From: ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com   
      
   In article <1im1mk7.1dzwhkzeh16pzN%zeborah@gmail.com>,   
    zeborah@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:   
      
   > > Of course, one possible problem with that view of it is that it weakens   
   > > or eliminates the moral force of the contract metaphor, since it makes   
   > > the social contract a contract signed under duress--and most people   
   > > don't think contracts signed under duress are binding.   
   >   
   > Most contracts are compromises made by people who would like better   
   > terms but are willing to settle for these terms for fear of having no   
   > contract at all.  That doesn't make them signed under duress.   
      
   In an ordinary contract, you have the option of no contract at   
   all--there is a default outcome. Hertz and I don't agree, and I don't   
   rent a car from them.   
      
   It's far from clear what the equivalent is for the "social contract."   
   The closest I've seen offered is "love it or leave it." But that assumes   
   that whoever is offering the contract already owns the entire territory,   
   and so can insist that anyone who doesn't agree leave.   
      
   Suppose I don't accept the social contract--don't, say, agree that I am   
   obliged to pay taxes. The consequences will be similar in kind, not to   
   the consequences of my refusing to accept Hertz's terms, but to the   
   consequences of my refusing to give my wallet to a mugger who confronts   
   me with "your money or your life."   
      
   --   
    http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/   
    Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.   
    Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)