THE MASTER CONTRACT
We explained in several lessons what is the Master Contract and how it operates. However, from this lesson’s point of view, the Master Contract is as close as one can get to a Social Contract without actually having one.
The whole purpose of a Social Contract is to establish the basic rules by which a government will be legitimized. However, since as Absolute Austro-Libertarians we do not condone governments, a good question to ask would be, what is the Master Contract’s goal within this context?
The answer is quite simple. All Social Contracts are established in order to have a higher authority of some kind in order to enforce rules. However, the objective is the enforcement of rules, not the creation of a higher authority. Actually, the creation of this authority is nothing but a side effect of the entire goal. Therefore, the Master Contract is simply a mechanism to enforce a minimum set of rules without the need for a government. In this sense, it is a Social Contract because it binds people contractually who are willing to live by those rules.
The Master Contract also avoids the contradiction in other Social Contracts dictated by the fact that the government somehow takes over higher rights than the ones given to it by the people. The Master Contract is simply a contract specifying a minimum set of rights all contract signatories recognize among themselves. It also determines a minimum set of rules for the removal of those rights among signatories.
Since all signatories voluntarily agree to the Master Contract, there are no residual or inalienable rights other than the ones the contract dictates. There is no need to debate about Human Rights, Charters of Freedom, Universal Rights, or any of this subjective nonsense. All the information regarding rights is included in the Master Contract.
As a matter of fact, the Master Contract makes a point of minimizing the number of explicit rights to an absolute minimum. This is to maximize the potential for coexistence. The idea being that with the exception of a very few rights explicitly stated and regulated, most other rights are valid and could be used as signatories see fit.
The goal of the Master Contract is not to institute, legitimized and operate a government. Its goal is to make the most basic rules so clear that people can self-govern and in this manner prevent the necessity of a government.
ACCEPTANCE OF A SOCIAL CONTRACT
The Master Contract is only valid for people that voluntarily agree to it. This agreement can be explicit or implicit. Explicit agreements are clear; a person signs a document or swears its agreement. Implicit agreements are typically territorial ones.
By entering a territory under a Master Contract, this person implicitly agrees to it. This would seem similar to a standard Social Contract, but it is not. In the case of a Master Contract, all property in the territory is literally private property. If an owner voluntarily agreed to the Master Contract, this owner can also demand that anybody entering the property must abide by the same contract.
In a country, this is not the case. By entering into a country, one also enters private property (even if this property is “government owned”); however, this time, we do not know what the owner of the property demands of any person entering. This is so because “government property” is actually citizens’ property administered by the government. The final say belongs to the citizens who have been stripped from their rights to choose conditions of entry. Therefore, one cannot abide by undefined rules.
SOCIAL CONTRACT OPT-OUT
Another advantage of the Master Contract is that opting out of it is simplicity itself. One simply declares that one does not wish to abide by it any longer and the Master Contract ceases to apply. It is that simple. Actually, of all the Social Contracts, the Master Contract is the only one with a real, straightforward, simple and bullet-proof manner to opt out. Not only that, but this option of opting out does not require rebellion (i.e. violence) of any kind; as opposed to any other Social Contract.
SOCIAL CONTRACT LAWS AND REGULATIONS
One of the biggest problems with all Social Contracts is the inherent bias of all governments to grow exponentially and to justify their existence through new laws and regulations. Eventually all these new rules overtake and override or affect every single right that the government was supposed to protect. This is so because by definition, governments were created sovereign over individual people and they act as such to the detriment of the people who created them. This is unavoidable.
However, the Master Contract avoids this problem by not creating a government in first place. Furthermore, the Master Contract is very specific in stating that most rights are to be agreed through contracts amongst people. The Master Contract’s role is to facilitate contracts, not to substitute them. The Master Contract has no reason to justify its existence and therefore it has no reason to override rights.
SOCIAL CONTRACT SUBJECTIVITY
All Social Contracts are subjective and fuzzy. There are no clear rules as to how a Social Contract should operate or how could it be modified. This is another problem when it comes to governments; they have no clear rules and therefore they act as they see fit, typically against their own citizens. On the other hand, the Master Contract has very clear rules of coexistence. There are no subjective interpretations or fuzzy areas because it is a written contract.
CONCLUSION
We dislike Social Contracts. They are a figment of the imagination and have been used to enslave people for far too long. However, if you must have a Social Contract, we are convinced that this one is the best you can have. Today. Tomorrow things will change, but for now, this is a viable solution. As usual, it is up to you now. Take it or leave it, but you can’t say anymore we did not give you all the tools for a better life.
Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.
