The Social Contract is one of my least favorite justification by statists for taxes. We have all heard a myriad of different reasons why it’s okay for the government to tax us to death and then tax our family for our death as well. Some of the big ones include roads, fire departments, and border security. I don’t know about you, but for me, the Social Contract argument is the one that grinds my gears the hardest.
Let’s break this down a bit further to really get an idea of what this means and why the argument lacks foundation. For starters, what is this “Social Contract” that is being referred to? The Social Contract, in political philosophy, is an actual or hypothetical compact, or agreement, between the ruled and their rulers, defining the rights and duties of each. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-contract) The keyword, or words, are agreement and hypothetical, in my opinion. An agreement is something in which both parties have negotiated and settled on terms. Hypothetical, which seems to be the current state of the Social Contract, means in theory. I say hypothetical is the current state because individuals do not have the power to negotiate the terms of this “contract” or “agreement.”
A contract is a legal, binding agreement that has been entered into formally by two complicit parties. According to the definition of the “Social Contract,” it is a theoretical set of terms that have been agreed upon with clear definitions of what’s expected of both parties involved. So if I say “taxation is theft” and a statist responds with, “but muh Social Contract,” all I hear is, “I don’t know how contracts actually work, but daddy gvmt can tread on me aaallll daayyy loooonnnnggg bby!!!”
If it were an actual contract, legislators would not arbitrarily change the rules and regulations without our consent. The government wouldn’t be able to threaten our freedom and livelihoods with crippling fines/fees and potential jail time if we do not comply, without us agreeing on the terms of the “contract.” I don’t remember that part of the contract where I read it and thought, “Yeah, I will totally sign up for jail time if I don’t pay x amount of dollars every year!” Since when does a contract have to be compelled by force?
As far as “…the price we pay to live in a civilized society,” give me a break. What is civilized about compelling compliance to this imaginary contract by a threat of prison? What is civilized about taxing higher earning incomes and allowing others to live off that taxed income, THEN RECEIVE TAX RETURNS ON THAT ASSISTANCE? What is civilized about creating a massive barrier between poverty-level needs for assistance and those who work full-time so that it disincentivizes the ones who are dependent from joining the workforce?
I could go on, but I will stop there as I think I have made my point. This is no social contract. It’s a social compulsion, and failure to comply is met with unfortunate consequences. Do we vote for representatives who are supposed to negotiate for us? Yes, and one can make the argument that voting is an unwritten signature on the social contract. But when is the last time that the people were actually consulted about the issues outside of what is trending on Twitter? The rulers certainly don’t mind taxing us to death, and in some states, the rates make it even more unbearable. I don’t subscribe to the idea of a contract I can not negotiate the terms of, and of which my compliance is compelled by threat of force. That, in and of itself, is uncivilized in my opinion. Thanks for reading, hope to see you again. Be well, my friends.