If you take this argument to its logical conclusion all laws and regulations are good and freedom does not exist. In reality the definition of "harm" and the laws and regulations that are necessary and desirable to mitigate these harms are very much up for debate.
It is nakedly authoritarian for the government to restrict, at the point of a gun, consenting adults from choosing their own method of transaction.
Any contract must be backed up by force, or else it’s meaningless.
As an example, if you enter into a legal contract, that contract is backed up by the threat of litigation (and by extension, force). If it weren’t, there wouldn’t be any incentive to obey it.
And yes, I do believe that the consensus is that activities with an outsized climate impact are harmful.
Others maintain the view that central bank driven infinite debt a/k/a "economic growth" is the key driver of global warming, rather than it's antithesis.
If enough members of society disagree with the terms of the contract, they may vote in representatives who change those terms, or alternatively they may revolt and install new representatives that way (see e.g. the French Revolution, American Revolution or Arab Spring).
If you instead hold the view that _every single individual_ should be able to opt out of the contract (i.e. should be able to choose not to be subject to the rule of law), then you go back to ‘anarchism is the only form of free government’, which is where we started this discussion 6 comments ago. QED.
You just gave me your story again, you being able to repeat it has nothing to do with QED.
For the individual there is no contract and no consensus, you just said so. For the individual its do as you are told at the threat of violence.
Differently put, you just repeated a story which with you justify forcing other individuals around.
You not liking this framing doesnt change that.
edit: I am not repeating myself for fun here. Once we agree that your "consensus based societal contract" is code for "forcing other individuals to do as you tell them at the threat of force", we can look at what anarchists actually say and how much better of a story they have.
How much better is "being born into an involuntary "contract" that dictates your actions at the threat of violence" described as slavery vs "consensual contract"?
All completely unrelated to the implications. Facts generally dont care for implications. You not wanting to hear them dont make them go away.
My initial comment, which (I think) we have been debating thus far, stated "If you take this argument to its logical conclusion, anarchism is the only form of free government."
It seems that we are in agreement on this point?
If so, I'm really not sure on which point you're disagreeing with me (with a healthy amount of sneering, nonetheless, which I might remind you is against HN guidelines).
Is it that the term 'social contract' offends you? You may also replace 'contract' with 'flubbitz' in my argument; the argument still holds. I used the term 'social contract' because it's a well-understood term in the English language ('high school level' according to Dictionary.com).
I am sorry if it read as sneering, i tend to loose track of people identifying with the positions, i hoped to make the error in perspective better visible.
You argument is that my assertion cant be true because it would mean Anarchism to be the only form of government.
I think this is intellectually dishonest, you dont end up at it as a logical conclusion, after all, there are some practical problems with Anarchism that dont just disappear. If i had to guess why you might think this, it might be caused by you wanting to look favorably on your worldview? (no offense intended, its an honest guess that might help to self reflect)
The description of reality is however absolutely unrelated to the implications drawn from it. Just because you think there is a logical conclusion doesnt change the basic facts and i think we should communicate them plainly. Because doing so might show errors in what conclusions you drew from it.
My initial statement is true unrelated to its implications. I tried getting away from the individual vocabulary to the meaning behind it so we dont get hung up on the wording.
What you describe here (yes i heard of societal contracts before) is the justification of why this is a good and necessary flubbitz. I point out that this is a bit dishonest, because on paper the Flubbitz you describe is a lot closer to slavery then to a consensual contract. You just think its necessary because of (story + implications) which makes your use a common but dishonest frame. You could make a good argument, that "Good and necessary type of slavery" is an equally fitting description, after all, you agree that it entails not giving individuals a choice and forcing them to comply by force. We by no means have to agree on it being slavery but think about the structure we exist in. So:
Statement 1, calling that a consensual contract is a frame aimed at making it more palpable because of (implications + intentions). It is still forcing individuals to do something they never had the chance to disagree with
Your answer to this is repeating the intentions and implications you see. You dont disagree over the basics, just argue that it is necessary.
All of the above might be seen as just an annoying attempt of smearing a righteous worldview. However, my argument is that this dishonesty has substantial implications. Namely
Statement 2, the wording of the contract being quite broad and exploitable. Not just are you stuck in a good Flubbitz, there exist a power structure that has the ability to redefine its terms how it sees fit.
Saying that this would would mean we had to start anarchism is no different then saying due to problems with capitalism we now have to start communism. The problems still exist and have to be dealt with them. Sugarcoating to feel better about a bad situation is counterproductive. Politics is an ugly business, maybe we should think about where the terms of the Flubbitz get interpreted to broadly, no? After all, its not as cuddly and innocent as it sounds.
It is true that no single individual agreed, but _society as a whole_ did.
Re: statement 1, if any single individual were able to disagree, a murderer could just say 'I don't consent with the social contract, because I believe it's within my rights to murder'. At that point, I don't see how you can describe it any other way than 'anarchism', as anybody can then choose the rules that apply to themselves without regard to other members of society.
Re: statement 2, the terms aren't set in stone, they can be changed by the people, i.e. via democratic processes or via revolution.
Anyway, we are going in circles here, and you are also continuing to call my attempt at a good-faith discussion 'dishonest', so this will be my last comment on the topic. Have a good day.
All laws and regulations necessarily take freedom away. That is the basis of the social contract: you aren’t free to harm others.