Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by iamdave 3864 days ago
>You might argue that the state is entitled to do these things, but what would give them this authority?[1]

In the case of the United States, doesn't the Sixteenth Amendment give the State (meaning government, the entity, not State as in Utah specifically) this authority?
1 comments
nickff 3864 days ago
Did the citizen in question personally ratify the constitution, or otherwise agree to it? If not, why would they be obligated to follow a contract they never accepted?[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

link
iamdave 3864 days ago
Well...citizens, individual citizens can't ratify Constitutional Amendments in the US, so I'm unsure if this question is valid. Can you clarify your stance?
link
nickff 3864 days ago
Some people voted for ratification, but none of them happen to be alive now. If you want to propose another means by which you can justify citizens being bound to follow the constitution, please do. There are a few theories including the social contract, and implied social contract which argue that citizens have consented to accept the authority of governments (unfortunately those are both wrong); philosophers have devoted a great deal of time and effort to justifying the government, but failed. If you have a novel theory, please describe it.
link
iamdave 3864 days ago
There are a few theories including the social contract, and implied social contract which argue that citizens have consented to accept the authority of governments (unfortunately those are both wrong)

I don't think I have much of an alternative-for no honest reason other than having not put the thought or time into coming up with one. Not for a lack of want.

That said, the quoted line above, when you say 'wrong' do you mean "the notion that the citizen automatically accepts government rule" is incorrect by virtue of criminals rejecting the rule of law, evidencing a wholesale rejection of authority, or do you mean the concept itself is morally wrong?

link
nickff 3864 days ago
Social contract theory was based on the idea that there was a literal covenant placed by legitimate original owners on the land (claimed by the government), and that this bound all future occupants. This is not correct, as the current governments (of all countries I am aware of) never got their land by gradually gaining consent from all landowners on their desired territory.

Implied social contract theory is more complicated, but the problem with it is that even implied contracts are invalidated if one of the potential parties expressly disavows the implied contract. If implied contract were taken seriously, then any citizen could eliminate any obligations simply by expressing their desire not to be part of the state.

link
iamdave 3864 days ago
Implied social contract theory is more complicated, but the problem with it is that even implied contracts are invalidated if one of the potential parties expressly disavows the implied contract. If implied contract were taken seriously, then any citizen could eliminate any obligations simply by expressing their desire not to be part of the state.

This is a fascinating statement to me. How is an implied contact invariably invalidated-in the case of governments in a representative society, burdened with a multiplicity of values and interests-and further how does a government even function if this contract is merely "implied" and not codified?

link