DeusAxeMachina t1_j77qegd wrote on February 4, 2023 at 6:44 PM

Reply to comment by LobYonder in There Are No Natural Rights (without Natural Law): Addressing what rights are, how we create rights, and where rights come from by contractualist

If you source moral and legal authority from a social contract, then no, you can't apply the law to people who are not part of that contract. That is what "willing agreement" means.

To prevent people who do not agree with the town rules from entering the town, you need a moral law that allows limiting their freedom in that way. And of course, that law can't be the town rules, because they're not part of the town, and because if that were the case you'd fall into infinite regress.

So if you want to justify applying legal codes outside of willing participants, you need something beyond consent to justify that.

LobYonder t1_j77qw5a wrote on February 4, 2023 at 6:47 PM

That's why the option to leave is important. If they chose to stay they are subject to the rules. That is their choice.

DeusAxeMachina t1_j77rid7 wrote on February 4, 2023 at 6:51 PM

What of people who do not have a reasonable option to leave? Can the law not be applied to them?

And more importantly, what of people who decide to stay but explicitly confirm that they do not want to be a part of the social contract, benefits or otherwise? The option to leave is important because people staying when they could leave is an indication that they accept the town rules, and that indication could be overruled by an even stronger indication (explicit statement) to the contrary.

If you argue that people should be forced between leaving the state or accepting its laws regardless of their personal consent, then you need a moral justification for that, and we run into the same problem from before.