djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2013 17:03:36 GMT -5
i posit that it is as real as any law. i am not alone in thinking this. from Wikipedia:
In political philosophy the social contract' or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory. The Social Contract (Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique), written by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, is a 1762 book about government reforms and how it should change to benefit citizens instead of the government.
Although the antecedents of social contract theory are found in antiquity, in Greek and Stoic philosophy and Roman and Canon Law, as well as in the Biblical idea of the covenant, the heyday of the social contract was the mid-17th to early 19th centuries, when it emerged as the leading doctrine of political legitimacy. The starting point for most social contract theories is a heuristic examination of the human condition absent from any political order that Thomas Hobbes termed the “state of nature”.[2] In this condition, individuals' actions are bound only by their personal power and conscience. From this shared starting point, social contract theorists seek to demonstrate, in different ways, why a rational individual would voluntarily consent to give up his or her natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order.
Hugo Grotius (1625), Thomas Hobbes (1651), Samuel Pufendorf (1673), John Locke (1689), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762), and Immanuel Kant (1797) are among the most prominent of 17th- and 18th-century theorists of social contract and natural rights. Each solved the problem of political authority in a different way.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 18, 2013 17:34:32 GMT -5
What do you mean by "real"?
"Real" as in: does society behave as though it currently exists? Is it an immutable physical law? Should citizens behave as though it is an immutable physical law? Would most citizens admit to being party to a social contract? Would mankind be better off if more freedoms were surrendered to the state?
Throw us a bone here.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2013 18:01:36 GMT -5
What do you mean by "real"? "Real" as in: does society behave as though it currently exists? Is it an immutable physical law? Should citizens behave as though it is an immutable physical law? Would most citizens admit to being party to a social contract? Would mankind be better off if more freedoms were surrendered to the state? Throw us a bone here. good question. Paul claimed that the social contract was "a fiction". and it is, in the sense that IDEAS are a fiction. ideas like "liberty". ideas like "freedom". but what is the opposite of that? if you can figure it out, i will change the thread title.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:03:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 19:42:05 GMT -5
In this instance I say that real would mean that all parts of the definition are true. To me this seems to have 4 parts.
1. individuals have consented 2. they surrender some of their freedom 3. they submit to the authority 4. they get protection of their remaining rights
Of those I would say only 2 & 3 are true
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2013 20:23:21 GMT -5
In this instance I say that real would mean that all parts of the definition are true. To me this seems to have 4 parts. 1. individuals have consented 2. they surrender some of their freedom 3. they submit to the authority 4. they get protection of their remaining rights Of those I would say only 2 & 3 are true the definition does not require explicit (ie written) consent. it requires the same sort of consent that a common law marriage requires: if you live with someone long enough, you are married. edit: ps- that was a rather thankless reply. thanks for taking that on, lb.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:03:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 20:31:15 GMT -5
In this instance I say that real would mean that all parts of the definition are true. To me this seems to have 4 parts. 1. individuals have consented 2. they surrender some of their freedom 3. they submit to the authority 4. they get protection of their remaining rights Of those I would say only 2 & 3 are true the definition does not require explicit (ie written) consent. it requires the same sort of consent that a common law marriage requires: if you live with someone long enough, you are married. edit: ps- that was a rather thankless reply. thanks for taking that on, lb. If you are held hostage you are not considered to be married common law. Not having the power to change the system you are in is not consent to it. ETA - you're reply was good but thanks for the consideration
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:03:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 20:39:16 GMT -5
Okay, I will attempt a longer explanation but it's really easier if you just read my mind on this There are those that design the system to their benefit. They have tacitly consented but they are a small minority. There are those that feel they are getting their share so they have agreed. I would offer that they have responded to bribery more than a social contract of rights being protected. They would be a larger segment of society, maybe 25% (that's a pure guess on my part) Then there are those that don't like losing the freedoms they have lost, have not consented but don't know how to get out of it. They have not consented at all. I'd say that is at least 50% of the population. That leaves about 20% that have entered a social contract with the top 5%. For this discussion I am purely talking about Canada and the States.
|
|
dumdeedoe
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 7:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 755
|
Post by dumdeedoe on Sept 18, 2013 21:11:51 GMT -5
A proletarian(poor or serf) revolution is a social revolution in which the working class attempts to overthrow the bourgeoisie(the government controlled by the rich). Proletarian(poor-man) revolutions are generally advocated by socialists, communists, and most anarchists.In Marxism, the need for a proletarian(poorman) revolution is a cornerstone and the first step towards dismantling the exploitations brought about by capitalism. Marxists believe that the workers of the world must unite and free themselves from capitalist oppression to create a world run by and for the working class. In the Marxist view, proletarian revolutions will inevitably happen in all capitalist countries Or: A Bourgeoisie(rich-man) revolution is a social revolution in which the upperclass attempts to overthrow the Proletarian(Government controlled by the serf). In capitalism the need for a Bourgeoisie(rich-man) revolution is a cornerstone,and the first step towards dismantling the crushing debt and stagnant economy brought on by the Proletarians(poor-man). Capitalists believe that the wealthy of the world must unite and free themselves from the governments lead by the proletarian(poor-men).In a Capitalists view,Bourgeoisie(richman) revolutions will inevitably happen in all Communist(socialist) countries.
So far there is only one true communist country left that hasn't fallen to the surge of the Bourgeoisie(rich-man)...North Korea....And last time I looked it was a pretty shitty place to live....
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Sept 18, 2013 21:33:41 GMT -5
I suppose there is a social contract, in the USA, in Canada, in Mexico, in North Korea, in Syria. It is just a difference in degree on how many rights have been given up.
But that doesn't make it a legitimate contract, since you have no choice but to accept it, because the only alternative is to leave, you are under extreme duress when accepting the contract.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Sept 18, 2013 21:48:54 GMT -5
What do you mean by "real"? "Real" as in: does society behave as though it currently exists? Is it an immutable physical law? Should citizens behave as though it is an immutable physical law? Would most citizens admit to being party to a social contract? Would mankind be better off if more freedoms were surrendered to the state? Throw us a bone here. good question. Paul claimed that the social contract was "a fiction". and it is, in the sense that IDEAS are a fiction. ideas like "liberty". ideas like "freedom". but what is the opposite of that? if you can figure it out, i will change the thread title. The social contract is very real- as is freedom- if one does not want to be part of a particular contract they are free to go somewhere else- say some deserted island or another country with a different scheme. Choosing to remain a citizen is tacit consent. You still have every bit of freedom- but there are consequences. The only problem I have with it is that to survive in the system you are forced to join the wage economy as all of the land and natural resources have been gobbled up under the guise of private property rights (which only exist because of the social contract) and public use. One cannot just pick out a plot of land and sustain themselves- so in that sense no one is free- well except for picking out one of those uninhabited islands and moving there.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Sept 18, 2013 21:59:24 GMT -5
I suppose there is a social contract, in the USA, in Canada, in Mexico, in North Korea, in Syria. It is just a difference in degree on how many rights have been given up. But that doesn't make it a legitimate contract, since you have no choice but to accept it, because the only alternative is to leave, you are under extreme duress when accepting the contract. Not in N Korea- there is no choice at all in a dictatorship. In the US the 'contract' can be modified as needed- and is. How is it duress? One can either try and change the terms, accept them, or go somewhere else and try their luck. Can't do that in NK.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:03:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 22:12:53 GMT -5
good question. Paul claimed that the social contract was "a fiction". and it is, in the sense that IDEAS are a fiction. ideas like "liberty". ideas like "freedom". but what is the opposite of that? if you can figure it out, i will change the thread title. The social contract is very real- as is freedom- if one does not want to be part of a particular contract they are free to go somewhere else- say some deserted island or another country with a different scheme. Choosing to remain a citizen is tacit consent. You still have every bit of freedom- but there are consequences. The only problem I have with it is that to survive in the system you are forced to join the wage economy as all of the land and natural resources have been gobbled up under the guise of private property rights (which only exist because of the social contract) and public use. One cannot just pick out a plot of land and sustain themselves- so in that sense no one is free- well except for picking out one of those uninhabited islands and moving there.Considering that is the whole foundation of the system it is kind of a big problem to have. Being born on this planet should ensure us some space on it and access to the food it produces.
|
|
dumdeedoe
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 7:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 755
|
Post by dumdeedoe on Sept 18, 2013 22:36:34 GMT -5
You may not be able to get free land in the US since Alaska stopped the homestead act in 1988. With all the repossessions out there right now you may be able to pick up some land "dirt" cheap.. You will still need a small source of income to pay those pesky property taxes..
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2013 22:44:04 GMT -5
the definition does not require explicit (ie written) consent. it requires the same sort of consent that a common law marriage requires: if you live with someone long enough, you are married. edit: ps- that was a rather thankless reply. thanks for taking that on, lb. If you are held hostage you are not considered to be married common law. this point is central: you absolutely can leave the US. all you need is a passport, which every citizen is entitled to.Not having the power to change the system you are in is not consent to it. ETA - you're reply was good but thanks for the consideration yw
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2013 22:47:45 GMT -5
Okay, I will attempt a longer explanation but it's really easier if you just read my mind on this There are those that design the system to their benefit. They have tacitly consented but they are a small minority. you don't need consent when you own and run things. it's great to be king.There are those that feel they are getting their share so they have agreed. I would offer that they have responded to bribery more than a social contract of rights being protected. They would be a larger segment of society, maybe 25% (that's a pure guess on my part) that's nice- but getting your share is not part of the social contract. if you are really lucky in life, you have no need for what the government has to offer. if you are NOT lucky, or fall upon misfortune, the idea is that the government stands between you and destitution. personally, i WANT to live in a society that defends and protects it's most vulnerable citizens. if others don't, i have suggested Equatorial Gunea. Then there are those that don't like losing the freedoms they have lost, have not consented but don't know how to get out of it. They have not consented at all. I'd say that is at least 50% of the population. i am sorry. i am not following you here. what freedoms are you referring to?That leaves about 20% that have entered a social contract with the top 5%. For this discussion I am purely talking about Canada and the States. thanks.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2013 22:51:52 GMT -5
A proletarian(poor or serf) revolution is a social revolution in which the working class attempts to overthrow the bourgeoisie(the government controlled by the rich). Proletarian(poor-man) revolutions are generally advocated by socialists, communists, and most anarchists.In Marxism, the need for a proletarian(poorman) revolution is a cornerstone and the first step towards dismantling the exploitations brought about by capitalism. Marxists believe that the workers of the world must unite and free themselves from capitalist oppression to create a world run by and for the working class. In the Marxist view, proletarian revolutions will inevitably happen in all capitalist countries Or: A Bourgeoisie(rich-man) revolution is a social revolution in which the upperclass attempts to overthrow the Proletarian(Government controlled by the serf). In capitalism the need for a Bourgeoisie(rich-man) revolution is a cornerstone,and the first step towards dismantling the crushing debt and stagnant economy brought on by the Proletarians(poor-man). Capitalists believe that the wealthy of the world must unite and free themselves from the governments lead by the proletarian(poor-men).In a Capitalists view,Bourgeoisie(richman) revolutions will inevitably happen in all Communist(socialist) countries. So far there is only one true communist country left that hasn't fallen to the surge of the Bourgeoisie(rich-man)...North Korea....And last time I looked it was a pretty shitty place to live.... i don't view national economies as dichotomously as do you. i would say that there are ZERO capitalist (Bourgeoisie) economies, and ZERO communist ones. ALL economies are mixed. a truly communist society would have no private ownership. most Chinese enterprises are at least partially owned by individuals. a truly capitalist society would have no government ownership or control of industry. i don't know any countries that have that. so, when i look out there, what i see is mixed economies. some are mixed more in favor of socialism, some less. but all have it, and capitalism as well. and that is just about right.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2013 22:54:25 GMT -5
I suppose there is a social contract, in the USA, in Canada, in Mexico, in North Korea, in Syria. It is just a difference in degree on how many rights have been given up. But that doesn't make it a legitimate contract, since you have no choice but to accept it, because the only alternative is to leave, you are under extreme duress when accepting the contract. it is actually a really dumb question- because, seriously, government's can't exist without the social contract. so what the question REALLY asks is "do governments exist", and the answer is, pretty obviously, yes. legitimacy is a matter for discussion. i would say that any government that has free and fair elections and open emigration is de-facto legitimate.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Sept 18, 2013 22:56:56 GMT -5
I agree 100%. Being born on this planet one should be entitled to a share of everything- land, water, resources, etc. It should not matter one damn bit what someone's relative claimed as theirs. That problem has been fought over forever- and we still have an aristocracy- just one based on wealth.
And sure to upset PBP- the system he hates so much is the only thing keeping that in place. I think it is just some anti-government mental masturbation on his part.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2013 22:56:56 GMT -5
good question. Paul claimed that the social contract was "a fiction". and it is, in the sense that IDEAS are a fiction. ideas like "liberty". ideas like "freedom". but what is the opposite of that? if you can figure it out, i will change the thread title. The social contract is very real- as is freedom- if one does not want to be part of a particular contract they are free to go somewhere else- say some deserted island or another country with a different scheme. Choosing to remain a citizen is tacit consent. You still have every bit of freedom- but there are consequences. this is precisely it. complaining about citizenship is like complaining about being born. you should rejoice in it. you belong somewhere. but if you are the sort of miserable person that can't rejoice anything that is given to you, you should move along, so as to not bring down the rest of us. we have work to do.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2013 23:02:07 GMT -5
The only problem I have with it is that to survive in the system you are forced to join the wage economy as all of the land and natural resources have been gobbled up under the guise of private property rights (which only exist because of the social contract) and public use. One cannot just pick out a plot of land and sustain themselves- so in that sense no one is free- well except for picking out one of those uninhabited islands and moving there. it may surprise some people to learn that this conception of private property is totally the opposite of that of Adam Smith. Adam Smith believed that private property could only be privately owned to the degree it was privately created. we are talking about the father of capitalism here, folks. he thought land should be strictly public, and that resources should be 100% publicly held, and governed. our thinking has evolved quite a bit from that liberal ideal.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2013 23:04:03 GMT -5
You may not be able to get free land in the US since Alaska stopped the homestead act in 1988. With all the repossessions out there right now you may be able to pick up some land "dirt" cheap.. You will still need a small source of income to pay those pesky property taxes.. i have paid less in taxes on a % basis pretty much every year of my working life. the only reason i pay more now than i did when i had my first job in 1978 is that i am making about 15x as much as i did then.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Sept 18, 2013 23:06:44 GMT -5
No shit- complaining about being a US citizen and the oppressive government is looking a gift horse in the mouth. Be happy your ass wasn't born in (insert long list of horrible countries). They would shoot you for complaining about it on a message board- that is of course if you somehow had electricity and a computer, or even internet access, that wasn't monitored.
Love how people that do well in this country start complaining about it at some point when they have nothing at all to complain about. They are in that position because of this country, not in spite of it as they think.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2013 23:06:58 GMT -5
I agree 100%. Being born on this planet one should be entitled to a share of everything- land, water, resources, etc. It should not matter one damn bit what someone's relative claimed as theirs. That problem has been fought over forever- and we still have an aristocracy- just one based on wealth. And sure to upset PBP- the system he hates so much is the only thing keeping that in place. I think it is just some anti-government mental masturbation on his part. it might be like the "liberal media bias" meme- designed to limit debate, rather than to actually alert anyone to a problem.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2013 23:09:11 GMT -5
No shit- complaining about being a US citizen and the oppressive government is looking a gift horse in the mouth. Be happy your ass wasn't born in (insert long list of horrible countries). They would shoot you for complaining about it on a message board- that is of course if you somehow had electricity and a computer, or even internet access, that wasn't monitored. Love how people that do well in this country start complaining about it at some point when they have nothing at all to complain about. They are in that position because of this country, not in spite of it as they think. most people (i really mean that- MOST) are so far down Maslow's ladder that they are worrying about where their next meal comes from. sitting around and discussing the finer aspects of philosophy and politics is so beyond their daily fare that it is utterly unimaginable. not to mention the education that it takes to type sensibly. we are really spoiled here, and have no appreciation for it whatsoever. shameful.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Sept 18, 2013 23:21:40 GMT -5
The only problem I have with it is that to survive in the system you are forced to join the wage economy as all of the land and natural resources have been gobbled up under the guise of private property rights (which only exist because of the social contract) and public use. One cannot just pick out a plot of land and sustain themselves- so in that sense no one is free- well except for picking out one of those uninhabited islands and moving there. it may surprise some people to learn that this conception of private property is totally the opposite of that of Adam Smith. Adam Smith believed that private property could only be privately owned to the degree it was privately created. we are talking about the father of capitalism here, folks. he thought land should be strictly public, and that resources should be 100% publicly held, and governed. our thinking has evolved quite a bit from that liberal ideal. It goes straight to my particular position. I consider myself libertarian left-ish. I agree that private property happens and with the notion that merging labor into property can do that. But- drawing lines on a map, or even more to the point- rightfully obtaining private property by proper use of land as in a farm or other endeavor- in no way entitles the owner of that land to oil/gas/minerals/etc. that may lie beneath. To me that is owned by all of us- same with air and water. And I support the idea that one is only entitled to the land they can and do use- just having a title and using the government to exclude others is bullshit. Take some real estate crook- like a bank- that sits on foreclosed property- to me there is a point- use it or lose it.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Sept 18, 2013 23:38:06 GMT -5
No shit- complaining about being a US citizen and the oppressive government is looking a gift horse in the mouth. Be happy your ass wasn't born in (insert long list of horrible countries). They would shoot you for complaining about it on a message board- that is of course if you somehow had electricity and a computer, or even internet access, that wasn't monitored. Love how people that do well in this country start complaining about it at some point when they have nothing at all to complain about. They are in that position because of this country, not in spite of it as they think. most people (i really mean that- MOST) are so far down Maslow's ladder that they are worrying about where their next meal comes from. sitting around and discussing the finer aspects of philosophy and politics is so beyond their daily fare that it is utterly unimaginable. not to mention the education that it takes to type sensibly. we are really spoiled here, and have no appreciation for it whatsoever. shameful. You are so right- not one day goes by I do not recognize how fortunate I am just being a middle class Joe in America. But take these creeps that think they did it all themselves- by their bootstraps. They didn't. If Steve Jobs was born in Cambodia he would be a really good rice farmer. Rush and company would be in poverty and jailed/shot for complaining. Trump would have only inherited a grass hut and went nowhere. That's what Obama was really saying with the 'you didn't build it' comment. It is just a fact- being an American citizen helped you a great deal. I don't understand how people can complain about it- please show me the better country to be born in where you can do better. Since universal healthcare is so oppressive to these folks all that leaves are third world countries- so where is the paradise? The capitalists' Eden? I am back to the uninhabited island I encourage the move.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Sept 19, 2013 7:28:19 GMT -5
I suppose there is a social contract, in the USA, in Canada, in Mexico, in North Korea, in Syria. It is just a difference in degree on how many rights have been given up. But that doesn't make it a legitimate contract, since you have no choice but to accept it, because the only alternative is to leave, you are under extreme duress when accepting the contract. Not in N Korea- there is no choice at all in a dictatorship. In the US the 'contract' can be modified as needed- and is. How is it duress? One can either try and change the terms, accept them, or go somewhere else and try their luck. Can't do that in NK. Both here and N korea the way out of the contract is to leave, by staying you accept it. It may be harder to leave NK, but you can, it is a matter of degrees. The reason I say it is not a legitimate contract is because since the only way out is leaving that is unreasonable; that puts too much pressure to accept the contract because leaving is very difficult here and even harder in NK. It is wrong to say that you tacitly accept the contract by staying, even if you explicitly deny it. The only way the contract 'works' is if you accept that the Government owns everything. If you went to your neighbors home and he said you had to wear only red colored clothing or leave you would accept it because he owns the house, however, if he came to your house and told you that you had to wear only red, you would tell him to beat feat it is your home.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 19, 2013 7:32:26 GMT -5
In this instance I say that real would mean that all parts of the definition are true. To me this seems to have 4 parts. 1. individuals have consented 2. they surrender some of their freedom 3. they submit to the authority 4. they get protection of their remaining rights Of those I would say only 2 & 3 are true Pretty much. Let's look at the necessary elements for a contract- just to see if it could even be true in the abstract: 1. Offer 2. Acceptance 3. Intention to be bound 4. Consideration There's really no such thing as a "social contract". The phrase is a contrivance of language to make it sound as though the status quo is a mutually agreed upon, mutually beneficial, and unalterable binding arrangement. The trouble with that is the philosophical foundation of the United States, The Declaration of Independence, did something extraordinary: it laid out both the legal AND the moral cause for separation. This was, in spite of arguments, machinations, and stretching the bounds of even the most abstract conceptions of human liberty, the first time in human history that a people fought not to establish a new throne, but to abolish the throne in favor of self government. It is true that over the centuries leading up to our revolution, the philosophical foundation was laid, but our Declaration is the first execution of it. Now, our revolution was the first national or collective declaration of independence. What remains to be seen is if someplace in the world individuals can emancipate themselves from the chains of government and break those political bands?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 19, 2013 7:37:09 GMT -5
The "go somewhere else" argument is a particularly offensive argument to me. The natural question is: If I am free and sovereign as an individual, why should I not be free and sovereign where I stand? And you can shove your "services" argument where the sun doesn't shine. If you're stupid enough to come over to my house and mow my lawn, and stand watch on the front porch by night- good for you. But do not think you are entitled to payment for such services. We have no contract. There is no agreement. You did not offer, I did not accept, and neither of us agreed to be legally bound- least of all you, who if you're the government will just raise the price, do a shitty job, and threaten to kill me if I don't pay.
Government, fundamentally, is a protection racket. It's a gang that comes up to otherwise free people, puts a gun to their head and states that they are citizens, or legal residents, or illegal- and that they must pay, and pay, and pay or be put into prison.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:03:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2013 8:45:15 GMT -5
I suppose there is a social contract, in the USA, in Canada, in Mexico, in North Korea, in Syria. It is just a difference in degree on how many rights have been given up. But that doesn't make it a legitimate contract, since you have no choice but to accept it, because the only alternative is to leave, you are under extreme duress when accepting the contract. it is actually a really dumb question- because, seriously, government's can't exist without the social contract. so what the question REALLY asks is "do governments exist", and the answer is, pretty obviously, yes. legitimacy is a matter for discussion. i would say that any government that has free and fair elections and open emigration is de-facto legitimate. Of course governments can and do exist without a social contract. People recognise this about dictatorships. It can be true no matter which model of government the powers that be impose.
|
|