[nickff]

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.

[iamdave]

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?

[nickff]

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.

[iamdave]

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?

[nickff]

In the implied social contract theory, the consent is what is implied, while the contract's terms may be explicit, implied, or some combination of both.[1]

[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/

[iamdave]

Thanks for this and your replies, you just pried my mind open and gave me something new to learn about.

Cheers