States Rights: What do you think?

[Otrenia]

No.

Yes.

I know libertarians and ex-libertarians don't put much faith in this concept, and I have read your Lockeian thread, but the social contract does exist.

Society, and the majority of its inhabitants(varies by society, but all developed societies recognize it) recognize this concept. It is a thing.

Hear, hear!

[Olerand]

No. The Constitution clearly states what "rights" the Federal government has, and also that anything not covered is to be decided by the States.

Also, you are not entirely correct on defense. There are State defense forces too.

I am aware. That includes national defense and security.

Sure. But they're not needed at the moment, and therefore anger no one, because the federal government is doing its job.

[Arkolon]

No.

Yes.

I know libertarians and ex-libertarians don't put much faith in this concept, and I have read your Lockeian thread, but the social contract does exist.

Society, and the majority of its inhabitants(varies by society, but all developed societies recognize it) recognize this concept. It is a thing.

Name me a single state of nature philosopher that has used the social contract theory since 1974.

Maybe it was a thing in the 18th century, but in the realms of contemporary philosophy the social contract is considered heterodox.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

social contract

No.

The social contract has been a thing since ages.

Even Locke and Pufendorf believed in the Social Contract, just different variations of it.

[Arkolon]

No.

The social contract has been a thing since ages.

Even Locke and Pufendorf believed in the Social Contract, just different variations of it.

Name me a single state of nature philosopher that has used the social contract theory since 1974.

Maybe it was a thing in the 18th century, but in the realms of contemporary philosophy the social contract is considered heterodox.

[Myrensis]

You're paying for the services. You get more than permission to live from the government.

Okay I'd like to opt out of government services please.

Feel free to go build a cabin in the middle of the woods somewhere then. Please keep in mind though that using any tools, equipment, materials, or services other than what you can harvest and manufacture yourself is cheating.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes.

I know libertarians and ex-libertarians don't put much faith in this concept, and I have read your Lockeian thread, but the social contract does exist.

Society, and the majority of its inhabitants(varies by society, but all developed societies recognize it) recognize this concept. It is a thing.

Name me a single state of nature philosopher that has used the social contract theory since 1974.

Maybe it was a thing in the 18th century, but in the realms of contemporary philosophy the social contract is considered heterodox.

Not really.

When it comes to government legitimacy the social contract theory explains it best. However, from which angle is this applied can and does change.

[Olerand]

Yes.

I know libertarians and ex-libertarians don't put much faith in this concept, and I have read your Lockeian thread, but the social contract does exist.

Society, and the majority of its inhabitants(varies by society, but all developed societies recognize it) recognize this concept. It is a thing.

Name me a single state of nature philosopher that has used the social contract theory since 1974.

Maybe it was a thing in the 18th century, but in the realms of contemporary philosophy the social contract is considered heterodox.

State of nature philosopher? Love, I don't care. I don't care about the arguments of what is the correct, or original, or whatever state of nature.

Society, and the majority of its inhabitants, recognize the social contract, today, in 2014.
I can't name you a single philosopher that is famous today in France, or as far as I know, in Europe, that denies or questions this concept.

It is a fait accompli, whether one likes it or not.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The social contract has been a thing since ages.

Even Locke and Pufendorf believed in the Social Contract, just different variations of it.

Name me a single state of nature philosopher that has used the social contract theory since 1974.

Maybe it was a thing in the 18th century, but in the realms of contemporary philosophy the social contract is considered heterodox.

David Gauthier and Philip Pettit.

There, done; anything else?

[Arkolon]

Name me a single state of nature philosopher that has used the social contract theory since 1974.

Maybe it was a thing in the 18th century, but in the realms of contemporary philosophy the social contract is considered heterodox.

State of nature philosopher? Love, I don't care. I don't care about the arguments of what is the correct, or original, or whatever state of nature.

Society, and the majority of its inhabitants, recognize the social contract, today, in 2014.
I can't name you a single philosopher that is famous today in France, or as far as I know, in Europe, that denies or questions this concept.

It is a fait accompli, whether one likes it or not.

You can't even name a single contemporary philosopher that thinks so, so how can you say this?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Name me a single state of nature philosopher that has used the social contract theory since 1974.

Maybe it was a thing in the 18th century, but in the realms of contemporary philosophy the social contract is considered heterodox.

State of nature philosopher? Love, I don't care. I don't care about the arguments of what is the correct, or original, or whatever state of nature.

Society, and the majority of its inhabitants, recognize the social contract, today, in 2014.
I can't name you a single philosopher that is famous today in France, or as far as I know, in Europe, that denies or questions this concept.

It is a fait accompli, whether one likes it or not.

Heck, even Pettit, who is a more radical figure uses it, albeit saying that people should rebel against the contract to affirm its legitimacy (which is a pretty bad way of phrasing his argument, but okay).

[Olerand]

You can't even name a single contemporary philosopher that thinks so, so how can you say this?

Because no important contemporary French philosopher denies it. I can't name you one who advocates for it because they all take it for granted.

And how can I say society and its inhabitants recognize it? Because of the explicit agreements held between them. Constitutions, rights and duties, all that hogwash.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Not really, unless one ignores everything except one aspect of voting rights.
Blacks were allowed to vote in a number of states prior to their inclusion on the federal level. Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, and New York, for example, extended the vote to blacks at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, along with Pennsylvania and Massachusetts a short while later. Women gained the right to vote in non-national elections a full fifty years before the passage of suffrage on the national level in Wyoming and in some degree across the Western states. Indians were long not recognized by the federal government, and a Nebraska ruling they were citizens entitled to bring lawsuits on the basis of habeas corpus, vote other such protections was struck down by the Supreme Court in the late 1800s.

Yep. Selective citing of anecdotes. This one is, incidentally, countered by the Civil Rights Act.

You're arguing that your case holds water by ignoring the vast amount of times States trampled the rights of US citizens in an attempt to claim that the Federal government is just as bad. Which is stupid, as you need to show that the Federal government does it more often.

Your selective citing of the Civil Rights Act is an anecdote. This is sarcasm, by the way

It wasn't a state that held blacks as 3/5 of a person. Nor was it a state which gave power to the Fugitive Slave Act. Nor was it a state which refused to recognize Indians as citizens. Nor was it a state which barred Asian immigrants and denied them naturalization as American citizens. Nor was it a state which passed the Defense of Marriage Act.

I don't need to show the Federal government does it more often. I just need to show it is just as bad (as you say before trying to shift).
This is rather plainly obvious. The Federal government has been just as (if not more) destructive to individual rights voting rights (we'll keep it there since that's the one under discussion for the last few posts) as the states themselves. There exist both instances wherein the Federal government expanded them (the Civil Rights Act) alongside of those where states did so (the instances referred to above, done before Federal action on the matter). There exist instances wherein states restricted them (Black Codes, etc.), alongside instances wherein the Federal government did so (nonrecognition of Indians in the late 1800s, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Naturalization act of 1790, etc.).

[Otrenia]

I don't see how a rejection of the social contract by modern philosophers, if it exists, in any way refutes the theory.

[Arkolon]

David Gauthier and Philip Pettit.

There, done; anything else?

Gauthier is a utilitarian that has no discernible evidence of criticisms of either the experience machine or the utility monster, and Pettit is a heterodox radical.

[Laerod]

I don't need to show the Federal government does it more often.

Then you are the weakest link. Goodbye.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

David Gauthier and Philip Pettit.

There, done; anything else?

Gauthier is a utilitarian that has no discernible evidence of criticisms of either the experience machine or the utility monster, and Pettit is a heterodox radical.

That wasn't your question.

Your question was if anyone still used the Social Contract since 1974.

David Gauthier and Pettit have used the Social Contract since 1974.

In other words, you're just moving goalposts right now.

EDIT: Also both thought experiments you cited have nothing to do with government theory.

[Olerand]

Heck, even Pettit, who is a more radical figure uses it, albeit saying that people should rebel against the contract to affirm its legitimacy (which is a pretty bad way of phrasing his argument, but okay).

Well, I wasn't really thinking of the Irish philosopher who lives in America, to be honest.
I was thinking more of those who have achieved the status of "public intellectual" in France today, and therefore are known by the populace and all.
But, yeah, sure.

[Arkolon]

You can't even name a single contemporary philosopher that thinks so, so how can you say this?

Because no important contemporary French philosopher denies it. I can't name you one who advocates for it because they all take it for granted.

I'm fairly sure the burden of proof falls onto you, anyway.

And how can I say society and its inhabitants recognize it? Because of the explicit agreements held between them. Constitutions, rights and duties, all that hogwash.

None of these things are necessary for a state to be legitimate. I don't understand the kink all of you have with the social contract.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I don't need to show the Federal government does it more often.

Then you are the weakest link. Goodbye.

I don't need to show the Federal government does it more often. I just need to show it is just as bad (as you said before trying to shift to this immature new 'standard').
This is rather plainly obvious. The Federal government has been just as (if not more) destructive to voting rights as the states themselves. There exist both instances wherein the Federal government expanded them (the Civil Rights Act) alongside of those where states did so (the instances referred to above, done before Federal action on the matter). There exist instances wherein states restricted them (Black Codes, etc.), alongside instances wherein the Federal government did so (nonrecognition of Indians in the late 1800s, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Naturalization act of 1790, etc.).

[Napkiraly]

State law should supersede federal law lol wtf, do you know how federations work?

[Arkolon]

Gauthier is a utilitarian that has no discernible evidence of criticisms of either the experience machine or the utility monster, and Pettit is a heterodox radical.

That wasn't your question.

Your question was if anyone still used the Social Contract since 1974.

David Gauthier and Pettit have used the Social Contract since 1974.

In other words, you're just moving goalposts right now.

David Gauthier and Phillip Pettit are heterodox philosophers that, funnily enough, both appear on the top of the Wikipedia page for social contract theory.

Heterodox philosophers have heterodox philosophies. I can't change that.

[The Liberated Territories]

States "rights" exist as a normative tool to solve conflict and decrease federal power, however unless they are bounded by a constitution, are relatively worthless.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

That wasn't your question.

Your question was if anyone still used the Social Contract since 1974.

David Gauthier and Pettit have used the Social Contract since 1974.

In other words, you're just moving goalposts right now.

David Gauthier and Phillip Pettit are heterodox philosophers that, funnily enough, both appear on the top of the Wikipedia page for social contract theory.

Heterodox philosophers have heterodox philosophies. I can't change that.

That still wasn't your challenge.

Your challenge was that no philosopher used it since 1974. You're wrong.

[Arkolon]

David Gauthier and Phillip Pettit are heterodox philosophers that, funnily enough, both appear on the top of the Wikipedia page for social contract theory.

Heterodox philosophers have heterodox philosophies. I can't change that.

That still wasn't your challenge.

Your challenge was that no philosopher used it since 1974. You're wrong.

Yes, it was. Read through the posts.

I said that social contract theory is considered heterodox philosophy, and that no philosophers have used it since 1974. Mike Walzer and Leff published heterodox rebuttals to both Nozick and Rawls, but why do you think they are not considered part of mainstream philosophy?