Can a social contract be signed implicitly?

[Dormin111]

I recently heard the argument that taxation is moral on the basis that all individuals within a country sign an implicit social contract with the government. Basically, by living within a country we have agreed to subject ourselves to the government's laws despite the lack of a formal contract in the same way that that a contract is implicitly signed whenever an item is purchased from a store. So living on land within a country is roughly quivlent to exchaning money for a product even without an official legal document in between either one. Is there any validity to this theory?

[softwareNerd]

Is there any validity to this theory?

As stated, it is not valid, because one might analogously claim that by living in a country one has agreed to all its laws, no matter how unfair or discriminatory.

On the other hand, if you argue that taxes are a necessary condition for a moral state to function, then you make the argument much stronger.

In other words, one has not agreed to anything by the act of being born, or by the act of not moving from the country of one's birth. Arguably, one does not even agree to anything by moving to a place you have a moral-right to move to (e.g. another country). However, if one can show that a certain condition is a pre-requisite for the existence of proper government, then one can justify that precondition.

In the case of taxes, Rand held that government funding should be voluntary. The only way to justify a tax that is imposed is to show that it is an objective requirement of a moral government.

There are existing threads on the topic, where you should find both sides argued. I found this one, but there are probably more.

Edited August 1, 2011 by softwareNerd

[Dormin111]

As stated, it is not valid, because one might analogously claim that by living in a country one has agreed to all its laws, no matter how unfair or discriminatory.

On the other hand, if you argue that taxes are a necessary condition for a moral state to function, then you make the argument much stronger.

In other words, one has not agreed to anything by the act of being born, or by the act of not moving from the country of one's birth. Arguably, one does not even agree to anything by moving to a place you have a moral-right to move to (e.g. another country). However, if one can show that a certain condition is a pre-requisite for the existence of proper government, then one can justify that precondition.

What is the specific difference between the voluntary exchange of money for a store's product and the choice to continue existing on a piece of land under a government's jurisdiction? I guess I am mostly asking about the validity of "implicit contracts."

[softwareNerd]

I guess I am mostly asking about the validity of "implicit contracts."

"Implicit contracts" can make sense in some cases. They require the parties to take certain actions to signify that they are entering into a contract.

What is the specific difference between the voluntary exchange of money for a store's product and the choice to continue existing on a piece of land under a government's jurisdiction?

The specific difference is that you (i.e. one individual) do not have the right to tell me to either leave this country or to be subjected to laws of your choice; and, a majority of citizens together do not have such a right either; and, nor does government, acting somewhat like their agent. Imagine that when the slaves were freed, the government had given them ships and told them to go to some place outside the U.S. Even if all white people voted for it, and even if all but one black person voted for it, it would still be a violation of the right of the one black person who did not want to go. Edited August 1, 2011 by softwareNerd

[2046]

Don't forget this thread for an ass-ton of social contract arguments for and against: My Social Contract Debate

[utabintarbo]

Don't forget this thread for an ass-ton of social contract arguments for and against: My Social Contract Debate

OT, but is an ass-ton similar in size to the oft-used-but-never-quite-fully-defined metric shit-ton?

[Steve D'Ippolito]

And I am not sure where the shitload fits in and its derivatives the kiloshitload and the megashitload. It's an obsolete unit I think since I hear shit-ton a lot more these days.

[Greebo]

None of the above, however, come close in size and scale to the "metric fuck-ton of shit".

[TheEgoist]

An implicit agreement or social contract implies ownership. Governments do not own property, or at least, they ought not.