What are the justifications for a social contract? What is it that makes an implicit one sided contract legitimate?

This is what comes to mind:

quote Imagine if a criminal organization used that flimsy argument when they came to your door to steal half your wages. Can you imagine your reaction: *knock knock* "Hello?" "We're from the local criminal cartel. We're here to collect our monthly payment." "Hmm. I don't remember signing up for this. I don't think I'll pay!" "Hold on a minute, of course you signed up for this... you were born into this agreement! Now, pay up!" "So, you're saying that I was born into this agreement and that I owe you money? Are you crazy? Get out of here!" *door slams*

What are your thoughts on the matter?

What does the mob do when you refuse to pay?
What does the government do when you refuse to pay?

quote Originally posted by Formula88: What does the mob do when you refuse to pay?

I imagine they would first come to your house and threaten you. If you didn't pay up they would hurt you. If you then didn't pay up they would likely kill you and take the money.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: What does the government do when you refuse to pay?

First they would just send you letters and calls that say you owe back money. They would eventually try to garnish your wages or seize your assets. The next step would be to send somebody to your home. If you then refused, they would send the police. You can either be locked in a rape-box at that point or if you don't cooperate/resist they will kill you.

EDIT to add: I'm just speculating here. I'm not sure this is the exact outcomes.

[This message has been edited by NoMoreRicers (edited 06-17-2013).]

quote What makes a Social Contract valid?

I would say benefiting from what the social contract provides. Have you ever attended a school funded by this social contract? Have you ever called a police agency for help which is funded by this social contract? Have you ever driven on roads that were built from and maintained with money provided by this social contract? Do you have the option to terminate this social contract if you feel it's to oppressive?

quote Originally posted by Khw: I would say benefiting from what the social contract provides. Have you ever attended a school funded by this social contract? Have you ever called a police agency for help which is funded by this social contract? Have you ever driven on roads that were built from and maintained with money provided by this social contract? Do you have the option to terminate this social contract if you feel it's to oppressive?

I think you and I already had this debate some time last year.

I would say whether or not you benefit from the social contract has nothing to do whatsoever with it's legitimacy. Also using something from somebody that has you in a position without your consent does not equal consent. If a slave accepts a meal from his slavemaster, is he consenting to his slavery? Is a conscripted navy man consenting to his conscription because he does not jump overboard?

What if Walmart sent you 500 dollars worth of random stuff every month and proceeded to bill you for it. When you tried to dispute it they said you are free to move to another neighborhood?

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: First they would just send you letters and calls that say you owe back money. They would eventually try to garnish your wages or seize your assets. The next step would be to send somebody to your home. If you then refused, they would send the police. You can either be locked in a rape-box at that point or if you don't cooperate/resist they will kill you. EDIT to add: I'm just speculating here. I'm not sure this is the exact outcomes.

oh ya that's how our government works. no dam better than the mob.

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't



Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: First they would just send you letters and calls that say you owe back money. They would eventually try to garnish your wages or seize your assets. The next step would be to send somebody to your home. If you then refused, they would send the police. You can either be locked in a rape-box at that point or if you don't cooperate/resist they will kill you. EDIT to add: I'm just speculating here. I'm not sure this is the exact outcomes.

More typically, the government will settle for pennies on the dollar for past due taxes.

Your money is unimportant to a entity who can create cash on a keyboard.

quote Originally posted by spark1: More typically, the government will settle for pennies on the dollar for past due taxes. Your money is unimportant to a entity who can create cash on a keyboard.

I had that thought the other day. Why do they want taxes when they already have unlimited counterfeiting?

My neighbors dog **** on my yard. I did not accept it and and complained at first, next time, I bought it to him, next time his dog came back crying because I particularize hot peppers and spread them in the yard. The neighbor moved, not me.

You can avoid taxes by not creating a taxable event. Trade your work and good in a barter system, do not drive, other than a bicycle. Vote for people that do as you wish, and work to change the minds of other to give your vote power.

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: I think you and I already had this debate some time last year. I would say whether or not you benefit from the social contract has nothing to do whatsoever with it's legitimacy. Also using something from somebody that has you in a position without your consent does not equal consent. If a slave accepts a meal from his slavemaster, is he consenting to his slavery? Is a conscripted navy man consenting to his conscription because he does not jump overboard? What if Walmart sent you 500 dollars worth of random stuff every month and proceeded to bill you for it. When you tried to dispute it they said you are free to move to another neighborhood?

Luckily you live under a social contract that protects you from those things.

quote Originally posted by Khw: Luckily you live under a social contract that protects you from those things.

If only contracts were self enforcing and didn't need to be explicitly consented to. The idea of a contract having legitimacy without my signature seems so horribly unjust under any kind of common sense standards of justice.

Did you watch the Tom Woods video? Just curious.

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: Although inflation is essentially a tax.

Exactly. And that one is difficult to avoid paying.

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: Did you watch the Tom Woods video?

Yes. "Funny hat" "prisoner consent to be in prison by eating prison food" "implied agreement because we live there" etc.
A social contract is validated by the consent of the people.
The origin of the term social contract can be found in the writings of Plato. However, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes expanded on the idea when he wrote Leviathan in response to the English Civil War.

quote He also believed that revolution was not just a right but an obligation if the state abused their given power.

Leviathan

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: If only contracts were self enforcing and didn't need to be explicitly consented to. The idea of a contract having legitimacy without my signature seems so horribly unjust under any kind of common sense standards of justice. Did you watch the Tom Woods video? Just curious.

I hadn't watched it as I have a job and it keeps me busy. I got a chance to watch it this morning and my answer is it's BS. You expect to benefit from a system yet not make any contribution to it? The things he mentions, neighbors dropping their garbage on your lawn for example, would be dealt with by calling the police... Something provided by that social contract. In addition he wants to subject the term "social contract" to current contractural law when the idea was formed in philosophy as early as Plato but was really expounded upon in the 17th and 18th century from by philosophers such as Hobbes and Locke. It's like so many other things, you have to look at what they meant by the term "social contract". However, I bet you still haven't done that have you? I recommended last time this came up that you read The Second Treatesies of Government by John Locke and also Leviathan from Hobbes. Have you done it?

You know what, I can play that guys game to. Here how about this. I live in my parents home. They want me to be in by 10:00 each night. I don't want to be in by 10:00, I don't agree to that. So, do I just get to come in whenever I want and if my parents don't like it they can move? Or, do I have to follow the rules of the house and if I don't like it I have to move?

To benefit and use the services of a system and then on the other hand say you don't except that system is ludacris. Yes, if your the one that doesn't like the rules of the systems you have every right to find ungovernemed land somewhere and set up your own system. If enough of the citizenry of the current system are dissatisfied with it then they have every right to revolt and start a new one. Otherwise, revoke your citizenship and move on. So long as you choose to remain a legal citizen of this country, then you choose to be subject to its governing body.

Edit: Oh and if you think I'm wrong? Go start dumping your garbage on that guys lawn each week and see who he calls.

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 06-18-2013).]

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Yes. "Funny hat" "prisoner consent to be in prison by eating prison food" "implied agreement because we live there" etc. A social contract is validated by the consent of the people. The origin of the term social contract can be found in the writings of Plato. However, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes expanded on the idea when he wrote Leviathan in response to the English Civil War.

Somebody that makes the implicit consent argument is 'begging the question'. It's circular reasoning. It's being assumed that the government has some legitimate jurisdiction over this geographical area. So when they say that by living in this geographical area you are implicitly consenting, they are assuming that which they are trying to prove.

Also as Heumer says, you aren't giving consent unless there is a reasonable method of opting out. Say you and some friends/family had 40 acres somewhere and you were completely self sufficient. You produced all of your own food. You provided each other with healthcare. You had your own means of self defense and fire protection. You provided education for your children. You never needed to leave your property. Would you be able to 'opt out?' What would happen if you didn't pay your property taxes?

You aren't even free to renounce your citizenship and leave if your purpose is to avoid the monopoly of violence known as the 'state.' Even if you lied and said you wanted to renounce for some other reason, it often takes 10 years and you are still subject to their theft. Even expatriates have to pay taxes.

Opting out doesn't seem reasonable by any sort of definition. If you can't opt you can't consent.

quote The first kind of justification Huemer considers is the social contract: that you agreed to being coerced by the government. Now I don’t know about you, but I never made any such agreement. So on that basis the government should leave me alone, shouldn't it? Many agreements, however, are not explicit, so perhaps we did agree but did so implicitly through our behavior. Heumer considers four ways by which this might occur: passive consent which is agreement through not opposing when asked; consent through acceptance of benefits such as when ordering food in a restaurant is agreeing to pay for it; consent through presence such as staying at my party after I've said anyone saying has to help tidying up later; consent through participation such as playing a game knowing that everyone gives the winner £1. Heumer points out that there are conditions which must be fulfilled for these routes to implicit consent to constitute a valid agreement: there must be a reasonable way of opting out; explicit dissent must block implicit consent; an act indicates agreement only if you think not doing the act would leave you out of the agreement; contractual obligation is mutual and conditional, so if one side doesn't do its part the agreement is void. Heumer then argues that none of these conditions are fulfilled by the putative social contract. Opting out requires vacating the territory subject to the government and this is not reasonable. Explicit dissent is not recognized by governments. There is no action that you do that if you did not do the government would not impose its rule on you. The courts routinely and successfully block attempts by subjects to sue for governmental failure to fulfill specific obligations so there is no mutuality. Hence there is no explicit social contract and no implicit social contract so political authority is not justified by our agreeing to be coerced.

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: I'm not sure where Tom or I said we expect to benefit from the state. I guess you are just assuming that. I'm not sure if you are incapable of imagining some other arbitrator or dispute resolution method other than the violent police, etc.

So what your saying is you want to trade one social contract for another? If so, what makes you think someone else will agree with your vision of the social contract? Or are you championing Anarchy? Because that’s what you get when every man is the judge, jury and executioner of the law.

quote Are you admitting that it's not actually a contract then? It's just one group of people saying, 'this is how it's gonna be.'

In the sense that you and Tom are trying to use, yes it is not that kind of contract. But I will get into that in a moment.

quote I haven't read the Second Treatesies of Government or Leviathan but I have read many summaries, reviews, praises, and rebuttals.

You should read them, otherwise how can you expect to understand the premise?

quote Of course this is different if you are a child and your parents are your caretakers. As an adult, you would be required to follow their rules on their property.

No it is not different. It’s only different to you because you want it to be. Tell me the difference if it is different? The basis is the same. You have the parents (government) setting the rules for the kids (citizens) to follow. There is no signed agreement between them. They all choose to live under those rules set by the parents and if they choose not to they leave as soon as they are capable. My wife did it, anyone can. She didn’t like the rules her parents placed on her so she found a friend she could live with where they had rules she could abide by as soon as she was capable . It’s the same thing, If you don’t like the rules of the social contract, find one with rules you can abide by and take the steps to go there.

quote For a slave to eat a meal from his slavemaster and then say that slavery is evil is ludicrous as well I take it? You admitted back in January that it's essentially impossible at this time to find any ungoverned land but that is irrelevant anyways. That complete ignores the argument at hand which is the legitimacy of the government/social contract. I don't choose to remain a citizen, I don't have a choice.

BS! You do have a choice. Revoke your citizenship and move somewhere that you feel the social contract is more in line with what you want. Or, champion your cause, get the populace behind you, revolt and set up a new social contract.

quote As I said above, whether or not there was some ungoverned land that I could move to; it's evading the question at hand.

No it is not evading the question at hand. You want to know if a social contract is valid. The answer is yes. You don’t want to hear it so you keep ignoring it.

This is later so let’s get into it. “Social Contract” the term as used was a label Locke came up with to place on the philosophical reasoning behind people living together under common law. Was there ever a social contract before he coined that phrase to label it? Of course there was. For example a Indian tribe. If you didn’t follow the rules of the tribe they would kill or banish you. As a matter of fact, anyplace people live together under a common set of rules, would be a social contract. A family is a smaller unit, but it is still a social contract. In exchange for your parents protecting you and providing for you, you agree to follow the rules. If you fail to follow them, your parent decides guilt and issues the punishment. If at any time when you are capable, you feel you no longer want to live by those rules, you can leave and find your own home and create the rules you want.

However lets get more to the point.

quote Originally posted by Khw: In addition he wants to subject the term "social contract" to current contractual law when the idea was formed in philosophy as early as Plato but was really expounded upon in the 17th and 18th century from by philosophers such as Hobbes and Locke.

You completely skipped over this very important part. You and Tom seem to want to apply the current meaning of “contract” to this label. The problem is the current term you wish to apply you apply as singular which is inaccurate. You want to look at it as a document you on an individual basis sign agreeing to the terms of residency.

Let’s consider something for a minute here. Do words meaning change? Of course they do. Words get used as slang or their meaning evolves over time to mean different things than they originally did. For instance the word “Bad”.

quote Bad 1. not good in any manner or degree. 2. having a wicked or evil character; morally reprehensible: There is no such thing as a bad boy. 3. of poor or inferior quality; defective; deficient: a bad diamond; a bad spark plug. 4. inadequate or below standard; not satisfactory for use: bad heating; Living conditions in some areas are very bad. 5. inaccurate, incorrect, or faulty: a bad guess. 6. invalid, unsound, or false: a bad insurance claim; bad judgment. 7. causing or liable to cause sickness or ill health; injurious or harmful: Too much sugar is bad for your teeth. 8. suffering from sickness, ill health, pain, or injury; sick; ill: He felt bad from eating the green apples. 9. not healthy or in good physical condition; diseased, decayed, or physically weakened: A bad heart kept him out of the army. 10. tainted, spoiled, or rotten, especially to the point of being inedible: The meat is bad because you left it out of the refrigerator too long. 11. having a disastrous or detrimental effect, result, or tendency; unfavorable: The drought is bad for the farmers. His sloppy appearance made a bad impression. 12. causing or characterized by discomfort, inconvenience, uneasiness, or annoyance; disagreeable; unpleasant: I had a bad flight to Chicago. 13. easily provoked to anger; irascible: a bad temper. 14. cross, irritable, or surly: If I don't have my morning coffee, I'm in a bad mood all day. 15. more uncomfortable, persistent, painful, or dangerous than usual; severe: a bad attack of asthma. 16. causing or resulting in disaster or severe damage or destruction: a bad flood. 17. regretful, contrite, dejected, or upset: He felt bad about having to leave the children all alone. 18. disobedient, naughty, or misbehaving: If you're bad at school, you'll go to bed without supper. 19. disreputable or dishonorable: He's getting a bad name from changing jobs so often. 20. displaying a lack of skill, talent, proficiency, or judgment: a bad painting; Bad drivers cause most of the accidents. 21. causing distress; unfortunate or unfavorable: I'm afraid I have bad news for you. 22. not suitable or appropriate; disadvantageous or dangerous: It was a bad day for fishing. 23. inclement; considered too stormy, hot, cold, etc.: We had a bad winter with a lot of snow. 24. disagreeable or offensive to the senses: a bad odor. 25. exhibiting a lack of artistic sensitivity: The room was decorated in bad taste. 26. not in keeping with a standard of behavior or conduct; coarse: bad manners. 27. a. vulgar, obscene, or blasphemous: bad language. b. not properly observing rules or customs of grammar, usage, spelling, etc.; incorrect: He speaks bad English. 28. unattractive, especially because of a lack of pleasing proportions: She has a bad figure. 29. (of the complexion) marred by defects; pockmarked or pimply; blemished: bad skin. 30. not profitable or worth the price paid: The land was a bad buy. 31. Commerce . deemed uncollectible or irrecoverable and treated as a loss: a bad debt. 32. ill-spent; wasted: Don't throw good money after bad money. 33. counterfeit; not genuine: There was a bad ten-dollar bill in with the change. 34. having the character of a villain; villainous: In the movies the good guys always beat the bad guys. 35. Sports. failing to land within the in-bounds limits of a court or section of a court; missing the mark; not well aimed. 36. Outstandingly excellent; first-rate: He's a bad man on drums, and the fans love him.

Well I’ll be dammed. How can a word mean two things completely opposite of each other? It’s easy, a word and it’s usage evolves. So, if you read a farmers diary from the 17th or 18th century and it said “the crops were bad” would you think it meant the were “Outstandingly excellent”? Of course not because “bad” was not used for that meaning back then. No instead you have to take into account what the words meaning was at the time of usage. It’s the same thing here. You can’t apply the current meaning of the words to the term when it was created in the 17th century. Even then, it was nothing more than a philosophical label not a legal term of law. This is where we get into “social contract” isn’t a contract in the sense you want to see it. It is a idea that binds a populace together. So, let’s look at the meaning of the word “social” as Locke used it.

quote social 1505 (implied in socially), "characterized by friendliness or geniality," also "allied, associated," from M.Fr. social (14c.), from L. socialis "united, living with others," from socius "companion," probably originally "follower," and related to sequi "to follow" (cf. O.E. secg, O.N. seggr "companion," which seem to have been formed on the same notion; see sequel). Meaning "living or liking to live with others, disposed to friendly intercourse" is attested from 1729. Meaning "pertaining to society as a natural condition of human life" first attested 1695, in Locke. Social climber is from 1926; social work is 1890; social worker 1904. Social drink(ing) first attested 1976. Social studies as an inclusive term for history, geography, economics, etc., is attested from 1938. Social security "system of state support for needy citizens" is attested from 1908.

Pertaining to society. Society is a inclusive word, not a singular word. Therefore “social contract” is a inclusive contract not a singular contract. If it is not a singular contract then a single persons acceptance is not needed as long as the collective except it.

quote Contract Origin: 1275–1325; (noun) Middle English (< Anglo-French ) < Latin contractus undertaking a transaction, agreement, equivalent to contrac-, variant stem of contra here to draw in, bring together, enter into an agreement ( con- con- + trahere to drag, pull; cf. traction) + -tus suffix of v. action; (v.) < Latin contractus, past participle of contrahere

To draw in. To bring together. To enter into an agreement. Agreeing to appear for dinner is according to the origin of the word, a contract. Was there anything signed when that agreement was made? Let’s consider the first parts though, as they are included in what Locke meant with his descriptive tem. To draw in and bring together in an agreement. When combined with the inclusive term of society it means to inclusively draw together in an agreement. Today with our current word meaning a “societal contract” would be more inline with Lockes meaning.

Just for reference here is the definition of societal.

quote Societal 1. noting or pertaining to large social groups, or to their activities, customs, etc.

Whether you agree or not, that is the word origin for the term,

Let’s look at the defenition of the term itself.

quote Social Contract 1. the voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members. 2. an agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the government or community as a whole.

And this brings us to the point. A social contract IS NOT an individual “contract“, it is a collective “contract“. It is the will of the people as a whole, not as a individual. There is no need to sign an agreement, just by being within the boarders of where that social contract is exercised you are subject to it. Do you want to test that? Go to China and rob a bank. When you are arrested, try to argue that you are not subject to the laws of there land as you did not agree with their social contract. When you are tried in their courts, punished by their legal system and imprisoned in their jail, let me know how it worked out for you. It is no different anywhere you go and has been no different throughout history.

You bring up the issue of slavery. At a time in our past, our social contract allowed for it. When the will of the people as a whole no longer approved of the practice, the social contract was changed and now you are protected from being a slave here.

Tom wants to bring up the issue of dumping trash in his yard. Our social contract does not allow for it.

Those are all deflection and misinformation, It’s all kool-aid for the rabble to lick up. It’s the same as trying to apply current definitions to make a term mean something it did not originally mean. It’s willful ignorance in an attempt to bolster your stance on false footing.

Social contracts have been around for as long as 2 or more humans lived together under a commonly excepted set of expectations among them. You can’t tell me back when people were nothing more than wondering nomads, that there was a legal contract each signed to be part of that societal unit. No, it was understood what was and was not allowed within that unit and if one did not follow it, then whomever was the one to administer justice in that unit, would do it.

To recap. A “social contract” is not a legal document a individual must sign. It is not even a individually approved set of rules. It is the will of the people as a whole to live by a set of rules applying common protections to them all. If one does not wish to be subject to it, they can move to where they find a social contract more inline with their desires. It is not up to society (the people) as a whole to move because one individual doesn’t want to be part of the social contract. What gives that one individual the right to supplant millions?

The problem is, none of what I wrote is going to matter to you. You are going to continue on believing Mr. Toms rant blissfully content in your belief. You won’t take the steps to actually read the books from the people who authored the philosophy and terms. Rather you will read a synopsis of the material and opinion articles instead. Even then you will dismiss what you find that goes against your belief and embrace anything you think supports it even if it’s taken out of context or misrepresented. IF you even do that. You honestly do not want to understand the term or the philosophy behind it. All you want to do is rant about it and dismiss anything anyone posts that goes against your rant bringing in conjecture and logical fallacies to refute it.

If someone was to start dumping trash… “Red Herring, the social contract does not allow this and you being part of that social contract have legal recourse you can take if it were to happen. It‘s a non issue.”

If a slave excepts a meal from his master… “Irrelevant Appeal Pity / Complex Question Fallacy… You attempt to support your argument through the use of a group people will feel pity for ignoring the fact that in our current social contract this would not be allowed. In addition the answer to the question is irrelevant as the answer given in pity would be used to validate the false premise. The reality is a slave is enslaved and consent is a non issue. A slave is forced to stay on the plantation, your not you can leave whenever you want to.”

Conscripted navy man… “see immediate explination above.”

Whether or not you benefit from the social contract has nothing to do with it's legitimacy… “This is pure opinion as you have not introduced anything that supports your assertion aside from some youtube video which you refuse to question. You take that videos word for gospel and have not provided any evidence to substantiate its claims. Please provide me with philosophical works that logically prove the premise he introduces.”

quote Philosophy: 1. the academic discipline concerned with making explicit the nature and significance of ordinary and scientific beliefs and investigating the intelligibility of concepts by means of rational argument concerning their presuppositions, implications, and interrelationships; in particular, the rational investigation of the nature and structure of reality (metaphysics), the resources and limits of knowledge (epistemology), the principles and import of moral judgment (ethics), and the relationship between language and reality (semantics).

Anyways, I’m out. I’ve spent way to much time trying to help someone understand something I really think they have no desire in actually understanding. The reality is as much as they may want to “believe” their position it will not change and can not change until they take action to remove themselves from the land that the social contract covers or until such time as the people as a whole decide to abolish their current social contract and form a new one.

Have fun all, I have a life to lead.

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 06-19-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Khw: Anyways, I’m out. I’ve spent way to much time trying to help someone understand something I really think they have no desire in actually understanding.

I feel the same way here and that is why I didn't bother responding again, no matter if it makes it look like I'm succumbing to your argument. No point in us beating each other's dead horses. I also wanted to let you know that you have been and still are a neutral rating from me. I don't usually give out ratings in O/T. I would rather agree to disagree then become adversarial.

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: I feel the same way here and that is why I didn't bother responding again, no matter if it makes it look like I'm succumbing to your argument. No point in us beating each other's dead horses. I also wanted to let you know that you have been and still are a neutral rating from me. I don't usually give out ratings in O/T. I would rather agree to disagree then become adversarial.

Thank you. You've had a positive from me since the last time we went into the topic. I see no reason to change it. Just because we may have a differing opinion on something doesn't mean I can't respect anothers right to their opinion.

quote Originally posted by Khw: Thank you. You've had a positive from me since the last time we went into the topic. I see no reason to change it. Just because we may have a differing opinion on something doesn't mean I can't respect anothers right to their opinion.

Oh yeah, I did a search to see if I could find out who Huemer is. I assume it's Michael Huemer? I did a search of my local libraries and one of them has some of his work available. I'd like to get this book if they have it: http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1137281650 . I plan to stop by and check on the way home so I can read it. If for some reason they don't have it, I'll just have to buy a copy. Which would probably be the better way to go anyways as it may take me a while to get enough time to read all the way through it.

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 06-20-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Khw: Oh yeah, I did a search to see if I could find out who Huemer is. I assume it's Michael Huemer? I did a search of my local libraries and one of them has some of his work available. I'd like to get this book if they have it: http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1137281650 . I plan to stop by and check on the way home so I can read it. If for some reason they don't have it, I'll just have to buy a copy. Which would probably be the better way to go anyways as it may take me a while to get enough time to read all the way through it.

Yes, Michael Huemer. There is a little bit of his work available to read online here. His best work is 'The Problem of Political Authority.' I haven't bought it yet. I'm going to see if it's available at the library first. I read the introduction here.

quote Originally posted by NoMoreRicers: Here is what one of my favorite economists has to say:

At 2:15, I swear I thought I heard him say... "I'm going to stay in your house and not wear the ****ing hat..."


hahah...