There was a topic on a recent show about "The Social Contract" and I wanted to see if anyone was willing to discuss the concept here.
I think that during the discussion, the hosts kept getting very close to a certain conclusion but never quite landed on it so I want to see what people think.
It seems that everyone as in their mind a certain thing when they hear the term "The Social Contract" and it seems to involve a state that enforces it and citizens/serfs that must obey it under threat of penalty. Usually there is some sort of obligation put onto the individual that involves some sort of sacrifice on behalf of others. But I want to step back from that and look at the concept a bit more generically. Let's not think about THE Social Contract, but let's think about A social contract, which may take different forms within different societies.
Mark got the closest to the conclusion that I want to address here when he said, "That's called manners." What the discussion seemed to almost hit on but didn't was the notion that the Non-aggression Principle and respect for individual "rights" constitute a social contract, which could be defined as the generally understood way that people should treat each other (manners).
Is there some truly objective property of an individual's person or possessions that require that another person treat them a certain way, ie with respect and non-aggression? I don't see it. The only thing that seems to enforce that kind of mutual understanding between two people is the fact that practically no one likes having what they consider their property be taken or destroyed by someone else. Same goes for their own body, mind, etc. "You don't like it. I don't like it. So let's not do it."
But, that doesn't mean that there could be someone that doesn't believe this way, someone who doesn't draw those same lines that you do around "their" possessions or "their" person. What requires that this person follow your social contract, the NAP?
Their version of the social contract is much less demanding than yours. They don't have so many rules as to who does what and which boundaries they will ultimately be forced to respect. "Hey, you can't build your house on my land! I own it legitimately and you have no right to it." "Oh yeah? Well, I didn't sign any contract agreeing to recognize your property rights! I didn't sign your social contract!"
Now, most if not all liberty minded people who adhere to the NAP believe in a social contract of negative rights. You have the right to "your" stuff and I have a right to "mine" and if we all respect those property assignments then we'll all get along. But, others may start veering into positive rights territory. Maybe a liberty minded person believes that a child has a positive right to be kept clothed and fed by his parents and not abandoned in the middle of the woods. By their version of the social contract, the parent has a duty to protect and raise the child. You can see where I'm going here.
Some others, who libertarians would not consider to be liberty minded, might believe that "society" has a duty to its "members" like a parent has with its child, and that this duty is part of the social contract. In other words, I don't see any fundamental difference between one social contract or another. It appears to be a difference in degrees. You might say that the dividing line is negative rights versus positive rights, but that really doesn't mean that both forms of social contract aren't social contracts or that there isn't some sort of implicit expectation of compliance.
In summary:
The NAP is a social contract. People can claim that they never signed any contract agreeing to follow the NAP so why should they.
It's the same logic used when claiming that if you didn't sign some other social contract that you don't owe taxes.
disclaimer: I support the NAP and generally do not support the concept of positive rights.