Тег: social contract

Using the concept of the implicit contract against statisticians

Voluntarist, Bitarch

You are likely familiar with the argument that the mere use of some benefit supposedly implies agreement with the rules established for it, even if such agreement was not explicitly confirmed. For example, being in a certain territory automatically obligates a person to follow its rules. If they disagree with the rules, they should not visit this territory; otherwise, they can absolutely reasonably expect the punishment established for committing such a violation. This works similarly with any use of material goods and interaction with other people. And some, referring to copyright, may even claim that such a rule applies even to intangible benefits. For example, by simply using a certain program, you automatically agree to follow the rules established by its developer and copyright law itself (“clickwrap”).

Statists—supporters of coercive state power—often resort to such an argument. With its help, they can justify any obligations arising from various state laws as a kind of implicit consent to the norms they establish. Very often they claim that the mere presence of a person within the territory of the state already obligates them to complete submission to all state laws. Well, then they should not be surprised that this argument can be turned against them.

The main tool of the statist in imposing the arbitrariness of the stationary bandit (“legislation”) is coercion through the threat of violence. After all, would a statist be able to force you personally to do or not do something without threatening violence? Of course, it can be initiated only against a specific person who, based on the concept of the implicit contract, has nothing preventing them from simply setting their own terms for interaction.

I warn that if someone wants to commit violence against me, then by interacting with me in such a way, they will enter into an agreement consenting to an euthanasia procedure as part of my self-defense. Having been warned and acquainted with my rule, the choice now lies with the person wishing to commit violence. Deciding to do so, they thereby implicitly sign the contract established by me and accept the conditions specified therein.

Understanding this, the statist is left with only two possible options for how to further regard the concept of the implicit contract. They can either continue to adhere to it, thereby recognizing the right of other people to unlimited self-defense against any attempts to commit violence against them, or throw out this untenable and unfounded concept from the list of their arguments in defense of violent power.

“Legitimate” and “illegitimate” bandits

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The recent case of the seizure of power in Afghanistan by the Taliban movement only further confirms the theory of the stationary bandit, according to which states arise not through a mythical social contract, but because nomadic bandits decide to settle down and move from irregular looting to stable tribute (or taxation) and the subjugation of people. Even the most liberal and democratic states continue this tradition, as in their case as well, a person has no right to disobey the orders and tax rates established from above—disagreement with this is punished by violence, exactly as in the case of a bandit attacking an unarmed and defenseless victim. And even the provision of certain socially useful services by the state does not change the essence—it is the same as so-called “protection rackets,” where you either agree to pay bandits for some form of protection, or they will attack you.

But it is also important to note that the legitimacy of a specific group on the world stage, that is, its recognition as a state by other states, is purely a question of victory and the seizure of power. Some states are already ready to recognize yesterday’s Taliban terrorists today, and there are even talks of cooperation, including from Russian government structures at the level of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Similarly, in their time, the Bolshevik bandits were recognized; after they seized power, the representatives of the previous Tsarist government suddenly became the bandits.

The winner is recognized and always spoken with, even if they were a mad bandit only yesterday. And this is the only thing, rather than any “social contract,” that distinguishes a “legitimate” and recognized political force from an “illegitimate” bandit-terrorist. But the essence itself remains the same.

The social contract is a fiction

or
silence does not mean consent

Bitarch’s Column

The notion that the state is a product of a social contract is an important factor in legitimizing the state; therefore, etatists cling to this theory with all their might, despite the fact that, for instance, the stationary bandit theory explains reality far more accurately. A bandit indeed behaves like a bandit, whereas no one has ever seen a social contract, nor can anyone produce its text.

You may have heard about the laws against sexual violence recently adopted in several European countries, known as “No means no.” Their essence is that sexual abuse (violence) is now considered not only the commission of “lewd acts” amidst active physical resistance by the victim (when she uses all possible strength to fight back), but any resistance where she unambiguously makes it clear that she wants to leave. Among Russian social media users, these laws were received ambiguously and were mainly used as an excuse to once again mock “Gayrope” for having lost all traditional values. Nevertheless, there is common sense in these laws. All criticism should be directed at the states in these countries, which, as always, will distort the essence and apply these laws with bias.

Let’s return to the state. I think a significant portion of people, most likely more than half, would similarly like to say “no” to the state. However, the bureaucrats in power are not fools either; they intuitively understand game theory and do everything possible to ensure that for an individual, any expression of discontent carries the highest possible costs, while the benefit from such a request should be zero! Look, even a request as trivial for the state as building waste processing plants instead of simply dumping trash in landfills remains unanswered. The authorities understand—if you concede such a trifle, in a couple of years they will demand the recognition of the right to create their own sovereign jurisdictions. The cattle must clearly know that they will get nothing, while the costs will be enormous (sleeping in tents near Shies in the freezing cold and constantly being hit on the head with clubs is not exactly like going to a picket line once).

It is exactly the same with the “social contract”—every person understands perfectly well that they alone can do little to change the status quo (depriving the state of its territorial monopoly on governance), but they will get into deep trouble if they start complaining. And so they nod along with the stationary bandit, like a fragile girl with a rapist, even though in their soul they fiercely hate him!

Therefore, I suggest that fans of the “social contract” stop mincing their words and say it straight: “They are raping you, and you aren’t resisting? Then how is that violence; it’s completely voluntary!”