[esperent]

> nobody has any choice in whether or not to participate.

You've hit a key point of disagreement amongst philosophers about the idea of the social contract.

Some of them say it's not voluntary because we were all born into a existing society, others say, sure it is, you can just give up all your property and go live in the forest.

Others then reply that disabled people and children can't do that.

But also the idea of living in a forest is not really an option for most people in the modern world. So my personal take is that the social contract is inherently non-voluntary in the modern world.

> Calling it a social contract just sounds too… soft? for what it really is.

Why do you think a social contract implies softness? For most of it's existence the social contract allowed slavery, ritual killing in the form of warfare and duels, and it still allows the death penalty in much of the world.

[Nevermark]

> Why do you think a social contract implies softness? For most of it's existence the social contract allowed slavery, ritual killing in the form of warfare and duels, and it still allows the death penalty in much of the world.

I think they are saying that the words "social contract" sound more collaborative and voluntary (to them) than what the phrase actually refers to. Your examples would only reinforce that view.

It is a subjective stance on a coined phrase, but given most of our laws were settled by people not living now, and enforced on people not living when the laws were created, and there is no periodic process of ensuring laws reflect the living, the words "social" and "contract" are being stretched quite a bit.

(On the other hand, the meanings of most phrases drift from the nominal meanings of their constituent words.)

[kulahan]

This was indeed my stance, thank you!

[RHSeeger]

But the benefit of living in a society is that those people that _cannot_ survive without the society, _can_ with it. They still have the option to live outside society, they'll just perish. And that sucks. But by being part of society and gaining the benefits thereof, you are agreeing to follow it's rules (or suffer the consequences if you do not).

I would not survive away from society due to medical needs. In exchange for being able to acquire the items I need to survive, I follow the constraints of living in that society. But it _is_ a choice. I could choose to go live in the woods without said benefit; and I'd die.

[Detrytus]

But the point of "living in the forrest is not an option" isn't that the person in question is incapable of surviving there. It is that the society claims ownership of the forrest an will punish you for trying to live there. I mean, try sleeping in your own car in California, or some other US states...

That's just the nature of almost any society: they are actively hostile towards such outliers.

[esperent]

To be fair, this philosophical discussion originated in the time of Locke and Hobbes, and back then it was far more viable to go off and live in a forest, especially if you went to America to do it.

[mistrial9]

the societies that grew yes.. there were many others that died. Most of the major countries recognized today in the West were originally warlike and held captives institutionally.

[esperent]

> But the benefit of living in a society is that those people that _cannot_ survive without the society, _can_ with it

Hence why it's a "contract". Both parties benefit. Society gets to exist, the people in it mostly have better lives than they would living alone in a forest. Admittedly, that's a low bar and we could stand to improving things.

[_Algernon_]

>But also the idea of living in a forest is not really an option for most people in the modern world. So my personal take is that the social contract is inherently non-voluntary in the modern world.

This idea is ridiculous because even if you could go live in a forest a large part of the enlightenment was that states grabbed control of the periphery (forests) of their domain. You can no longer run of into the forest. The state will still want you to fit into the existing ownership structures, censuses, taxation regimes, etc. If you commit a crime it will still be decided by the existing courts.

[dullcrisp]

I don’t think something being a contract is reliant on there being a compelling alternative though. But then it’s usually hard to tell what’s important to philosophers.

[esperent]

> I don’t think something being a contract is reliant on there being a compelling alternative though

Legally, a contract must be entered into voluntarily by both parties. If either party is coerced into joining, then it is no longer considered to be a contract. I assume that philosophers use the same meaning of the word contract.

[dullcrisp]

But you’d have to draw a distinction between “I have to sell my company to Microsoft because they’re the only ones with the expertise to run it,” and “Microsoft sent someone to hold a gun to my head until I signed this paper even though I actually have other options.”

In this case it seems more like the former since no one is really actively combing the woods for hermits and forcibly integrating them into society. I guess it’s not unimaginable for something like that to happen, but I don’t think you could say that that’s reason that most of us are part of society. I do guess you could argue that point, but the argument would have to be that society is actively taking away viable alternatives to force people who otherwise would not have to have to join it, not that such alternatives never existed in the first place.

[lazide]

I dare you to name a forest that someone won’t try to kick you out of pretty quickly.

The US has forest rangers, among others, as do most countries. Even in remote Siberia and Alaska, it likely won’t be long before someone defending a mining claim or similar gets you removed or tries to shoot at you, though you might get long enough in some spots to live half a life at least.

Every society I’m currently aware of has something similar going on, and they absolutely are trying to remove opportunities to stay outside of their bounds.

[mistrial9]

predatory behaviors are normalized in societies that grew to be large landowning and stable, agree

[giantg2]

"you can just give up all your property and go live in the forest."

And these people are wrong since the laws will still be applied there. If you don't own the land you are likely trespassing, squating, etc.

[immibis]

If you don't sign a contract you are not bound by it, and you are not protected by it. If the law doesn't apply to you, that cuts both ways: people can kidnap or murder you with impunity for any valid-sounding or completely-made-up reason.

[giantg2]

Consent has nothing to do with signing, look at TOS. Same things with laws - you're subject to them just because you're in their domain.

[immibis]

If you agree to the law, then saying the people tasked with enforcing the law can affect you because you agreed to it is an argument that has some merit.

If you didn't agree to the law, then the people tasked with enforcing the law can affect you for a different reason: because they can. The natural state of things is basically that people can just hurt each other because they want to, and who's going to stop them? And "anyone" includes the police, and "any reason" includes "because their boss told them to enforce the law on you regardless of some-platonic-version-of-you is some-platonic-version-of-bound by the some-platonic-version-of-law"