You missed a step in your example of the car dealship which is also fallicious. The people in the neighborhood would've had the opportunity to elect you or someone else before you had the authority to "buy a car on their behalf." The way you have set it up is that you can just assume that mantle for yourself which is NOT a component of SC theory.

In addition to these comments where I was focusing more on the formal flaws in his logic and misrepresentation of classical SC threory, modern SC theorists have gone far beyond this and claimed that SCs must mee independent criteria of justice in order to be considered valid.  The most noteable contribution to this literature is, of course, the work of John Rawls - Justice as Fairness.  He posits a normative theory of justice which SCs must meet before they can be considered just and valid.  So, the entire premise that even SCs are simply implicitly just is completely false.  Translation: this guy has no effing clue what the hell he is talking about.  He looked up social contract on google and then decided to write a book based on the definition he got from the first 2 or 3 hits.  Completely worthless.  His arguments would get him an F in a formal logic class.

 

Lynn2009
LOL. Derranged thinking.

LOL. Derranged thinking. Eventually the thoughts are logical to the derranged person. 

TheFirstLeftist
TheFirstLeftist's picture
If A is just then anti-A is

If A is just then anti-A is unjust.  I don't think this is a fallacy.  I think you mean that non-A being unjust is a fallacy.  And I would agree.  A could be just, B (being in the class of non-A) could also be just.  But the opposite of A cannot be just.

Here's Molyneaux's website if you want more information on this guy.,

TheFirstLeftist
TheFirstLeftist's picture
Lynn2009 wrote: LOL.

Lynn2009 wrote:

LOL. Derranged thinking. Eventually the thoughts are logical to the derranged person. 

Do you a specific rebuttal to the youtube?  Or is calling someone's thinking deranged the extent of you argument?

delete jan in iowa
More BLAH BLAH BLAH.....

More BLAH BLAH BLAH..... double talking jibberish.

Why are you here on this blog?  

What is your objective posting here?

nimblecivet
nimblecivet's picture
The noble goals of freedom,

The noble goals of freedom, liberty... and profit!

nimblecivet
nimblecivet's picture
Symbolically, "-A" does not

Symbolically, "-A" does not necessarilly represent the "opposite" of "A". A position (e.g. where B=-A, for example) which is anti-A is not necessarilly the opposite of A.

Also, both the arguments that government is and is not coercive can be framed in logically valid forms.

TheFirstLeftist
TheFirstLeftist's picture
nimblecivet wrote: The noble

nimblecivet wrote:

The noble goals of freedom, liberty... and profit!

Don't forget loss.  In a free market losses are part of the system.  No one is forcing you to take any risks in order to earn profits.  All that I ask is that you don't prevent someone from profiting.  Of course, they cannot run to the government to bail out their losses.

Lynn2009
TheFirstLeftist

TheFirstLeftist wrote:

Lynn2009 wrote:

LOL. Derranged thinking. Eventually the thoughts are logical to the derranged person. 

Do you a specific rebuttal to the youtube?  Or is calling someone's thinking deranged the extent of you argument?

 

suicide ideation is similar in its convoluted logic.

drc2
The first rule of insanity is

The first rule of insanity is that it makes sense to the insane.  The same is true for ideology where what is clear is SO CLEAR as to exclude all consideration of alternatives.  I am certain that FL thinks he has the keys to the highway, the Holy Grail and the Rosetta Stone showing him the way to his pure system of reality analysis.  Unlike those who are bothered by ambiguity or nuance, he has that wonderful freedom of pure thought where the world is parsed into whatever is developmentally appropriate to his needs.

Those who object simply do not understand.  On that, he is correct.  Insanity is kind of a private truth world.

TheFirstLeftist
TheFirstLeftist's picture
drc2 wrote: The first rule of

drc2 wrote:

The first rule of insanity is that it makes sense to the insane.  The same is true for ideology where what is clear is SO CLEAR as to exclude all consideration of alternatives.  I am certain that FL thinks he has the keys to the highway, the Holy Grail and the Rosetta Stone showing him the way to his pure system of reality analysis.  Unlike those who are bothered by ambiguity or nuance, he has that wonderful freedom of pure thought where the world is parsed into whatever is developmentally appropriate to his needs.

Those who object simply do not understand.  On that, he is correct.  Insanity is kind of a private truth world.

So I take it that you have no rebuttal or points of your own.  Calling someone insane isn't debating.

delete jan in iowa
Why are you here on this

Why are you here on this blog?  

What is your objective posting here?

Rodger97321
Rodger97321's picture
If A is Just, then anti-A is

If A is Just, then anti-A is unjust.

This was the brilliant basis for making war on Iraq, with the support of legalist-whores and others that are fine with making a profit from causing maiming, suffering  and killing of babies (as long as they're someone else's).

The biggest problem with these exercises is that the framers don't know what "Just" is.  They used it in the name of a military operation, "Just Cause" - that was everything but.

The second is that Dishonest People want to decide for everyone else what's an "A" and what's "anti-A".

To the Vanilla Ice Cream Company, all other flavors may be anti-vanilla, but to the universe of fair and impartial ice-cream consumers it is but one of many equally tasty flavors each appropriate to it's own time and place.

TheFirstLeftist
TheFirstLeftist's picture
Rodger97321 wrote: If A is

Rodger97321 wrote:

If A is Just, then anti-A is unjust.

This was the brilliant basis for making war on Iraq, with the support of legalist-whores and others that are fine with making a profit from causing maiming, suffering  and killing of babies (as long as they're someone else's).

The biggest problem with these exercises is that the framers don't know what "Just" is.  They used it in the name of a military operation, "Just Cause" - that was everything but.

The second is that Dishonest People want to decide for everyone else what's an "A" and what's "anti-A".

To the Vanilla Ice Cream Company, all other flavors may be anti-vanilla, but to the universe of fair and impartial ice-cream consumers it is but one of many equally tasty flavors each appropriate to it's own time and place.

All of the libertarians I know and read were against the Iraq War.  It was unjust.  Saddam was unjust to his people but that does not justify what was done to the Iraqi people in the name of liberating them.

ah2
TheFirstLeftist wrote: If A

TheFirstLeftist wrote:

If A is just then anti-A is unjust.  I don't think this is a fallacy.  I think you mean that non-A being unjust is a fallacy.  And I would agree.  A could be just, B (being in the class of non-A) could also be just.  But the opposite of A cannot be just.

Here's Molyneaux's website if you want more information on this guy.,

The fallacy is to suggest that anything that is not A is "anti-A."  That is incorrect.  I am pretty sure I explained this clearly in the first response.

His entire argument was based on several false premises and used several formal logical fallacies.  In other words, his arguments are completely invalid and can be discarded.  No one needs to come up with "counter arguments" because his statements were competely false to begin with.