I'm not into philosophy much but you a point. There is very little room to reject the goven. and laws etc. I swear you swallowed a dictionary prior to writing that. Its very well put and I think the title suits it well. Nicely done. *hugs*

"The key concept is that by accepting the benefits governments provide us, we also agree to accept the regulations they put into place.

I personally find the theory to require further refinement. After all, one can't reject the benefits of government and be immune to its laws, can we?"

I'm writing this on the fly, so I'd like to apologize in advance for any lack of polish; feel free to point out if I say something that's unclear.

When it comes to the idea of a social contract, we're really dealing with a sense of morality. When it comes to morality in this instance, there's an assumption that it's an overarching independent law, sort of like physics, it's a platonic form.

It's difficult to support that assumption. It seems more likely that a sense of ethics is rather subjective but has general trends among people. If you follow this route of reasoning, then the idea of a social contract tends to follow the lines of "society did this (e.g., compulsory education) for your benefit, therefore society can do this (e.g., jail you for marijuana use) because you "owe society."

There's a lot of holes in that line of thought - first, this view of morality tends to be geared towards the idea of equal compensation rather than optimal results. To use a religious example, it's "an eye for an eye." That's why the reasoning of "you owe us" is employed - it's justification for an action that is painful for the citizen.

There is better rational that can be used if a law has some other goal than revenge - for example, locking up someone for murder prevents them from murdering others. I don't hear the idea of a social contract bandied about when it comes to murderers. But why is, to use an easy example, marijuana illegal? That's where you'll hear arguments along the lines of the "social contract," because there aren't any better arguments.

Now, there is an evolutionary answer as to why some people will find the idea of social contract more appealing than others. There is evidence that some people tend to frame their morals based on two categories: pain and fairness. These people typically identify as liberals. Others tend to build their morals based on five categories: pain, fairness, authority, purity, and ingroup; these people tend to identify as conservatives. Here you see how someone might on an emotional/moral level respond to a law. Let's use marijuana prohibition again - a "conservative" may see the laws as causing unnecessary pain and as unfair, but if the person doesn't consider him/herself a drug user, they're dealing with someone who isn't in their ingroup system of morality, and the laws are created and enforced by authorities, and drug users are making their bodies impure - most concerns about purity involve the body, especially foreign bodies entering it.

So here's something else to toss into the idea of ethics: if people are not significantly swayed by ethical arguments but base their ethics on other factors, such as exposure (which would explain generational differences in the attitudes towards race, sexuality, and gender), it may be more ethical to devote one's efforts towards creating ethical changes - i.e., attempting to influence society via what works.

To respond to your last paragraph;

No matter how you change the populace, you cannot change the government of it. No matter how good the people are, politics allows the dishonest to be put in a position of power where the only way they can be checked and balanced are by others in that same position. If say, you elect a president you don't like, and you want him impeached, the only way that can be done is by Congress doing so. If they simply turn a blind eye to it, no matter if a majority or all of the nation wants it done, nothing can be done.

If a nation doesn't like the political system they cannot remove it and start over. The government has control of the police and the military, and thus have granted themselves a weapon by which they cannot be removed from power. Even assuming that you can overthrow them through a revolt, the resulting loss of life should not be necessary. Social contract theorists imply that we live under governments by choice, and that's simply not true. We are born into one, and cannot leave until we are of age, assuming we have enough finances to, and must wait through an arduous application of citizenship to another nation. Even then, your application can be refused, and you are stuck under a government you do not want.

"If say, you elect a president you don't like, and you want him impeached, the only way that can be done is by Congress doing so. If they simply turn a blind eye to it, no matter if a majority or all of the nation wants it done, nothing can be done."

I don't think this is exactly how it works. in the US, congressional representatives often vote based on what will get them reelected. If most members of congress knew that they wouldn't be reelected if they didn't impeach someone, they would probably impeach - and even if they didn't, they would be replaced.

Of course, some governments use the military/police to stay in power, so the loyalty of the police/military and the incentives that they respond to needs to be geared towards the populous in order to avoid having a dictator.

But what I'm considering right now is the idea of a social contract as justification for unjust laws or government. That's when I often hear it. The flow of logic seems to be that because your government or society "gave" you something, even if you didn't want it, you're indebted and now have a moral imperative to obey them, regardless of what they are doing is just or moral. It's a pretty silly argument, but I pointed out earlier that I think the reason why people bring up this argument is because some people are more psychologically geared towards loyalty/ingroup/authority morality frameworks.

I agree with you that there isn't a proper justification for an unjust government. I do not think Social Contract theory can provide a reason for such a thing. The purpose is really to justify laws individuals personally dislike, not those universally evil, i.e. the speed limit.

The issue that your response is that even if you elect new representatives, they are not bound to obey the will of the populace. Even if it is logical to, they have no actualy obligation which forces them to obey the will of the majority.

The populace has nothing to offer greater than what the goverment can. They have access to far greater resources, as well as legislative immunities should they choose to offer them.

Hmm, as you mention it, I actually have heard it used to justify the speed limit. Thanks =3

I suppose this depends on the context of the government. That doesn't seem to happen significantly in the US, but I can easily see a more corrupt government (mal)functioning this way. While US representatives aren't strictly bound, they seem to be quite likely to respond to the populous, as they probably desire to be reelected.

Regarding populace v government, that depends on how we define populous. Even if the military has the most power, if they don't exercise that power, then the power of influence and deciding how things works can fall somewhere else. I think that's what happens in the US, although it may be more accurate to say that the populous ultimately has the loyalty of the military, since I doubt that an order by the government for, say, US troops to occupy Florida, would be carried out.

*scratches his head*

Well, significant occurance can change itself. The possibility is there that, since all laws are regulated and designed by the government, it is concievable they could change the laws to keep themselves in office indefinitely. Therefore, the government can remove any checks and balances they have in place. Sure, we could riot, but again, they control the police and military.

As for the military not using its power, I don't see that as a likely possiblity. The entire training of the military is to turn you into an effecient, loyal killing machine who adheres only to your officers, who in effect adhere to the government. The loyalty of the military is to the nation, and the government considers itself the most important part of that. If the government wanted the military to repress riots or revolutions in Florda, except for a few Floridian soldiers, I have no trouble doubting they'd do it.

Social Contract, created by John Locke, to show the relationship between a government and the area [usually a country] it governs. When one side fails to uphold their side of the bargain designated by the contract, the contract is voided and the other side no longer must fulfill their requirement.

Also, wonderful poem. I hate politics, as can be seen by my Another Fucking Weird Dream journal, but the poem is very good.

I hate politics too. x3 Hence the poem being very much anti-government. XD

Heehee

Wow, I agree with the above who mentioned swallowing a dictionary.

This is superb. :)

Although, I'm not one for politics. :c

While I'd rather not get into a discussion. I do wat to say great work my friend.

Holy cringe. What the fuck is that description? My past self was a fucking geek.