this is part two in a series if you missed part one i'll leave the link in the description and in the pinned comment even if we assume that hobbes or lock stories are in accurate detailing of history with the so-called social contract that arose be a legitimate one that truly justifies government as we know it or any form of government at all there are four characteristics that must take place for a contractual agreement of any sort to be considered legitimate number one there must be a reasonable way of opting out there's got to be an option to decline the contract without losing something to which one has a right number two explicit dissent must be taken to overrule tacid consent we cannot assume an implicit agreement has taken place if one party is explicitly stating that they do not agree to the terms number three we must be able to assume that if one party does not agree to the contract the terms of the contract will not be forced upon him in any way and number four the obligations of the contract must be conditional upon mutual satisfaction of duties if one party fails to uphold his duty to another this other cannot be obligated to uphold his end experience tells us that the social contracts between the public today and their governments fail each of these tests of legitimacy there is no reasonable way to decline the social contract since doing so would require leaving the state's territory and since leaving for another state would mean by the same logic accepting a new social contract the only options for declining all social contracts would be to live in the ocean to move to antarctica or to commit suicide no government today recognizes explicit dissent as trumping the apparent tacit consent to the contract if turning down the contract is not an option we cannot understand any agreement to the terms to be consensual it's impossible it's well understood that regardless of whether or not one agrees to the terms of the social contract the political authority's laws will be forced on that person anyway finally in exchange for a subject's fealty the social contract obligates the state to provide protection of each signee's rights from criminals and invaders and of course the state fails to uphold this end of the bargain quite regularly but citizens are still required to maintain their duties to the state there is no evidence that political authority at its outset operated any different than modern states in these respects and therefore the social contract is not a contract at all but coercion with the shallow illusion of choice tacit consent is the last resort argument for this social contract the entire justification of the state is hinged on the idea that you and all those before you by a certain quality of your existence implied your consent to be coerced imagine great cathedral doors of wrought iron hinged on a binder ring with the small caveat that the binder ring just happens to not exist according to locke the very being of anyone within the territories of that government implies consent to the social contract and binds one to all the laws of the government because they have benefited from that contract's existence since having possessions and enjoyment is a part of the dominion of government in short everyone has agreed to this social contract because they enjoy the privileges of such a contract and because they occupy the land belonging to the government just as anyone who is a visitor in your house agrees to the rules of your house but then the question arises how did the state come to be the legitimate owner of this territory currently states own their territory because number one they have expropriated the land from the prior indigenous occupants and number two use coercion over those inhabitants whom they have granted land titles but this does not explain the origin of the state's right to its property as number one and two could only be legitimate once it had already established a legitimate claim to the land if consent is antecedent to the state's legitimacy then tacit consent by inhabiting a certain geographical area cannot possibly exist because the state does not yet own that area only a paradoxical retroactive tacit consent is present i.e you've consented to the state's dominion because you live on the land the state will own once you tacitly consent to it only time travel could make this sound something other than absurd so what does this say about existing democratic regimes the united states constitution begins with we the people did not the people consent to seceding from the british empire and establish a new state during the reconstruction era abolitionist lysander spooner questioned whether the constitution was a legitimate contract and whether anyone could be justly ruled by the government it authorized arguing against the idea that participating and thereby benefiting from the social contract in political process implies consent spooner reasoned that voting was the only legal method of self-defense against the governmental system to which one does not consent and just as a slave who is forced into battle is a gladiator does not communicate consent to the conditions by killing to save his own life voting as an attempt to curb the state's control over oneself is not consent to that control spooner argued it is a general principle of law and reason that a written instrument binds no one until he has signed it and he concluded that since the constitution was never signed by anyone which is certainly less than everyone and was only ratified by bodies supposedly representative of landed white males over the age of 21 alive during the late 18th century the document and the government it establishes has no legitimate binding authority over anyone especially those living decades and centuries after its creation so the constitution the founding document of the united states which would be the reification of the social contract theory turns out to not be a contract at all hobbs and locke both suggest that there were decisive moments in which all the members of a certain geographical area simultaneously consented to the foundation of political authority it is evident that this does not describe the origin of any modern state if any state originated out of nature from contractual agreement it is most probably a lapse into the aggregating falsehood of methodological holism to suggest that the people as a whole were in favor of this new radical contractual obligation so it's politically convenient for the state and its benefactors to promulgate the idea that we and all our ancestors have all consented to the power held over us even if our actions and words explicitly express the contrary but it is nonetheless a fiction that cannot be confirmed historically or justified philosophically if you guys enjoy these videos and you want to see more leave your thoughts about this in the comment section below if you haven't done so already be sure to subscribe to this channel and hit the bell notification icon i'll see you guys in the next video [Music] you