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

16 posts / 0 new

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

TheFirstLeftist's picture
TheFirstLeftist
Joined:
Mar. 23, 2012 1:33 pm

Comments

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.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm

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

Lynn2009
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

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's picture
TheFirstLeftist
Joined:
Mar. 23, 2012 1:33 pm
Quote Lynn2009:

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?

TheFirstLeftist's picture
TheFirstLeftist
Joined:
Mar. 23, 2012 1:33 pm

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

Why are you here on this blog?

What is your objective posting here?

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am

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

nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

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.

nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote nimblecivet:

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.

TheFirstLeftist's picture
TheFirstLeftist
Joined:
Mar. 23, 2012 1:33 pm
Quote TheFirstLeftist:
Quote Lynn2009:

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.

Lynn2009
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

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.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote drc2:

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.

TheFirstLeftist's picture
TheFirstLeftist
Joined:
Mar. 23, 2012 1:33 pm

Why are you here on this blog?

What is your objective posting here?

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am

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.

Rodger97321's picture
Rodger97321
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Rodger97321:

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.

TheFirstLeftist's picture
TheFirstLeftist
Joined:
Mar. 23, 2012 1:33 pm
Quote TheFirstLeftist:

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.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 9:00 pm

Currently Chatting

Can Democrats Set Out a New Path?

Democrats must embrace a pro-government platform, not run away from it.

Those were the sentiments of Senator Chuck Schumer today, in a speech given at the National Press Club. Talking about the reasons for Democrats’ losses on Election Day, Schumer said that those losses were proof that the American people and middle-class want a government that will work more effectively for them.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system