The Social Contract Theory

[Art Vandelay]

I need some help for a university assignment as I am really drawing blanks as to how to criticize this theory. I am not talking about any certain version of the theory put forth by Rousseau or Locke or Socrates, but more just a broad criticism on the basis of the theory in general. That by living in a state you agree to its laws and if you wish to leave you can, but by staying you agree, and therefor sign the social contract. I will definitely be quoting some Henry David Thoreau but I need some more ammo for this other than: "Its the duty of every citizen to break unjust laws."

Any help would be appreciated.

[Leftsolidarity]

I think this is not exactly what you are looking for but you could talk about the whole "Belly of the beast" thing. An example would be that you can't outrun American imperialism and capitalism anyways so you might as well stay here and try to change things. Also, you could try to make it out as a "if you see people getting raped do you just leave because you disagree or do you stop it?".

This probably isn't what you're looking for though I am assuming.

[Tim Cornelis]

EDIT: I did not read your post well.

The social contract theory, as I understand it, is that the state of nature (primitive communism) was undesirable for several reasons depending on whom you ask (Hobbes would say it was brute, short, etc.). Therefore, the people signed a social contract between them and the government, they gave up some freedoms and received security.

An argument could be that your forefathers have chained you against your will. Your forefathers, who lived thousands of years ago, have decided about your life, without you having any influence on the decision, nor consented to it.

Here on wikipedia Proudhon's perspective:


Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865) advocated a conception of social contract which didn't involve an individual surrendering sovereignty to others. According to him, the social contract was not between individuals and the state, but rather between individuals themselves refraining from coercing or governing each other, each one maintaining complete sovereignty upon oneself:
What really is the Social Contract? An agreement of the citizen with the government? No, that would mean but the continuation of [Rousseau’s] idea. The social contract is an agreement of man with man; an agreement from which must result what we call society. In this, the notion of commutative justice,[6] first brought forward by the primitive fact of exchange, …is substituted for that of distributive justice … Translating these words, contract, commutative justice, which are the language of the law, into the language of business, and you have commerce, that is to say, in its highest significance, the act by which man and man declare themselves essentially producers, and abdicate all pretension to govern each other.
—Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century (1851)

Herbert Read (an anarchist) on social contracts: http://www.panarchy.org/read/anarchism.html

[Art Vandelay]

I think this is not exactly what you are looking for but you could talk about the whole "Belly of the beast" thing. An example would be that you can't outrun American imperialism and capitalism anyways so you might as well stay here and try to change things. Also, you could try to make it out as a "if you see people getting raped do you just leave because you disagree or do you stop it?".

This probably isn't what you're looking for though I am assuming.

No this was not what I was looking for but useful none the less. I need lots points to bring up so I can use the second point but I will probably change the example from being about rape. Perhaps more information on my assignment will help. It is on Crito by Plato, which is the dialogue on why Socrates refused to escape from prison before he was put to death. Basically his reasoning is that since he lived his entire life in the city, understood their laws and was free to leave if he disagreed but chose not to, he ultimately cannot turn his back on the laws which offered him a life he enjoyed.

In my analysis I go on to say that this is simply another proposition of the social contract theory. So far I can think of the fact that a person who loves the place they live but not the laws would not want to leave to a place less desirable but change their current location for the better. I also plan on throwing a couple of quotes from HDT from his essay on civil disobedience. But other than that I am pretty lost on what to say.

[piet11111]

wikipedia is your friend

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Social_contract#Criticism

[Broletariat]

The social contract easy is fairly easy to smash to pieces. I mean, it essentially implies that mere infants and toddlers agree to a social contract.

It's also very clearly dealing with an abstract world where there's no such thing as expensive travel flights, no hassle getting a passport, getting a new citizenship, antiquating yourself to a new culture or even a new language etc.

[citizen of industry]

Doesn't it also kind of assume that 'the state' creates all of the laws, instead of laws being rather fluid things always undergoing changes due to politics, obsolescence, etc. And that it is people which create and change the laws. So as a citizen is it not your duty to actually change the laws? And that's what political parties and revolutions do, right?

And if enough people stopped following a particular law, does it not become obsolete and then no longer a law?

[piet11111]

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm#social-contract

Just bumped into this thought i would put it here.

[Kenco Smooth]

The two most common criticisms apply to a hypothetical and actual contract respectively.

An actual contract is pretty easy to tear down simply on the grounds of how ridiculously hard a system like that would be to implement. Not to mention the fact that in the real world the possibility of 'opting out' of the contract really isn't there.

For an hypothetical contract there's the big problem of what binding, real world aspects can be drawn from a philosophers ponderings. Why should I be held to a contract I never agreed to?

[Stork]

So by existing on land that is supposedly "owned by the state" you agree to a social contract, which you had no part in writing, that the state can use force against you for not obeying? States lay claim to almost every square mile of land and sea on the whole planet but the leaders of these state will only ever see the smallest portions of it for themselves. And those who say we benefit from the state therefore it's only just that we respect it's authority must also say that a P.O.W. taking rations from the camp would be a hypocrite to want freedom as he has "signed a social contract by eating the camp's food"