All Episodes
Previous Next
May 13, 2008 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:19:23
1065 Everyday Anarchy - The Conference Call Part 2

Some more feedback and examination of the arguments of the book 'Everyday Anarchy'...

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Alright, so, yeah, I was just wondering if anyone had any sort of other thoughts about, because we really talked only about the one idea that was hidden like an Easter egg in bold print in a small book in Everyday Anarchy.
I was just wondering if other people had thoughts or ideas about it.
About other ideas that they got from the book.
Are you saying we missed something else?
I'm not saying that. I'm saying I think there's something else.
But that was just my thought.
Well, I mean, there were a couple of other sort of good ideas, I thought, in the book that were new.
I thought another one that was good.
Let me know what you think. Was the idea that the social contract invalidates the social contract?
Alright, I remember reading that.
And... I don't remember that specifically.
I remember about the social contract, but I don't remember...
And that particular one I didn't quite get.
Yeah, maybe I just didn't get it.
Alright. The idea, at least, however expressed in the book or not, and we'll see if it makes sense, the idea was that...
The social contract is considered to be the binding root of the power of the state, right?
That is the justification put forward for the power of the state, that you're born into a particular country, and this is Socrates' argument that if you stay in that country, then you are submitting to the social contract, right? Right.
We've all heard that about a million times, right?
Right. So, the question is, since the social contract is based on a one-sided involuntary imposition of obligation, right, it's not consensual, since you don't choose where you are born, right?
Right. And it is unilateral in that it is imposed upon you, not by an individual, but by an entity, right?
Because you're supposed to obey this thing called the government, which is a point out in the book is merely an aggregation of individuals and so on, right?
So far so good.
So the question then is, does the social contract validate the social contract?
So, for instance, a DRO is a voluntary, mutually beneficial contract, right?
Right. And so, what does a DRO support?
What type of contracts does it support and enforce?
well voluntary contracts right okay so your contract with the DRO is a perfect representation of the kinds of contracts that a DRO is going to enforce right Wait a minute. Say that one more time.
I'm sorry. Well, a contract with a DRO is mutually beneficial and voluntary and you can cancel it at any time, right?
Correct. I mean, within whatever strictures are placed upon it.
And so your contract with your sort of, quote, enforcement agency is a direct mirror or reproduction of the kinds of contracts that it is going to enforce, right?
So it's going to enforce voluntary mutual contracts, right?
All right.
I think I see what you're saying.
and and and maybe it's just getting too bound up in the house but but but but i'll set that aside for the moment Well, all it means is that there's no contradiction between the contract you have to the enforcement agency and the contracts that it enforces.
They're the same type of contract, right?
Right. Right.
Agreed. However, there's completely the opposite case with the government.
Because with the government, the government says that a group of people who claim to represent a fictional entity...
Can impose a unilateral contract on an entire country that binds everyone in perpetuity, right?
That's the argument, yeah.
Right. So, the social contract is considered to be why you subjugate yourself to a government, right?
Right. So, the question is, would the social contract...
Would it enforce the social contract?
Would it validate the social contract?
And that's why I give the example that if I send out a bunch of letters to everyone in my neighborhood saying, hey, I've ordered a car on your behalf.
It will be delivered on Monday and you all owe me $30,000.
Oh, I remember that, yeah.
So if I send that letter and then people don't pay me and I go to the government and I say, I want you to enforce this contract, what would they say?
Well, they would argue that would be ridiculous.
Well, they wouldn't even argue.
They would just say, this is not a contract.
This is not binding.
Right.
So when you bring exactly the same contract that the social contract is supposed to be based on and justify as the government, the government would laugh at that as being a completely ridiculous and unenforceable contract.
So the social contract with the government doesn't enforce contracts just like it? - Thank you.
The social contract explicitly rejects the social contract.
Because if you...
If the social contract is just, then geographically set up unilateral contracts, quote contracts, are valid, right?
Right. And so if I bring a geographically delineated...
one-sided, involuntary contract to the agency which claims that's why it's justified, and it says that is not a contract, then it's unraveling its own justification.
Right.
I actually saw that more as an argument from UPB than from the approach that you're taking But you don't need UPB for this.
Because any time you bring UPB in, arguments get very complicated, right?
That's true. But it's essentially the same principle though, right?
The self-contradiction built into the moral argument behind the social contract.
Well, the social contract is considered to be the basis of law, which is just.
It's why we submit to government courts, laws, taxes, and so on.
The social contract is considered to be the basis of law, but the social contract explicitly denies that the social contract is valid.
Because it will not enforce geographical, unilateral contracts.
And in fact, we'll call them completely ridiculous and immoral.
Well, that depends too on who it is that's bringing...
The suit, right?
Because they would certainly do that if two state governments went to the federal government with an argument.
But they wouldn't do that if, like the example that you have in the book, if I was a car salesman and I wanted to force everyone in America to buy one.
Oh no, the federal government would in no way support that from the state governments.
Guaranteed. If it were pointed at the federal government, right?
So if the states go to the federal government and say, we have decided to impose a geographical tax on Washington of a million dollars a day, pay it up, they would say, that's ridiculous, you can't do that, right?
Right. Right.
So that which is considered to be the basis of the social contract...
But they would support the federal government, and it certainly does support and defend contracts that mirror its own.
You mean if it imposes a tax on the states?
For sure, of course. And there's no question that the social contract is enforced, right?
And when the states impose taxes on their own citizens or there's a dispute between them over taxes – like I remember when I lived in – Wisconsin, I worked in Illinois. There was constant arguments between the two states over who exactly would get my state taxes, right?
Well, sure. I mean, nobody's saying that the social contract is not enforced in a one-directional way, right?
I mean, I understand that.
I mean, there would be no point lying about a social contract if you couldn't enforce it in that way, right?
No profit in it.
Right, right.
But what I'm saying is that if you bring a social contract to the agency which claims its justification – which claims as its justification the moral superiority and absolute ethical validity of a social contract and it says this contract is completely ridiculous and immoral.
And in fact, it considers it a crime for you to attempt to enforce that contract, right?
Right.
Well, and that's because you don't have the right...
You don't have the right label in front of your name.
Well, no, no. You're looking into the practical application of it, right?
But I'm talking about the theory.
So if I say I'm going to send these cars around and these people now owe me $30,000 for these cars and I'm going to go and get...
I mean, if somebody steals my car, I can steal it back, right?
Sure. Well, no.
I mean, it's not sure. That's valid, right?
Right. I mean, even in the modern legal system, right?
Right. I mean, if somebody across the street steals my car and leaves it running in his driveway with the key in it, I can get into my car and drive it back to my house, right?
Right. Right. That's right.
I've actually had an incident like that.
Not the whole car, just something.
Right. So if – and of course the government claims the right to get taxes, even if you – but if I send – if I create this unilateral geographical contract with people and I decide to go and get the money myself, They are actually allowed – in fact, they would never be prosecuted for shooting me as an intruder, right?
Right.
So not only does the agency which claims the social contract as its moral justification, not only would it never enforce a social contract, but it would actually consider the enforcement of a social contract evil. but it would actually consider the enforcement of a social contract evil.
So... So I'm some guy, and I get this idea...
That everybody in my neighborhood should have recycling cans.
And I go around and I demand payment for the recycling cans and demand that everyone put their recyclables in the recycling cans or else.
And nobody does it.
So then I take my social contract to the organization that is based upon social contracts.
And they say...
They say absolutely they have to pay.
I'm sorry, I don't understand.
They say that the people have to pay?
Yeah. But they won't.
Right? I mean, I can't do that.
I can't set up...
I can't give my neighbors garbage...
I can't put garbage cans on my neighbor's lawns and then send them bills for it, and if they don't, right, because they'll say, I never ordered these, right?
If I'm wearing a jacket that has the label mayor on it, I can do that.
Yeah, but we're not talking about how the social contract works in hypocritical practice.
We're talking about the theory, right?
I mean, we all understand that the social contract is invalid and that you can pull all kinds of shit if you've got the guns, right?
Right. So help me understand what your argument was for.
Well, I'm trying to understand how the social contract invalidates the social contract itself.
I Well, because the social contract will punish as evil anyone who attempts to impose a unilateral contract in a geographical area.
It will punish that as an evil action, right?
That's where I'm getting mixed up.
You keep saying anyone. Yeah, any private citizen who attempts to follow the principles of the social contract will be punished as evil, right?
Of his own social contract, right?
I think this is where I'm getting confused because the social contract says that we owe money to a service that enforces contracts.
Yeah. No, the social contract says that unilaterally imposed contracts in a geographical area are binding, regardless of the will of the recipient.
Right. So, that's a principle, right?
Right, but also...
I think that's where I'm getting bollocked up is the – Well, it has to be a principle.
The social contract is not from an individual to an individual, but from an entity called the state to a geographical region.
And we know it's a principle because it's valid for every country, right?
At least every democracy, let's say, where you're free to leave or semi-free to leave, right?
I guess I'm seeing the practice as the principle.
Well, the principle is that unilaterally imposed geographical contracts are valid, right?
Right.
That's the theory of the social contract.
So what we see in practice can't even really be called the social contract.
Okay, forget practice.
Forget practice. We're just talking about theory here, right?
Even just in theory, if the social contract says – the principle behind the social contract says that all unilaterally enforced contracts on a geographical area are valid – How does it invalidate itself if it doesn't say anything other than that?
Well, if unilaterally imposed geographical contracts are valid, then the social contract, the government, which claims the social contract as its justification, should defend unilaterally enforced geographical contracts, right? Oh, right.
Because if it says that unilaterally imposed geographical contracts are evil, then it has destroyed its own justification, right?
But does the social contract say that, or does the government say that?
Okay, there's no such thing as the government.
We're just talking about the theory of the social contract, which says that geographically imposed, unilateral contracts are moral, right?
Right. And in not defending that, it invalidates itself.
But the defense is where the practice is, right?
Right. Well, but we're just talking about contract enforcement.
We're not talking about the state or attack.
We're just talking about contract enforcement.
Theoreticians will say that the government has the right to tax you because geographical, one-side-enforced contracts are valid, right?
That is the valid basis of our legal system and the dominion of the government, right?
Right.
But if the government attacks a unilaterally imposed geographical contract as evil, then it is undoing its own justification, right?
The government is undoing its own justification.
Sure.
Not the social contract is undoing its own.
Well, the social – it's a concept, right?
I mean it can't act.
I mean the people in the government, right?
And so when you go – when somebody says a social contract is valid and the government derives its just power because of a unilaterally imposed geographical contract, then if you put the argument forward about sending cars or garbage cans or whatever and say, then if you put the argument forward about sending cars or garbage cans or whatever and say, well, that.
So, well, the government will throw you in jail for attempting to enforce exactly the same contract that the government is enforcing upon you.
Right.
It's not Right. Well, it's worse than not universal, because the government condemns as evil exactly the same principles that it claims as its moral justification for its authority.
Right. But for them, not as a principle.
They condemn it in practice, right?
Because they're not going to condemn and throw in prison.
The governor of Illinois is not going to condemn and throw in prison the mayor of Chicago.
But if some private citizen does it, then the condemnation, then the imprisonment.
Well, sure, but they would say that the mayor of Chicago has the right to do it because of the social contract.
I mean, the fact that there are more instances of a valid social contract, like if you don't want to pay the taxes in Chicago, don't live in Chicago, right?
That would be the argument. So the fact that there are more examples of a justified social contract than just one layer of government only makes it even worse for the argument, right?
Because if you're saying, well, it works in Washington, it works in Chicago, it works in Illinois, it works in the United States, it works in Gambia, it works in England, it works in Scotland, it works everywhere, then there are even more instances, overlapping layered instances of a social contract that is considered valid, right? Right.
I'm not actually saying it's working.
I'm just saying that that's what they're doing, right?
The state cops will kick my door down, but they won't kick his door down.
Well, sure, but they would say that the state cops could kick you down because of the social contract, right?
I mean, the social contract is the core moral justification for the state in almost every society that you come across.
Sure, sure. I mean, we all get that, right?
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, that's true. But if the social contract...
If a human being enacting a social contract is attacked by the agency which claims the validity of a social contract as the basis for its justification, the argument collapses completely.
Right, right.
If they take anyone, regardless of their...
Right. So if that's the argument, then...
If that's your argument, then how can you say...
But you...
Your first argument was that the social contract invalidates the social contract.
Sure. But now it's the government invalidates their own stated...
Yeah, because if you say that...
I mean, obviously the social contract does not pass UPB even close, right?
Because if you've got Bob and Doug in a room and they both have the right to impose unilateral and geographical contracts on each other… And they're just firing imaginary laser beams at each other the whole time, right?
No, I've got your contract.
No, I'm imposing my social contract on you.
No, I'm imposing my social contract on you, right?
It doesn't – okay, my social contract says that you have to pay me $100.
Oh, yeah? Well, my social contract says that you have to pay me $100 so it's evened out, right?
I mean it would just be ridiculous, right?
Right. Which is why they have to be separated by geography and whether or not we get war, right?
Right. That's typically been the case.
So the argument for the social contract invalidates itself because the entire purpose of the government is to reject unilaterally imposed contracts in a geographical region for everyone.
Oh, right.
Now it makes sense, yeah.
So the difference there is not just that they would, if someone came to them and said, here, enforce this, that they would say, no, we're not going to.
But the fact that But rather the fact that that's their whole purpose and they say, no, we're not going to.
Well, they couldn't.
See, they couldn't have a purpose.
If they were willing to impose – sorry, if the government were willing to enforce one-sided geographical contracts, there could be no government, right?
Because the government would send me a bill for $10,000 in taxes, right?
And then I would send the government a bill for $10,000 in taxes, right?
Right. You would put it this way.
You can't have a government unless you've got a contradictory and hypocritical social contract.
Yeah, that makes total sense.
So the principle behind the social contract invalidates the purpose of the social contract.
Well, it invalidates the legitimacy of the social contract.
I mean, the purpose in all of that is true, but...
A social contract says that one-sided geographical contracts are valid, then it creates an entity to enforce that, which then rejects and attacks every other one-sided geographical contract, right?
Right. But if the government, which only exists by attacking one-sided geographical contracts by a rejection contract, Of social contracts.
And it rejects far more social contracts than it enforces, right?
Right. Because every citizen would want to send a bill to the government for exactly as much as they would tax and say, we'll call it even, right?
So it rejects and attacks far more one-sided geographical contracts than it enforces, right?
It only enforces the few hundred or few thousand that work for it and not the hundreds of millions that would not, right?
Because it will enforce the taxes that it sends and it will specifically attack and reject anyone who sends those bills back with their own, quote, social contract, right?
Right. The principle doesn't allow for monopoly, and in practice it becomes a monopoly.
Well, yeah, it only can be a monopoly if the social contract is considered both a virtuous and an evil proposition simultaneously.
Right. Right.
Like you were saying at the beginning of the book.
Yeah. Right.
And that's what I mean when I say it invalidates itself because it's only useful if it is used to oppose other social contracts, right?
All other social – I mean in a sense, right?
Other than the ones run by the state.
Right. Now, if something is put forward as a principle, when it in fact only applies to a small number of individuals, then it's like defining human being as Hispanic, right?
It's a logical contradiction.
If you say people who like ice cream like ice cream, that's not exactly a principle, right?
It's not a definition of humanity.
No, it's a tautology.
Yeah. It's a tautology.
So, the social contract is considered to be universal, which is why it is valid for citizens as well as the government, right?
Right. If the universality is actually taken seriously, absolutely.
Well, it's only a principle if it is universal.
I mean, if I look at a tree, I'm not defining what a tree is, right?
Right. Describing an instance does not create a concept.
Concepts are the extraction of that which is common between instances, right?
Leafy and whatever, have bark or I don't know what the hell the definition of a tree is.
Something like that. Right, right.
Gotcha. I'm with you.
So the social contract is only binding because it is universal, right?
Right. Right.
And as such, the self-detonation is universal as well, right?
Because if your definition is that you defend social contracts and then you attack them...
Well, it can only be true if it's universal, but it can only be valuable or ever-enacted.
If it is the exact opposite of universal.
But why couldn't they then say, well, contracts imposed unilaterally on a geographic area are only valid for government?
Well, then it would only be binding to government, right?
In which case they would have to tax themselves and get nowhere, right?
But they claim that it's binding on non-government, which is the whole point, right?
That's like saying a farmer can have all the livestock that is composed of human beings.
And this is why you need mythology that surrounds the Constitution, because if you didn't have that, the logical contradictions would get those people laughed off your property.
Sorry, Nate, I just want to make sure that we got that, because that was an important question.
But, yeah, it can only be imposed by government.
Well, no, but the question is who it applies to, right?
Because a social contract is only a value to governments or whatever, right?
If it can be applied to citizens, right?
Because otherwise there's no one to tax, right?
Right. Right. It's like saying that I can milk all of the cows, but I can't have any cows, right?
You're not a farmer then.
You're just a guy with some imaginary cows, right?
So if the social contract only applied to the government… But not only apply… Sorry, go on.
…can only be imposed by the government.
Well, then what happens is you get an even more absurd situation, as I mentioned in the book, in that since the government doesn't exist, what happens is people gain the magical ability to impose unilateral contracts when they work for the government or when they become a cop and then when they go home they don't, right? So then you don't have universality anymore, right?
Because when someone leaves office, then he can't impose universal...
He's exactly the same pretty much as he was the day before, but now he can't impose universal contracts, right?
Right, I understand the logical part of the fallacy there.
He doesn't have the sprinkling of magic government dust.
Right, because if it is a valid thing for a human being to impose a universal contract, then the value of the social contract vanishes because people can just reverse tax you whenever they want, right?
That's two guys in the room saying, oh, I tax you a million dollars while I tax you a billion dollars while I tax you ten billion dollars, right?
Right.
So if it is claimed to be universal, which is what it has to be, I mean, if no one ever claimed that the social contract were universal, it would never have come into being and it would never be discussed, right?
Because it would be of no use to tell people that they have to obey a social contract and give over money, right?
Thank you.
I mean, this is an idea that flows from the need to justify power, right?
Right.
It's why the Islamic priests don't tell their kids, the kids that are given to them to teach, they don't tell those kids about Zeus, right?
Because it doesn't serve them, right?
They get money for telling kids about Allah, right?
Well, and because it's not enough just to tell people, obey me because I have the gun.
Sure, I mean, it's not efficient slavery, right?
Right. So this basic idea that the social contract attacks social contracts, I think was the second big idea in EA. And I think I had it for a page, maybe a page and a half. Right.
Right. Right. Right.
What didn't click for me at the time, I mean, I got the contradiction, but what didn't click for me at the time was that they were actively rejecting that which was their whole purpose in the first place, right? Sort of.
Claiming both the right to enforce and to refuse to enforce social contracts.
Sorry, say that part again?
Well, it's more than just, it would be like if, it's the difference between it's the difference between me saying like my whole purpose in life is to grow flowers and then never grow them versus my whole purpose in life is to grow flowers.
And then run out and do everything I could to flatten them, right?
Right. Right.
Okay. They're actively – they're not just engaged in a passive contradiction.
They're actively warring against what they claim is their own justification.
Right. You can only enforce the social contract by rejecting the validity of social contracts.
Actively. Actively, for sure.
And people don't even have to start up a car dealership.
They just have to send back a bill for their taxes, right?
Right, right. And they don't even have to do that.
All they have to do is just refuse to pay.
Right, right, right, right.
And so that's why I say in the book, I say, if we examine the concept of the social contract, which is claimed as a core justification for the existence of a government, It is more than reasonable to ask whether the social contract would justly enforce the social contract itself.
In other words, if the government is morally justified because of the ethical validity of an implicit and unilaterally imposed contract, will the government defend implicit and unilaterally imposed contracts?
If I start up a car dealership and automatically, quote, sell a car to everyone in a ten block radius and then send them a bill for the car that they have, quote, bought and send them the car as well and bind their children for eternity in such a deal as well, would the government enforce such a contract?
I think we all know the answer to that question.
If I attempted to bring a social contract to an agency that claims as its justification the existence and validity Of the exact same social contract, it would laugh in my face and call me insane.
Yep. Yeah, that makes sense.
I mean, there's more.
I won't read the whole bit about it.
But that's sort of where that, to me, at least, would be the second big idea.
And there's another page and a half, which we don't have to go into here.
But the second big idea in EA and of course the reason that I was sort of focusing on this in the book was that I was really trying to create self-contained arguments, right?
Like you don't have to reference anything other than the premises that the people are bringing forward themselves.
Right.
It's valid under UPB, but you don't need UPB in order to argue it.
Well, I think that we can say that UPB has been great for us, but not great for Liberty.
Oh, that's an interesting point.
I mean, just in terms, I mean, it's been out now, if you count the original Lee Rockwell article, which has some pretty core ideas about it, it's been out now for over two years, two and a half years, right?
Yeah, yeah. And it's certainly had strong effects on a lot of people and it certainly has gained more momentum now that it's free, right?
Because more people are listening, people are listening, people are listening without even the couple of bucks barrier to entry.
That makes people skeptical, right?
Yeah. But because it's a hard thing to understand, and I'm not saying this, obviously we're having trouble hacking through it here, this idea, but it is a hard thing for people to get UPB. And what happens is when you try to use UPB to deal with issues or questions, you end up arguing not about the content, but about UPB, right?
Right, right, about the concept itself, rather than using it to apply it to things, because people are so confused by UPB itself, you can never use it as a tool.
Well, I think you can use it, and I think it's been helpful, but people can use it as, you know, if you're going to get into a long-term debate with someone...
Then you can use it, right?
So, I mean, obviously, people have downloaded it and really liked it, and it's been very helpful for people.
So, if you're really...
It's like Atlas Shrugged. Like, if you're really interested in freedom and you don't mind how Ayn Rand writes, then you'll read Atlas Shrugged, right?
But you can't give Atlas Shrugged productively to someone who's only mildly interested...
They'll just say, well, that's a big-ass book, right?
Right. And so what I'm trying in EA, and EA doesn't reference UPB or any of those things, what I'm trying in EA is to create arguments that are self-contained.
Right. Like you were doing with the Robert Barron example.
Right. Right.
With the Robert Barron example and also with the one where we talk about academics for some time.
Yeah. Where we simply look at the motives that academics, particularly economists themselves, accept, which is human beings respond to incentives and blah, blah, blah.
And we follow the logic, right? And we don't need external statistics and we don't need big theories about state funding and this and that, right?
We simply follow the self-interest and the motives and the logic of the situation itself, right?
So I took that same task with the social contracts, which is by far the biggest barrier to anarchy, right?
Yeah. Well, and interestingly enough, the most obvious...
I can remember having arguments about the social contract with my brothers in the past as well.
In similar ways, but not quite like this.
Right, right, right.
About the logical contradiction of it, but not quite...
In the same way. And when we were talking earlier about the DROs, the DROs can validly enforce voluntary contracts, right?
Because the DROs are themselves voluntary contracts.
There's no contradiction, right?
Right. Right, and whatever is voluntarily agreed upon as the enforcement mechanism is therefore entirely justifiable.
Right, right. I mean, there's the unbelievable hypocrisy of an institution claiming to enforce justice that rejects as evil its own claim to be the institution that enforces justice is mind-blowing when you get it, right? Right.
Whereas anarchy, the DRO system, whatever it is, it doesn't matter.
There's going to be voluntarism, and there's going to be...
Hello?
Whoops, what? Whatever comes out of anarchy, whatever comes out of anarchy in terms of the practice, is going to be consistent that way, right? Right.
In terms of the voluntary agreement and the capacity to enforce those agreements.
Whereas statism is always going to face the problem that the agency that is considered to be the only source of justice claims as its justification a contract that it explicitly rejects as evil in practice.
In universal practice, right?
Right. Right. And so you can...
Well, in near universal.
It, of course, defends its own...
It staunchly defends its own right to do that.
No, no, no. It doesn't defend its own right to do that.
That's not how the social contract theory works.
The social contract is considered universal and moral.
Because as we said earlier, if the government simply said, I get to do it because I have guns, right?
The moment that you say, only I get to do it, you can't claim ethics anymore, right?
Oh, I see. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
You're right about that. You're right.
You're absolutely right. And that's part of the formative contradiction.
The social contract is binding to everyone in a society, right?
In its ideal state.
The Prime Minister pays taxes and is subject to the law, right?
Right, right.
Because it's a principle, not just an assertion.
Yeah, it is a social contract that is universally binding upon everyone in society, right?
Right. And in fact, it is the voluntarism...
Of staying in the country, that is why it is called a contract.
I mean, there's nobody who defends the social contract who says that it works in a prison, too, because you're not there voluntarily, right?
Or says that it works in a dictatorship or in Guantanamo Bay, right?
Right. So they say if you're not free to leave, then it's not a contract, right?
And that's what people always say. Well, love it or leave it, right?
Although dictatorships have certainly had their own flavor of this kind of thing.
For sure, for sure. But I mean we don't run into those, right?
I mean we don't – at least I've never run into somebody except for that one guy who was making those Austin Powers jokes about 18 months ago on a call-in show who actively defends something like Stalinism or – I mean that doesn't happen, right?
Right, but what I mean is, like, you know, the Germans in the 1940s, they had their own sort of social contract, right?
To owe your life to the fatherland, that whole thing, right?
Well, sure, I'm sure.
But again, we're not going to run into anybody who's going to defend Germany in the 1940s, right?
That's not a barrier to us.
Right. Right, right, that's true.
And of course, the example of the guy sending out the cars, it's like, hey, if you don't want the car, all you have to do is move, right?
Right, move to a different neighborhood.
Right, right. Move to the motorcycle salesman's neighborhood, right?
Right, and of course, yeah, everywhere you move, there's going to be a social contract, right?
You can change your jails, sorry, you can change your zoo, but you can't ever go into the wilds, right?
Right. Right.
Sorry, go ahead. Yeah.
No, I was just going to say I totally agree.
And so what I find fascinating about this, this whole thing, is that – and there's more in EA that's not been talked about – is that the book kind of landed without much of a ripple, right?
Do you think maybe that it was just a matter of clarity maybe?
Because we missed that one, kind of.
Well, when I read it back to you, it made sense, right?
Right. So, I mean, the idea was not as fully fleshed out, and the reason why this idea took so long was not because it's such a tough idea, but because, I think, there's some kind of emotional resistance to it.
That's my thought, right?
And that was similar to the last idea, right?
Well, I... Go ahead.
I'm just... Do you think that...
Well, the thing that struck me about this idea is if you were to use it to, you know, sort of persuade somebody else toward anarchy, it's something that is more likely to hit them.
And it's something they're more likely to feel, if that makes sense.
So... If you have that sort of idea that's more simple and more self-contained and more direct, it's like you have less of an excuse not to use it.
Yeah, like I can't put UPB in a five-minute video.
video, I guarantee you I can put this in a five minute video that will be clearer for people.
How about you want to go ahead and do that?
Yeah. This is much easier than UPB, right?
Yes. And y'all got UPB pretty easily, right?
Because I see people debating it in the chat room and on the board and y'all down with it, right?
I admit I still have trouble debating it and trying to get the idea across.
Yeah, for sure. And so do I, right?
But the point is that it's a big idea that we got.
It doesn't mean we're always perfect at doing it.
So let's say I'm just some guy, Joe Social Contract, that comes along and says, "The social contract is the reason why it's our duty to pay our taxes." "The social contract is the reason why it's our duty Do you want to roleplay this now?
Sure. Okay, great.
So, okay. Then I would say, okay, why?
Can you give me a definition of the social contract?
Well, a social contract is something that everybody agrees upon.
Okay. As a society, and as to how to treat each other and how to do things as a community, and that everybody is obligated to pay their taxes and pay for the services that keep us safe and keep things civil.
Okay, so it's a contract, right?
And is it something that I can impose on someone in Zimbabwe?
No. Okay, so it's geographically specific, like it's within a country?
Yes. Okay. And it's not quite voluntary in the way that signing up for a cell phone is voluntary, right?
Because it's something that applies to everyone in that country, right?
Right. If you're born here and you live here, then you abide by that contract.
Right. Okay, so it is a contract that is imposed by the government on the people that the people accept by staying in the country, right?
Yes. Okay.
If you live here, you owe the obligation of the contract.
Got it. So what we have – and we'll just talk about a neighborhood called the United States.
So what we have is that a unilaterally imposed geographical contract is valid, right?
Yes, for the society as a whole.
Right, right. And it's valid for everyone in that society.
Yes. Okay, great. So everyone can impose a social contract because it's valid for everyone in the society, right?
No, there exists only one social contract for everybody.
Right, but a social contract that is one-sided and geographical is valid, right?
Does that mean that all one-sided geographical contracts are valid?
No, only the one for this particular geographical area.
Okay, but within that geographical area, all unilateral contracts are valid, right?
No. Okay, why not?
Because... We already have one.
We already have one.
That was a good argument.
That's begging the question, right? Why?
If one-sided geographical contracts are valid, then they should be universally valid, because they're valid, or at least within that geographical region, right?
Well, they're only valid for the government, for the government to impose on everyone else.
Okay, so some people have the right to impose unilateral contracts on other people.
Yes, and those people have to be in the government.
Okay, so one group has the right to impose its will upon other people, right?
Yes. But it's more than one group, right?
Because you have federal, you have state, you have local, you have municipal, you have coast guards, you have whatever, right?
So many groups are validly allowed to impose their will on other people, right?
Right, but those people can choose those people.
Well, they can choose some of them, right?
They can choose some of them. I mean, I don't get to vote for who runs the postal office, and I don't get to vote for who's in the civil service, and I don't get to vote who's behind the counter at the Department of Motor Vehicles or whatever, right?
We get to choose some of those people, but we certainly don't vote for all of the millions of people in the government, right?
Right. Okay. So, I'm going to put forward a scenario for you, and I'm sure that it's incorrect, but I just don't have...
I can't have any luck figuring it out, right?
So, if it is considered a social contract, then we're saying people have the right to impose on others obligations, legal obligations, And the solution, if those people don't like it, is to move, right?
Yes. Okay, so one person can do that in a neighborhood, and that person is called the government, right?
Yes, that's true.
If they're in the government, then they can do that.
Okay, so if I do that...
As well, right? So we do the car thing, right?
I send the cars out and send bills.
And then I come to the government and I say, I want you to enforce my unilateral geographical contract.
What are they going to say? No.
Okay. And if I try to enforce it myself, what are they going to do to me?
They'll throw you in jail.
Right, because they would consider the enforcement of a unilateral geographical contract to be evil, right?
Yes. So how is a geographical one-sided contract both good and evil at the same time?
Like, how is it good, and yet if somebody else tries exactly the same thing, it suddenly becomes evil?
Well, everybody approves of it by – approves of the one that's good by living there.
Well, sure. But of course, if people don't like the cars that I'm delivering to their house, they can move – I'm only doing it in a 10-block radius.
So they can move out of the house if they want, right?
They can move out of that neighborhood.
They can move, I don't know, nine blocks over or whatever, right?
So it follows that same rule exactly.
Check.
Hold on. Let's see if I can move a pawn.
Because the government says that its power is valid because one-sided geographical contracts are moral and good.
But then it comes across exactly the same form of contract, a one-sided geographical contract, and says that is evil.
But if it is good, then it is good for everyone.
But if it is evil, then the government power is not justified by its own definition, right?
Okay, but people in the greater society area, beyond 10 blocks, have agreed upon just these certain people can impose these contracts.
Well, no, you see, they haven't agreed that.
You and I never got to vote whether we wanted a government.
We only got to vote who runs the government, and let's say even that that's true, right?
I'm not sure that it is, but So they didn't get to vote for a social contract, right?
Whether they want a social contract or not.
And that's what I mean when I say it's unilaterally imposed.
And you can say, well, I want a different guy to be on the receiving end of the money and resources that flow from my end of the, quote, social contract.
But you don't get to vote on the social contract.
So the social contract itself is imposed, right?
And you can choose who runs it, but it's not a choice whether it gets run or not.
That's like saying that they can choose between me delivering a Volvo and me delivering a BMW to their house, right?
Or they can choose whether it's me or some other guy who sends it.
But they can't choose whether they get the car and have to pay for it or not, right?
And if I amend my social contract...
If I amend my social contract and I say, okay, well I'm going to send your choice of cars and you can either pay me or you can pay my friend, the government would not consider that to be suddenly valid, right?
No. So choice on the part of the recipient of a one-sided geographical social contract does not render it to be something that the government would enforce, right?
No. No.
So if the government would not enforce exactly the same contract that it claims gives it the right to enforce anything, but would in fact attack someone as evil for enforcing a social contract, how can the social contract be valid?
If the government attacks as evil the very same situation that it claims as a moral good for its own power, as the moral justification for its own power, how can that how can that be?
You got any arguments there, Greg?
Well, I just had a quick question on the contract as principle.
Just needed some clarification here.
So, in order for it to be a principle, it has to be universal, right?
Well, it is considered, we at least are going to accept that it's geographically universal because it applies to everyone in a geographical region, right?
So... So if we can circumscribe a principle geographically, why can't we circumscribe it biologically or socially?
Well, but you don't want to reject all the premises of the person you're debating with, otherwise there's no debate, right?
I mean, you've heard me do this a million times, even with the science and UPB podcasts, where I say, okay, let's say that you can have two personalities.
One runs the vocal cords, the other runs the hand, right?
Because it doesn't matter what you accept in an argument, if it's irrational at its premise, you can accept everything but the last thing and it's still going to fall, right?
And the more you accept of the other person's argument, the better off.
I mean, I agree with you, of course, right?
But if you say, well, there's no such thing as countries, then you're not arguing about the social contract anymore, right?
Oh, yeah. Yeah, I see what you're saying.
Yeah, so just accepting – so allowing him to escape from universality in that way, you can even then still make the argument.
Oh, totally, yeah, because you can say the social contract magically changes between Canada and the United States.
I mean, that's fine. It still is completely invalid, right?
Right, right.
Well, in my mind, it's totally invalid just by the fact that there are these arbitrary geographical circumspections.
Well, but see, what the person could then say is what we need is a world government, right?
Where there are no countries, but the social contract is still valid, right?
So the countries is a red herring, right?
Right. Oh, I see what you're saying.
Yeah. Yeah, and that's exactly where they would go because I've gone there before.
Sure. I mean, you have to look at the self-contradictory nature of the social contract regardless of any other argument that can be brought to bear on it.
Only working within the framework that is brought to you by your debating opponent, right?
Right. Right, right, right.
But I was just thinking, from the opposite angle, if it's valid to allow for circumspection of the principle on geographical grounds, then we would have to allow for circumspection...
On the grounds of some sort of social imposition or maybe biological characteristics or any other arbitrary factor.
No, because then you wouldn't be in a situation of democracy, right?
And people won't give up on democracy.
Like, nobody's going to say what we need is the platonic gold crew, right?
The Leme crew, the Boogie Nights dancers to run society, right?
They're not going to say that we need a hereditary ruler of super geniuses to run society.
I mean nobody is going to make that argument.
We have to work with what's actually going to happen with us in debates.
Right.
Well, in addition, you would run into the problem of enforcement again, right?
Because if, for example, we say the social contract is circumspect by race, for example, then there would be no way that the social contract that applies to whites could apply to blacks.
Exactly. No, that's quite right.
And, of course, you would also then say, well, what is the evidence, right?
Right. Right.
That it's geographically specific, that it cannot be biologically specific, right?
Because then you're back into slavery, right?
And nobody's going to defend that, right?
Right.
Or if they are, it's like, run, right?
Right.
Right, but that's a great way to dismantle it in your opponent's mind as well, right?
Because you could just bring that up to them, right?
That a principle is supposed to be something universal.
It applies to everybody, everywhere.
And yet, this particular principle has a geographical circumspection, and therefore...
If we're allowing for one arbitrary circumspection, we have no justification for saying that none of the other arbitrary circumspections count.
Well, but what you're doing then is you're bypassing the social contract, right?
And you're arguing about UPB. Oh, yeah.
Yeah, that's a good point.
This is the big roadblock, right?
Now, you and I can go around this roadblock, but other people can't, right?
That's hard for me to see.
Well, okay, start debating the social contract and you'll see people bang into it over and over again.
Right? And then, okay, you and I can go around it, but other people, it stretches as wide as the horizon.
There is no around it, right?
Yeah, I guess that's true.
So you have to meet people where they live, right?
You have to meet people where they're actually thinking.
And just saying to them, I'm going to introduce you to this vastly complex thing called UPB that's going to blow your mind and take you months to figure out, and oh, by the way, you'll have gotten rid of the social contract along with 12 million other things, right?
Yeah. Yeah, that's true.
Now, what you can do, of course, is you can get rid of the social contract for them, and then they can say, wow, how did you do that?
And you can say, well, let me introduce you to a little acronym that's going to, it's like the LSD, but it's called UPB, right?
Right. Right.
That's true. But I think that, and we can, I've got to eat now, and we should talk about this more at some point, because this has been the first block in a long time for this conversation for people.
And I think it's interesting, and I think it has something to do with the volatility of bringing this to bear on people.
Because if you can dismantle people's own arguments within a few minutes using their own premises, that is going to be incredibly volatile for them emotionally.
Yeah. I mean, did you feel any of that, Nate, when you were debating, like this disorientation, this frustration, this volatility?
Yeah. All of that.
People are going to get pissed off, right?
Because if you introduce UPB, it's like, well, shit.
I'm not a sucker. I'm not a robot.
I'm not a propaganda fool because UPB is really complicated, right?
And I was trying not to be circular or try to come back around to where we were at the very beginning or do any of the things that I know they would do.
And those we could all deal with, right?
And if you all get somebody who wants to debate the social contract, bring them on board.
I can do it live with them.
That would be great. But if you can dismantle something which people have probably been babbling on about for 10 years or 20 years, if you can dismantle it in 5 minutes, you're exposing something to them about themselves that is really volatile, right?
What is that?
Well, that they're programmed.
That they can't think.
That they've only been pretending to think and it only takes a few minutes thought to unravel it.
I don't feel stupid for not knowing Mandarin because it takes years to learn Mandarin, right?
But if it turns out that my core assumptions about the moral nature of the society that I live in can be undone in a few minutes Then I'm fucked, right?
Yeah, Colleen said it well.
I mean, you know what it's like?
In the movie The Matrix, they have got to send 12 people in to fight off 6 million viruses or whatever the hell they were, agents.
Right?
And they got helicopters and flying through buildings.
And what we're doing is walking up and down.
The switch is going bink, bink, bink, bink, bink, bink, bink.
Right?
It's that easy.
Oh, and by the way, you had the switch all the time.
Right?
Thank you.
Yeah. And I think that's what people are avoiding with EA. Because if you can say, democracy is the proof of anarchy, and you can get that idea across in a few minutes, and people are then going to be revealed to themselves as nothing more than empty propaganda robots who have only claimed to think.
And as we can see, particularly with the academics who floated through, people don't take that very well, right?
No. And if you can do it using the person's own argument, it's even more humiliating for them, right?
Because you're not bringing anything new to the equation other than what they're saying.
It's not a piece of information that they've never thought of.
It's not an argument they've never thought of.
It's not a fact they never looked up.
So, if you say to someone who says, oh, the robber barons were evil, and you say, well, I've read 15 books on the subject, and hamana, hamana, hamana, here's why they're not, right?
Then they're going to be like, well, shit, I guess I just didn't read that many books, right?
Okay, right? Whereas if you say to somebody, look, if you just sit down and think about this for five minutes, you'll realize it's all complete nonsense, right?
That's totally different.
Because what excuse can they make for themselves?
Well... I just swallowed it, hook, line, and sinker, because I'm a retarded?
Well, and I don't think it's because...
People aren't retarded.
People swallow this stuff, hook, line, and sinker, because...
Because...
Just the implications of...
Of what...
The logic is clearly suggesting is just so...
I mean, it's...
You see the logic of it and you go, that can't be right because...
The whole world believes this stuff.
Right, right, right.
And claims that it's the result of thought, and it turns out that it's five minutes thought to dismantle it.
See, there's chipping away at the false self, right?
And then there's nuking the false self from orbit, right?
Oh, yeah. It's like there's peeling off the band-aid, and then there's peeling off the fucking epidermis with a meat hook, right?
Look in the mirror. Right.
And that's what's so volatile about EA, and I think that's why people are short-circuiting on it.
I just know the kind of reaction I would get.
Because the arguments would shift, and they would change, they would suddenly redefine things.
It's not a matter of five minutes, it's a matter of, can I even debate with these?
Well, we would get the rage, and we would get the rage very quickly, right?
When people have it exposed to them that they've been lied to and that they've been lying to others and five minutes thought, five minutes thought could have solved the problem.
It's, as somebody pointed out, it's really embarrassing to lose that quickly, right?
Yeah, but it's not just the embarrassment and the loss or the missing of the obvious.
Yeah, it's the implications of your entire society.
I understand all of that for sure.
Yeah, it's the shock, you know?
It's just the sheer shock of...
Well...
You know, because at that point, either...
Either you're some kind of super genius, or everybody else is retarded.
Well, I think that they get that everybody else is not retarded and neither are they.
Everyone else is corrupt and they've participated in it because they're afraid of being bullied, right?
They're afraid of being rejected.
What this does is it shines a huge glaring light on the fragile spiderweb of corruption that is their social environment, right?
Of mutual enslavement, of cowardice, of attacking the virtuous, of making up lies and pompously repeating them until they feel true, right?
And the continuing process of grinding up little children's minds to put it in the same vat of social conformity and dead mythology, right?
It's this big machine, this sausage grinder that they suddenly see that they've come out of.
I mean, it is a massive shock to the system.
Yeah, and at some point or another, I mean, you have to grab onto a handle of your own on that machine, or you're going to get spit out.
Right, right, right.
And so, of course, they're not going to get angry at all the people who've lied to them, right?
They're going to get angry at the person who reveals that they're lies, right?
And this is different from anything we've done before.
This is not DRO theory, which takes a long time to explain.
This is not the family stuff.
This is not religion, which takes a long time to explain and requires some knowledge of science and reason.
And the family stuff, first of all, people can just lie.
Oh, and I had a great time with my family and not tell any of the truth, right?
And secondly, they can just reject it as psychologizing.
They can just say, well, this has nothing to do with X, Y, and Z. This is not like the Ron Paul debates, right?
This is, you know, I'm going to show you how you're committing Harikari with your sword, not mine.
Yeah. So, the question that keeps coming up for me is, like, how do we even use this?
As I said, from orbit. Once we get the FDR space station, we'll launch a whole swarm of these down to the planet.
I don't know exactly yet.
yet.
I don't know, but I do think that this is the way we need to go.
It is an incredibly aggressive argument, in a sense.
Not abusive, but it's very assertive, let's say, right?
This is not a gentle argument.
I think we need to see more roleplay because I keep coming up with new ideas or new arguments that they'll make.
But I'm sure everybody else has plenty of their own.
Well, we've got a bootcamp sort of in the works that I'm sort of penciling around, which will be this kind of stuff.
The bootcamp is not how do we do old FDR arguments to these, because we already know that stuff, right?
The bootcamp is how do I not bring anything new Right.
That's exactly what I want.
And that is going to be the most powerful and efficient and irresistible argument, right?
I mean, if I don't bring any historical facts about robber barons but only use the premises that the person is giving to me, I can't possibly...
If I win, I have won completely and decisively to anybody who's got any respect for reason, right?
Right. And if you don't win, you know in very short order that this is a person that you don't want to be bothered with anymore.
Right. And I think it's that level of efficiency that we're a little scared of as well, right?
Right. Like, take, for example, that Aaron dude.
I mean, you were using his own premises against him, and he was just completely ignoring that.
Right, and that was very efficient, right?
I mean, I only kept up with it for so long so that other people could see it.
I mean, if it was just a private convo, it would have been much shorter, right?
Right, right.
So we'll work some more of this in the boot camp idea, right?
Where maybe we can drag other people in to argue the other point or maybe I can play devil's advocate.
We can sort of switch it up a little bit.
But I think that this magic jujitsu that we need to have, right?
It's like, you know, in The Matrix where he gets, I don't know, like the kung fu stuff uploaded directly to his brain.
I mean, this is kind of the thing.
What if we can be completely blank slates in our debates with people and simply use their premises to dismantle their arguments?
Bringing nothing of our own to bear on the situation.
We could do it at the barbecue.
We could do it at the barbecue too.
All right.
My food is on the table.
I must run.
But mull it over.
There's a couple of more thoughts in EA.
Maybe worth listening to it again or reading it again.
But there's a couple of thoughts in EA along the same lines.
But I think that this is – kind of think this is where – wherever our greatest resistance is, is where other people's greatest resistance is too.
And that's where we need to go.
I think.
You going to end up doing a video on that one?
Yeah, I think it would be worth doing a video on that one.
All right. Thanks, everybody.
Talk to you later. Bye-bye.
▲
Export Selection