From: zeborah@gmail.com   
      
   David Friedman  wrote:   
      
   > In article <1im3dn8.1rrd1971ba490iN%zeborah@gmail.com>,   
   >  zeborah@gmail.com (Zeborah) wrote:   
   >   
   > > David Friedman  wrote:   
   > >   
   > > > 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.   
   > >   
   > > You have in a peace treaty too, which is why I was confused you were   
   > > comparing it in this respect to the social contract.   
   >   
   > But you don't have the option of anything reasonably describable as "we   
   > have no contract, so we each go his own way." As a general rule, "if you   
   > don't agree to this I'll keep dropping bombs on you" classifies as   
   > duress.   
      
   Oh, *that* kind of peace treaty.  That doesn't match your original   
   description of a situation where "everyone thinks he is entitled to   
   different, generally more favorable, terms than he gets", because in   
   *that* kind of peace treaty the bomb-droppers get the favourable terms   
   they want.  But changing definitions mid-discussion aside...   
      
   > > > 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."   
   > >   
   > > You'll be executed for tax evasion?   
   >   
   > I said "similar," not identical. You will, eventually, be locked up.   
      
   I don't think death and imprisonment are similar in kind.   
      
   > > Suppose the government were to concede that you were not obliged to pay   
   > > taxes.  Would you feel you were morally obliged to repay the government   
   > > for the services it has provided to you in the expectation that you   
   > > would later pay taxes?   
   >   
   > Net of all the taxes I have paid?   
      
   What?  Do you mean the repayments would have previously-paid taxes   
   deducted?  Absolutely.   
      
   >An expectation based on something I   
   > said?   
      
   An expectation based on the hope that, as a human being, you might have   
   a sense of morality.   
      
   >Do I get to deduct all the negative services it has   
   > provided--throughout my lifetime it has spent considerable amounts of   
   > money making the food I buy more expensive?   
      
   You chose to buy that food at that price.  But sure, if you like.   
      
   >Credit for all the benefits   
   > my existence has provided to other people?   
      
   No, but you can deduct what it has cost you to provide those benefits.   
      
   You'll have still gained more from society than you've lost to it.  And   
   presumably you still are, or at least (despite taxes) are breaking even;   
   for if you were losing more to society than you were gaining from it,   
   why on earth would you (as an intelligent economist who believes in   
   revealed preferences) *not* leave?   
      
   > Perhaps the difference between our positions is that I don't see the   
   > government as corresponding to the society, or as entitled to charge me   
   > for all the benefits I get from the existence of other people.   
      
   The government doesn't correspond to the society, but in this case it   
   represents the society; it collects taxes on behalf of the society in   
   order to spend the money for the benefit of the society -- of which you   
   are part.  It is entitled to charge you for the benefits you have   
   received from other people because those people have elected it as their   
   representative to (among other things) charge you for those benefits.   
      
   You could validly say that those people aren't entitled to charge you   
   because you haven't signed anything; but then what gives you the right   
   to use the services that others funded before you were born?  If society   
   may not demand recompense for its services without a legal contract,   
   then it cannot afford to provide those services without a legal   
   contract.  Where does this leave those who need those services to   
   survive and thrive, but who are too young to sign a legal contract?   
      
   > If the government wants to offer me the choice of paying taxes and   
   > having government services or not paying taxes and not having them, that   
   > would be a legitimate contract. But the closest it comes to that   
   > requires me to leave the country.   
      
   Eh, or disappear into the Badlands or something.   
      
   Or lobby to change the system.   
      
   But really we're not talking only about government services; we're   
   talking about *all* the benefits you get as a part of society, and the   
   taxes are what you pay to keep that society running for the continuing   
   benefit of you and your descendants and everyone else you care about.   
   Each member of that society has an interest in thus contributing, but   
   has even more of an interest in preventing anyone else from defaulting.   
      
   If the only thing you object to is the *term* "social contract" then   
   this is the explanation for it.  The social contract is, of course, not   
   an actual contract.  It's a term deriving from a metaphor attempting to   
   make sense, not of how each individual gets embroiled in it, but of the   
   way society behaves in enforcing it.   
      
   Zeborah   
   --   
   Gravity is no joke.   
   http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/   
   rasfc FAQ:  http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)