The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Is moral hazard destroying the social contract? > Comments

Is moral hazard destroying the social contract? : Comments

By Revelly Robinson, published 23/10/2013

Since the election of the current government on September 7, the public has become privy to a wide array of abuses exhibited by parliamentarians for which there has been no retribution.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
The problem with this article is that it’s just a collected series of false and confused statements.

“The social contract, that theoretical relationship that we rely upon to legitimise authority…”

Speak for yourself.

“… is an ethereal concept in itself.”

Fictional is the word you’re looking for.

“The social contract theory contends that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms in a symbiotic relationship with authority in exchange for a stable, functioning governance system. It recognises the interchange of rights and responsibilities between the individual and government that creates the imposition upon society of a self-regulating system of rule, in which idealistically, the government will do its best to act in accordance with the wishes of the people.”

Complete and utter fiction; propaganda.

Social contract theory is simply a made-up, ex post facto, completely unhistorical, rationalisation of the existence of the State.

“Firstly, governments are elected to govern.”

No they’re not, and the electoral system and the Constitution provide no reason or evidence for this assertion.

No-one ever elects a “government”. We each only cast one vote for our local member.

Government then arises from the machinations of the Parliament, by whose convention, the party with the confidence of the lower house, forms the “government”, meaning the executive, Cabinet.

“As a democracy we place faith in those elected to represent us for better or for worse”

Speak for yourself. I prefer truth to naive false beliefs.

“but preferably for the better.”

Under the “democratic system” politicians’ promises are completely non-binding. It’s like saying there’s a “contract” in which the promisee has no legal remedy for fraud, misrepresentation, or misleading deceptive conduct. Total nonsense.

“unequal distribution of wealth”

Just actually *think* for a second, instead of thoughtlessly emoting slogans. If wealth were evenly distributed, then no-one could take any action without causing inequality. It would spell the end of human society. Equal distribution of wealth as a political desideratum is just a stupid immoral concept.

The author’s theories, or rather assumptions, on representative government and social contract are completely demolished here:
http://economics.org.au/2010/08/unrepresentative-government/
and here:
http://economics.org.au/2010/08/no-social-contract/
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 10:09:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is moral hazard destroying the social contract?
YES!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 10:25:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jardine,
Correct, the author has obviously never lived in a housing commission estate or a predominantly welfare dependant community where everyone has about the same disposable income and material assets.
In the housing estate or working class suburb you see a community where everyone is materially about equal yet the society is far from egalitarian and often completely dysfunctional.
In a society where people are technically "equal" the silliest little things, like someone buying a new car or new clothes can spark jealousy and begin long and bitter feuds, bullying and even violence against anyone who is seen as "stuck up".
I've not had much experience living in wealthier or middle class communities but it would seem that vanity and jealousy are constants across all classes and castes in society and are the real biological or essential human characteristics impeding "progress".
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 11:33:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What social contract?
There was never any such thing as many writers have always pointed out, including this one:
http://www.rushkoff.com/life-inc
Posted by Daffy Duck, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 12:43:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Robinson has grappled with the difficult concept of the social contract. I strongly disagree with Mr Jardine that it is fictional. It isa in many senses the foundation of a civilised society where the expectations of the many reside in the few, which for lack of a better term are those who govern. For example, one tries to be a productive citizen, paying taxes, obeying the law etc etc. In return that citizen expects certain things of those that govern: that if he/she gets sick there will be a functioning hospital system; they will get a living wage pension on retirement, their kids will go to school and be educated, not sexually abused and so on.

Where Mr Robinson's argument is weak however, is when he focuses on the relatively trivial issue of politicians rorting their entitlements. That is merely a manifestation of a greater malaise. We have as a society largely lost the notion of holding wrongdoers accountable. And I am not talking about the run of the mill thief, assaulter or con artist.

The Nuremberg trials set an important benchmark, but that is now seen as a high point in holding politicians accountable for serious wrongdoing. The Nuremberg Tribunal called waging a war of aggression the "supreme international crime". Yet now we live in a world where countries are invaded on a lie; innocent people are murdered by drones; others are tortured and held in indefinite detention without hope of a fair trial and so on. There are umpteen examples.

Australian politicians have been involved in this up to their eyeballs. But exchanging Howard for Rudd/Gillard and Rudd again did not result in any significant policy change. Nor have war criminals such as Bush, Blair, Obama, et al been held accountable for their crimes.

I am far more upset by that deterioration in our moral standards than I am by our current politicians heading off to weddings etc on the public purse.
Posted by James O'Neill, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 6:23:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James O'neill, so societies moral standards have deteriated, then the current mob of politicians in your eyes on the robbing of my taxes to attend weddings etc is moral, if your happy with that then you would be the only one in the country, except all politicans with their snouts in the trough of taxes paid by the deteriating morals of society in general, but not them. C'mon
Posted by Ojnab, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 7:50:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unfortunately for us, there is no longer any incentive for anyone with original ideas and the talent to put them into practice to become a politician. The money is lousy, and the privilege and prestige formerly attached to the job has been eroded away. Add in ridiculous working conditions and the media's puerile fascination with everything you say and do, and it's pretty obvious that anyone with any self-respect will look elsewhere.

The best solution would be to have one-tenth as many pollies and pay them each ten times as much. Failing that, it may be necessary to allow perks of office, and even add a few more, just to try and attract people with some ability into the job. But coming down hard on politicians will just drive the overall standard down below the depths it has already plumbed.
Posted by Jon J, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 8:23:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear James,

<<In return that citizen expects certain things of those that govern: that if he/she gets sick there will be a functioning hospital system; they will get a living wage pension on retirement, their kids will go to school and be educated, not sexually abused and so on.>>

There are two faults in this argument:

1) Different people have different expectations of life. This may be your list, but others may include a box of cherries.

Why hospitals yes and cherries no? It just happens to be your personal preference!

2) Even when people want certain services and securities, this does not imply which group they want to receive it from; which group they want to contract with. It is arrogance to assume that everyone just freely chose or consented to receive their desired services and outcomes from that particular and arbitrary group of "all who live in this continent and a few islands around it", most of which we don't know and will never meet because they live 1000's of kilometres away.

Many of use would have preferred to have a social-contract, but instead of with such a huge body of foreign faces, with some smaller group of closer and more like-minded people. But did we ever get to choose?

As it stands, there is no social contract - only coercion.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 24 October 2013 7:54:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James, I have shown why relations between sovereign and subject, or citizen and state, have none of the elements of contract. Contract requires offer, acceptance, consideration and intention.

In fact and in law, tax is a coercive, non-contractual payment. The High Court has made it clear that tax is not a payment for services. Payment of tax, of itself, gives rise to no right to any service whatsoever. Paying tax is not the price we pay for hospitals etc. It’s the price we pay for not being locked in a cage and shot if we resist.

To confuse consensual with coerced relations is the most fundamental moral and intellectual blunder. You might as well say that relations between a bank and robber are a “contract”: the bank staff undertake to give him money, and he undertakes not to shoot them.

Also, as Yuyutsu has shown, another problem with the theory is that it’s anyone’s guess what the terms of the alleged contract are. Contract refers to an agreement, not an open-ended ground for demanding anything.

So far as you need the theory of social contract to be true in order to provide a legitimisation of government, that doesn’t magically make what is untrue, true. It just means that so far you lack a theory to legitimise government.

The law of nationality provides a more accurate basis for understanding than the law of contract. Nationality law is based on a supposed mutual obligation between sovereign and subject. The sovereign has a supposed obligation of protection; the subject has a real actual obligation of obedience.

In other words, it’s a protection racket.

It’s a relation in which the strongest and most aggressive party unilaterally decides to take as much of the weaker’s property and services as they want, on terms that they can unilaterally require anything, and exempt themselves in their official capacity from any law they impose on everyone else; and the weaker party has only the freedom to obey.

This theory also has the advantage that it’s historically accurate in describing where states come from, unlike social contract theory.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 24 October 2013 8:12:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The money is so 'lousy' that Australian politicians are amongst the highest paid in the world. Apart from receiving generous salaries they are able to parlay their accommodation allowances into real estate investments; we give them cars even if they don't want to use them - they can be handed off to any old designated driver; they get multiple mobile phones; they can accumulate huge libraries of books which are then theirs to keep; they can get most of their holiday travel paid for either by arranging a quick meeting or two right near their preferred destination or claiming they are on 'study leave'; they get staff to do all the heavy lifting for them. Poor things, makes your heart bleed. No wonder we have so much trouble getting people to offer themselves as candidates.
Posted by Candide, Thursday, 24 October 2013 12:21:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
James,
The Nuremberg trials didn't set a benchmark so much as a dangerous precedent in that they legitimised the authority of the Atlantic alliance who you now rightly accuse of warmongering and perpetuating a double standard.
There's a direct link between the lies NATO told about Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria and the lies the Allies told about National Socialist Germany. Nuremberg entrenched the Kangaroo court as the supreme instrument of allied "Justice", the cells in Buchenwald where 20,000 German prisoners were tortured and murdered in 1946-47 are linked through space and time to the cells at Guantanamo, Bagram and Abu-ghraib.
Saddam was "Just like Hitler",so was Milosovec the Jihadis are "Islamofascists", Assad is a "dictator" who "kills his own people" and is also according to John Kerry also "just like Hitler".
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Thursday, 24 October 2013 4:26:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jon J
"Add in ridiculous working conditions..."

What are the ridiculous working conditions btw?

I was under the impression they aren't under much or any pressure as members of Parliament, as opposed to as party members. There was a guy in NSW recently, a member of the upper house as I recall, who pretty much stopped turning up to work early on in the piece, and years later they were still trying to chase him down. He kept saying his wife was sick.

But I mean, if you were a member of the upper house, and just didn't turn up, how would the system strike back? For example, it's not obligatory to sit in the house during debate - that's why Whips are needed in the parties that have them.

I got the impression work was pretty much optional for members of parliament in their capacity as members of parliament.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 25 October 2013 9:57:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jardine K. Jardine,
"If wealth were evenly distributed, then no-one could take any action without causing inequality. It would spell the end of human society. Equal distribution of wealth as a political desideratum is just a stupid immoral concept."
Exactly. It's a bit like leaders and led or bosses and workers or a captain and his crew.
I think Ayn Rand summed it up quite adequately in her capitalist philosophy "Atlas Shrugged"
Posted by chrisgaff1000, Saturday, 26 October 2013 1:32:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ya definitely it is hazardous but some moral and ethics are also important for character building.social contract are very much useful and necessary for each and every human being to survive their life happy.
Posted by mobilepundits, Monday, 28 October 2013 10:49:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mobilepundits,

<<social contract are very much useful and necessary for each and every human being to survive their life happy.>>

Well social contracts are indeed very much useful and necessary for MOST of us, but they ought to be made voluntarily, with group(s) of one's own choice.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 28 October 2013 11:48:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy