[rayiner]

> I disagree. If someone doesn't pursue their own interests then by logical necessity they are pursueing interests imposed on them.

If you read the text surrounding the quoted language, it uses "own interest" in a narrow sense, not encompassing altruism. If you subscribe to the notion that there is a dichotomy between "own interest" (encompassing altruism) and "the state's interest" then yes your claim is logically valid, but also besides the point. The ethic underlying modern American business ethics conceives that profit maximization maximizes overall social welfare (i.e. it uses the narrower definition of "own interest" that Smith uses, not your broader definition).

> Of course, by disagreeing with that you would prove my point that "social responsibility" is anything but a completely subjective term that varies (greatly) by each individual, and only has power in the context of the State.

Guess what? We live in a state. And we live in a state where most people believe in welfare maximization: the greatest good for the greatest number. And many of those people, in the business context, believe that profit maximization leads to welfare maximization. To the extent that this assumption is incorrect, their behavior is inconsistent with their desired outcomes.

> But what does social obligation mean? If you didn't obligate yourself, then social obligation really means obligation by force, obligation to the State and whatever the State deems an obligation.

You obligate yourself by participating in civilized society. You obligate yourself by exchanging, for the protections of civilized society, the duties of living in a civilized society. You try to separate "the State" from "the people" but in reality "we the people" created "the State" to defend our property interests. "We the people" through "the State" keep big strong men from taking what you conceive of as "your property" and that obligates you to us.

That obligation doesn't necessarily have to involve coercion. To the extent that you don't consider how your business decisions impact society at large, it might simply make you a "bad person." The problem is that we have an ethical system that relieves you of the duty to make that consideration. You can ruthlessly try to maximize shareholder value and still be a "good person." That ethic is predicated on the idea that profit maximization ultimately serves to maximize social welfare. What I'm arguing is that this assumption has been empirically invalidated (or at least drastically limited) and as such we should move towards an ethic that labels people who are socially inconsiderate as "bad people."

[dreamdu5t]

> but in reality "we the people" created "the State" to defend our property interests.

No, I did not. I didn't consent to any such agreement creating the State.

> We the people" through "the State" keep big strong men from taking what you conceive of as "your property" and that obligates you to us.

We the people? I did not consent to the constitution. Just like I can't bind you to contracts that you didn't consent to, I am not part of "we the people" because I never consented to be represented. Funny that it's called a "social contract" when it doesn't conform to contract law!

> You obligate yourself by participating in civilized society.

If that's the case, why can't I levy taxes and impose rules on people without their consent, simply because I sold something to them?

[clavalle]

"No, I did not. I didn't consent to any such agreement creating the State."

You do every moment you live in civilized society.

What is the alternative? Ask people when they reach the age of majority to sign an agreement to follow the laws of the land? What if they refuse?

[dreamdu5t]

No, "being here" is not consent. Suppose I come to your home with a bunch of armed friends, and tell you "You are free to leave, but if you stay you consent to following my rules." It would be absurd to consider that consent.

The alternative is a society based on voluntary exchange, by recognizing the State as an immoral initiation of force.

[clavalle]

The fact is that people are born into society. People who lived before us created a system where rights are protected and, when you reach the age of majority, you have the option of participating in governance either by voting, or running for office or other political action (this is all assuming you live in a Western style democratic republic).

I am not sure where you get the idea that you are being violently coerced into living in civilized society and thereby following the pre-existing laws, simply because you never signed a contract or, equivalently, expressly consenting that you would. Contracts are a legal convenience. A convenience whos very enforcement is dictated by the laws that you rail against for not having explicitly agreed to them. A bit of a chicken and egg problem, wouldn't you agree?

Your argument is absurd. "I didn't agree to have red lights mean 'stop'!", "I didn't agree that murder should be punished!", "I didn't agree that I couldn't build a hog farm on my suburban front lawn!". I mean, come on. What is your alternative to expecting people to live by certain rules that their ancestors through their previous political action put in place? Start from scratch with each new person? How would we tell who agreed to what? There are laws that I don't wholeheartedly agree with either but, for the most part, they seem pretty reasonable. Your 'system' or lack thereof, wouldn't fly in a household much less a nation.

[dreamdu5t]

> The fact is that people are born into society.

Yes, and being born into society doesn't create any moral obligation to those who gave birth to you. Children should not be involuntary slaves to their parents.

> People who lived before us created a system where rights are protected and, when you reach the age of majority, you have the option of participating in governance either by voting, or running for office or other political action (this is all assuming you live in a Western style democratic republic).

Being able to participate in governance through voting does not negate the fact that being bound by the vote's decision is something that is forced upon you, and isn't imposed on you by consent. You either agree to the vote's result or you are forcibly jailed or executed if caught deviating from what was agreed by the voting system imposed on you.

> I am not sure where you get the idea that you are being violently coerced into living in civilized society and thereby following the pre-existing laws, simply because you never signed a contract or, equivalently, expressly consenting that you would.

If you don't follow the law and you are caught, you will be forcibly jailed or executed, or some other punishment inflicted upon you by force. It's a fact that law is upheld by force, and the vote that created the law is imposed on you by force. You have no choice whether or not to be bound by the vote's decision. You never consented to be bound by it.

> Contracts are a legal convenience.

This is self-evidently false. Individuals may make agreements between them without any involvement of a 3rd party.

> A convenience whos very enforcement is dictated by the laws that you rail against for not having explicitly agreed to them. A bit of a chicken and egg problem, wouldn't you agree?

Enforcing agreements does not necessitate a State enforcing them.

> What is your alternative to expecting people to live by certain rules that their ancestors through their previous political action put in place?

To live by rules that I consented to, and not to initiate force on another individual except in self-defense.

[clavalle]

Pure fantasy. And not even of the interesting self-consistent kind.

" Individuals may make agreements between them without any involvement of a 3rd party." Sure. But, say there is a disagreement between the parties? What then?

"Enforcing agreements does not necessitate a State enforcing them." The 'State' is a label for a whole host of human activity. One of those activities is to act as arbitrator for agreements between parties. Arbitration would be without meaning without means to enforce the decisions reached.

"To live by rules that I consented to, and not to initiate force on another individual except in self-defense." That sounds exhausting. Do you really want to spend your energy, and everyone else's energy in any interaction whatsoever that you happen to have with them negotiating the rules for that interaction, /then/ getting on with the business at hand? (with the one a priori rule that you seem to agree with is that no one should physically force someone to do anything).

You might not believe this but these rules and laws were not set up to bend people to some terrible overarching will but as a means to lubricate human interaction. Without them almost every thought would have to be directed at confirming that every part in your environment that is human or ever touched or affected by any person living or dead meets your expectation.

For example: Say you want to leave your home to check your mail a half a block away.

First, you would have to get out of your home. Good luck. There were no building codes and the frame (which you could not see when you bought the house) has been built with roofing nails and has rendered your doorway a parallelogram. You were able to rip the door off its hinges and now you step outside. YOu are assailed by the smell of your neighbors new hog farm in their frontyard and the vision of them having sex in full view of your porch (they didn't agree with the vulgar display laws). As you walk down the street that is littered in garbage thrown out by passing motorists you almost fall into a sinkhole caused by another neighbor digging their own tunnel between their house and their meth lab across the street. Just then you notice that the end of the street is blocked off and the mailbox has been torn from its base and lying in the middle of the road on fire surrounded by a group you've never seen before. I guess you won't be getting your mail today.

This would never happen under your 'everybody comes to their own individual agreements' system because the human condition would not advance so far as to have things like houses with frames, sidewalks and farms. It is an impossible burden which is why things like government or the 'State' as you like to like to pejoratively call it came into being.

[rayiner]

> Funny that it's called a "social contract" when it doesn't conform to contract law!

It is a basic principle of contract law that you ratify a contract (implicitly consent) by acting according to the contract.

You have, for some number of years, accepted the protection of the state. You have ratified the contract through your participation in civilized society.