And we continue on our merry debunking of statism with Kangas' arguments about the so-called "social contract". I don't need to mention that he argues in favour of this nonsensical, collectivist concept.
The "social contract" is a made-up philosophical concept used by collectivist to try to provide justification for government injustice. We're all in this together, they say, therefore we should submit to a central authority that guides our actions and makes sure that everyone does what they should. If they can equate society with an organization, corporation or family, then they can make anyone accept anything on the basis of expediency.
This is the monstruous collectivist siren song that people like Kangas dull people's individual desires with - that you, as an individual, are ony worth anything if you are a good cog in their statist machine. This is, of course, utter nonsense. The whole concept of a "social contract" has got to be one of the most absurd concepts ever devised (the first place belonging clearly to the Christian concept of the Trinity).
Let's begin :
Our constitution and laws form our social contract.
And from the main text :
The nation's constitution and laws comprise our social contract. In this contract, voters have agreed to exchange their money for the government's goods and services, and to abide by laws passed by their democratically elected legislators.
Excuse me... ? "Voters have agreed" ? First of all, I am not a voter, so does that mean I don't have to pay taxes ? Nope. Secondly, when did I "agree" to "exchange" my money and abide by the law in "exchange" for the government's "services" ? I have never agreed to any of these things. Did Kangas (government bless his soul) live in an incredible country where they did such things ? This sort of agreement, to my knowledge, has never existed. This is a statist fantasy and delusion.
Let me make this clear : no "social contract" has ever existed anywhere. The monopoly of power wielded by government forcing everyone to follow a set of laws does exist, but this cannot be called a "contract" by any stretch of the imagination.
Furthermore, we are supposed to believe that a contract can have one side (private citizens) bearing all the responsibilities and duties, and another side (government) getting all the benefits. That's not a contract, but rather more properly called "extortion".
These are enforced by the government, on the grounds that it is the ultimate owner of all the nation's territory.
Pretty clear : the government ultimately owns and controls everything. You're a renter on the government's precious land, and the government has the right to use eminent domain to take it from you at any time, paying you an arbitrary "market value" which has nothing to do with actual market value.
This is, of course, nonsense. Individuals have the right of property. Not "government". Only individuals can own things and control them. What this is really saying is that only bureaucrats should be able to control your land, not you. The question then arises : why ? Because bureaucrats are exalted individuals who have wisdom beyond mere mortals ? Or simply because they are the ones backed up by the guns of the state ? This is the "might makes right" morality which ultimately all collectivism reduces itself to.
The decision to live on its territory constitutes the agreement to abide by its social contract, much like boarding a train constitutes an agreement to pay the conductor when he comes around to collect. Those who refuse to abide by the social contract must not reside on its territory; they should avail themselves to the market of nations, which offers nearly 200 selections.
Once again we see another delusion. There is no "market of nations", unless you already want government. No nation out there exists without government except Somalia, and who the Hell would move there with or without government ?
But most importantly, we have here a reformulation of the democratic principle : "if you don't like it, either participate in the game or leave". But staying in a country does not excuse the evil done in its name. Leaving does not solve it either. To the statist, democracy has nothing to do with truth or falsity, and more to do with playing a game. Whoever gets the most votes must be accepted as "right", at least for the next years - with no consideration for what is true, just or moral.
I choose to board a train. I did not choose to be born in the country I was born in. I also do not choose what possibilities I have - in some countries, leaving is just not an option, either because of extreme poverty or because of the law (as used to be the case in Communist Russia), and immigration is a very difficult process in general. So the analogy is total nonsense and assumes that we are like butterflies, free to "avail [our]selves to the market of nations". It is the ideology of a spoiled white teen whose parents give him the money to travel around Europe, and does not reflect the reality of most people around the world, who are government prisoners.
Once again, we see another case where, despite their insistence of working for the poor and destitute, statists clearly don't give a shit about the poor and the destitute. If you can move, move and go work for the master you choose : but if you can't move, be a good slave and work for the master you didn't choose. That's "human rights", Kangas style.
Libertarians who object that they shouldn't have to move (for a number of reasons) are inconsistent, because their proposed society would recreate the market of nations on a smaller scale. That is, they would create a market of sovereign property owners, and would expect dissatisfied customers, renters and workers to simply go elsewhere on the market.
To a certain extent, this analogy is better than his previous one, but in a certain way, it's still wrong. In the free market, people are not "sovereign" in the sense that they can, like government, kill at their leisure. Unlike government, private citizens are accountable for their actions.
One particular case where the analogy does work, however, is the case of teenagers. If you look at Amish teenagers, for example, you'll see that community living can be extremely damageable to children, who are most vulnerable to brainwashing. But examining this issue rationally demands one to accept individualism as a premise, something which will never happen with statists, and so this is more of an issue to discuss amongst ourselves.