Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2013 9:03:55 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.
So that's one of your sarcastic posts right?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2013 9:06:01 GMT -5
I'm not sure how I feel about the fact that Paul seems to hold the closest views to my own. We have come totally different conclusions with the info presented, but our analysis is eerily similar.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 19, 2013 10:33:35 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. Except no one owns any land. It is all rented...from government. Now most of government is wealthy, so I supppose if you loo at it that way, what you say above makes sense
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 19, 2013 10:37:13 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. Yeah, just as ridiculous as people complaining that others have more than them...just be thankful for what you do have, don't worry about what others have.
|
|
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 19, 2013 10:45:45 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. I don't think Hobbes and Rousseau were quite imagining the government would come to your house and mow your lawn. Maintaining an army, issuing a stable currency, providing police, courts, and prisons were more the issues du jour. I realize the "all" of Paul is that government has gone overboard (and I agree with you) but be reasonable in your opposition. As individuals, we lack the means to administrate even a tenth of the services that government provides. There must exist a national administration to undertake projects like common currency issuance, a national army, a securities exchange commission, interstate transportation, national communications standards and infrastructure, unified diplomacy, and a hundred others. Projects where private ad hoc solutions are either impossible or disaster-prone. You're basically looking at a sick patient and suggesting the best course of treatment is to execute him.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 19, 2013 10:54:17 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. Pretty harsh, but many of the points are valid People like to use the term social contract to eschew forcibly confiscating the fruits of people's labors. They like to make it sound like taxes are a voluntary transaction between two parties. The problem arises as to what happens if someone refuses to pay. First, they are sent a notice to pay. If they don't, they are sent a summons to court. If they don't show up, they are summarily rules against and a forced garnishment/lien is issued. If the payments still aren't made, and the person refuses to show up to the courthouse, the government stormtroopers are sent to "collect" the individual and put them in a locked cage. If the person still refuses to "cooperate" they are put away into a fortified detention center with armed guards. This does not sound to me like any sort of cooperative/voluntary contract between two parties. It sounds a lot more like a mafia "giving an offer you can't refuse" type of situation. In that respect, a forceful offer and bullied acceptance is not a valid contract.
|
|
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 19, 2013 11:16:35 GMT -5
It's possible for a party (an ancestor, for example) to enter into a contract on our behalf.
Parenting can easily be construed as a contract between parents and offspring.
Adopting a pet is also a form of contract, although the animal cannot legally consent, has no concept of ownership, and in any case has no say on where or how it lives.
One could reasonably argue that our forebears entered into the contract on our behalf, pledging to teach us to honour it so long as the counterparty (the state) was not found in breach of their own responsibilities.
Argue, therefore, that the government is in breach of contract, but don't call the contract null and void simply because its establishment predates us.
|
|
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 19, 2013 11:24:04 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. Except no one owns any land. It is all rented...from government. Now most of government is wealthy, so I supppose if you loo at it that way, what you say above makes sense that is true. but he was talking about mineral rights, which are automatically granted to the lessor.
|
|
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 19, 2013 11:25:07 GMT -5
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. sorry, did i need to say "legitimate governments"?People recognise this about dictatorships. It can be true no matter which model of government the powers that be impose. not following that last sentence.
|
|
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 19, 2013 11:25:47 GMT -5
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.
So that's one of your sarcastic posts right? no. but when i said "most people" i was referring to the world, not the US.
|
|
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 19, 2013 11:27:08 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. Yeah, just as ridiculous as people complaining that others have more than them...just be thankful for what you do have, don't worry about what others have. why? if i want to worry, that is my business. if we, as a country want to worry, that is OUR business. yes?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 19, 2013 11:34:20 GMT -5
It's possible for a party (an ancestor, for example) to enter into a contract on our behalf. Parenting can easily be construed as a contract between parents and offspring. Adopting a pet is also a form of contract, although the animal cannot legally consent, has no concept of ownership, and in any case has no say on where or how it lives. One could reasonably argue that our forebears entered into the contract on our behalf, pledging to teach us to honour it so long as the counterparty (the state) was not found in breach of their own responsibilities. Argue, therefore, that the government is in breach of contract, but don't call the contract null and void simply because its establishment predates us. I don't buy that premise basically from the fact that in order for that contract to be valid, it would need to stay constant. Otherwise, once the contract changes, so do the terms, IMO. This means a new agreement would need to be reached, but I don't believe this happened.
|
|
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 19, 2013 11:37:02 GMT -5
The "go somewhere else" argument is a particularly offensive argument to me. the whining and bitching about owning up to your feduciary responsibility for your representative government is particularly offensive to ME. but i can see why you would be offended for not being allowed to stand there and say "i have no alternative" when, in fact, you DO. you can leave. it is VERY different than slavery because of that (the mobility issue was discussed on the other thread).
now, in addition to MOVING ON, which you find so offensive, you have two other alternatives: petition the government for grievances, or gather together 50% of the voters, along with yourself, and elect people that represent your view that people should pay no income taxes.
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. nobody is going to threaten to kill you, Paul. where do you get this stuff?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. bullshit. there is no threat of violence whatsoever. if you choose to live here, then you have to pay for YOUR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT. it is the same no matter where you go (and is, in fact, in most cases, MORE expensive than here). you can sit there and whine like a petulant child, you can pony up for it, you can move on, or you can change it. pick one of the above- but please stop equating the social contract with robbery. in a representative government, it is a necessity- which is why the power to tax is in the constitution.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2013 11:37:07 GMT -5
Of course governments can and do exist without a social contract. sorry, did i need to say "legitimate governments"?People recognise this about dictatorships. It can be true no matter which model of government the powers that be impose. not following that last sentence. Legitimate government the way you are using it is subjective. Whichever government is running the show is the government. A dictatorship is a government. People recognise that there is no social contract there. As long as the government has the power to enforce it's will it can exist without even pretending to have a social contract.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 19, 2013 11:38:34 GMT -5
Yeah, just as ridiculous as people complaining that others have more than them...just be thankful for what you do have, don't worry about what others have. why? if i want to worry, that is my business. if we, as a country want to worry, that is OUR business. yes? Fine, as long as people are also allowed to complain about oppressive government, yes? Saying that its ridiculous to complain about government when there are worse governments is akin to when Obama defended his poor stimulus results by saying, "sure unemployment is still over 8%, but it's not 15%!"
|
|
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 19, 2013 11:44:46 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. I don't think Hobbes and Rousseau were quite imagining the government would come to your house and mow your lawn. Maintaining an army, issuing a stable currency, providing police, courts, and prisons were more the issues du jour. I realize the "all" of Paul is that government has gone overboard (and I agree with you) but be reasonable in your opposition. As individuals, we lack the means to administrate even a tenth of the services that government provides. There must exist a national administration to undertake projects like common currency issuance, a national army, a securities exchange commission, interstate transportation, national communications standards and infrastructure, unified diplomacy, and a hundred others. Projects where private ad hoc solutions are either impossible or disaster-prone. You're basically looking at a sick patient and suggesting the best course of treatment is to execute him. thank you, Virgil. i think fundamentally, Paul and i want the same thing: a smaller government. that is NOT the same thing as NO government. and if there is ANY government, there HAS to be a social contract. is this the government we would all want, if we were creating it? doubtful. we inherited, with all of it's scars and defects. it is in some ways better than the one we formed in 1789, and in some ways worse. on the balance, i don't think the bargain is much different. bitching about it is like bitching about your genes.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 19, 2013 11:47:07 GMT -5
I don't think Hobbes and Rousseau were quite imagining the government would come to your house and mow your lawn. Maintaining an army, issuing a stable currency, providing police, courts, and prisons were more the issues du jour. I realize the "all" of Paul is that government has gone overboard (and I agree with you) but be reasonable in your opposition. As individuals, we lack the means to administrate even a tenth of the services that government provides. There must exist a national administration to undertake projects like common currency issuance, a national army, a securities exchange commission, interstate transportation, national communications standards and infrastructure, unified diplomacy, and a hundred others. Projects where private ad hoc solutions are either impossible or disaster-prone. You're basically looking at a sick patient and suggesting the best course of treatment is to execute him. thank you, Virgil. i think fundamentally, Paul and i want the same thing: a smaller government. that is NOT the same thing as NO government. and if there is ANY government, there HAS to be a social contract. is this the government we would all want, if we were creating it? doubtful. we inherited, with all of it's scars and defects. it is in some ways better than the one we formed in 1789, and in some ways worse. on the balance, i don't think the bargain is much different. bitching about it is like bitching about your genes.What's wrong with that? I have allergies and GERD...darn right I bitch about it!
|
|
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 19, 2013 11:49:02 GMT -5
It's possible for a party (an ancestor, for example) to enter into a contract on our behalf. Parenting can easily be construed as a contract between parents and offspring. Adopting a pet is also a form of contract, although the animal cannot legally consent, has no concept of ownership, and in any case has no say on where or how it lives. One could reasonably argue that our forebears entered into the contract on our behalf, pledging to teach us to honour it so long as the counterparty (the state) was not found in breach of their own responsibilities. Argue, therefore, that the government is in breach of contract, but don't call the contract null and void simply because its establishment predates us. again, well put. the definition of "social contract" allows for tacit consent. what that means is that if you live here, and you don't protest by filing grievances, or by renouncing your citizenship, it is ASSUMED that you agree with how things are done here, and have decided to participate in this experiment we call citizenship. until you start working, the sacrifices are absolutely minimal. you basically have a free ride. and you can use that time to formulate and opinion of whether you want to stay or go. use it wisely. but if you decide to stay, you are on the boat with the rest of us.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2013 11:49:46 GMT -5
There are too many places that the ability to move is mentioned for me to pick one quote...anyway...historically if you did not like the "social contract" of your country you could leave and go to the New World, pick a piece of land and settle in. That is just not possible now. You need get permission to enter whichever place you choose and you need to buy your space there. At best you get to pick the least offensive slave master. And that option is only open to those that can access the resources to do so.
Actually there is a good analogy for all of you that say if you don't like it just move. Some of you are really annoyed that many Mexicans have done just that, leaving Mexico for the States. You keep trying to figure out ways to send them back.
|
|
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 19, 2013 11:51:29 GMT -5
not following that last sentence. Legitimate government the way you are using it is subjective. i don't think so. i think there is an absolute standard for legitimacy. want me to start a thread on it?Whichever government is running the show is the government. A dictatorship is a government. People recognise that there is no social contract there. As long as the government has the power to enforce it's will it can exist without even pretending to have a social contract. a government that does not have the tacit OR explicit consent of it's citizens is illegitimate. such governments can only be held in place by force. do you believe, as Paul does, that there is a "gun to your head"?
|
|
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 19, 2013 11:53:40 GMT -5
why? if i want to worry, that is my business. if we, as a country want to worry, that is OUR business. yes? Fine, as long as people are also allowed to complain about oppressive government, yes? you can complain about it all you like. you can also wear a tin foil hat, and pray to moldy carrots. it is a free country.
|
|
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 19, 2013 11:55:42 GMT -5
There are too many places that the ability to move is mentioned for me to pick one quote...anyway...historically if you did not like the "social contract" of your country you could leave and go to the New World, pick a piece of land and settle in. That is just not possible now. You need get permission to enter whichever place you choose and you need to buy your space there. At best you get to pick the least offensive slave master. And that option is only open to those that can access the resources to do so. if you view tacit consent as slavery, then that is absolutely true. incidentally, this is precisely my complaint about scut work. you can choose your master, but you can only become one through ownership.Actually there is a good analogy for all of you that say if you don't like it just move. Some of you are really annoyed that many Mexicans have done just that, leaving Mexico for the States. You keep trying to figure out ways to send them back. hahaha. indeed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2013 11:56:43 GMT -5
Legitimate government the way you are using it is subjective. i don't think so. i think there is an absolute standard for legitimacy. want me to start a thread on it?Whichever government is running the show is the government. A dictatorship is a government. People recognise that there is no social contract there. As long as the government has the power to enforce it's will it can exist without even pretending to have a social contract. a government that does not have the tacit OR explicit consent of it's citizens is illegitimate. such governments can only be held in place by force. do you believe, as Paul does, that there is a "gun to your head"? Says who? If they run the show they are the government until they step down or are overthrown. I'm going to repeat that Paul and I are coming to very different conclusions. My concerns are focussed on why low income individuals would not b thrilled with this arrangement. I have no sympathy for Paul attempting to avoid 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 19, 2013 11:57:05 GMT -5
thank you, Virgil. i think fundamentally, Paul and i want the same thing: a smaller government. that is NOT the same thing as NO government. and if there is ANY government, there HAS to be a social contract. is this the government we would all want, if we were creating it? doubtful. we inherited, with all of it's scars and defects. it is in some ways better than the one we formed in 1789, and in some ways worse. on the balance, i don't think the bargain is much different. bitching about it is like bitching about your genes.What's wrong with that? I have allergies and GERD...darn right I bitch about it! nothing is "wrong" with it, other than the futility of it.
|
|
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 19, 2013 12:01:43 GMT -5
a government that does not have the tacit OR explicit consent of it's citizens is illegitimate. such governments can only be held in place by force. do you believe, as Paul does, that there is a "gun to your head"? Says who? says every moral and political philosopher of any worth since the enlightenment. who DOESN'T say it?If they run the show they are the government until they step down or are overthrown. no, in a representative government, citizens run the show. there is no "force" in that system whatsoever.I'm going to repeat that Paul and I are coming to very different conclusions. My concerns are focussed on why low income individuals would not b thrilled with this arrangement. i can tell you why: because their government really doesn't represent their interests. that is the simplest way of putting it. and this is why (according to not only me, but MANY who have studied this) voter participation rates are highest among "the political class" (predominantly high earning, college educated folk), and lowest among the "poor" (predominantly low income, low education folk). they are simply less invested in the system, and less likely to see it working for their benefit, and representing their views. and they are absolutely right. viewed from this standpoint, not participating in the political system is a rational choice.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 19, 2013 12:07:35 GMT -5
It's possible for a party (an ancestor, for example) to enter into a contract on our behalf. Parenting can easily be construed as a contract between parents and offspring. Adopting a pet is also a form of contract, although the animal cannot legally consent, has no concept of ownership, and in any case has no say on where or how it lives. One could reasonably argue that our forebears entered into the contract on our behalf, pledging to teach us to honour it so long as the counterparty (the state) was not found in breach of their own responsibilities. Argue, therefore, that the government is in breach of contract, but don't call the contract null and void simply because its establishment predates us. again, well put. the definition of "social contract" allows for tacit consent. what that means is that if you live here, and you don't protest by filing grievances, or by renouncing your citizenship, it is ASSUMED that you agree with how things are done here, and have decided to participate in this experiment we call citizenship. until you start working, the sacrifices are absolutely minimal. you basically have a free ride. and you can use that time to formulate and opinion of whether you want to stay or go. use it wisely. but if you decide to stay, you are on the boat with the rest of us. But up above (when referring to mineral rights, etc) having those types of contracts continue from ancestral ownership is seen as bad...so why is it good for one but not the other?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 19, 2013 12:11:48 GMT -5
Says who? says every moral and political philosopher of any worth since the enlightenment. who DOESN'T say it?If they run the show they are the government until they step down or are overthrown. no, in a representative government, citizens run the show. there is no "force" in that system whatsoever.I'm going to repeat that Paul and I are coming to very different conclusions. My concerns are focussed on why low income individuals would not b thrilled with this arrangement. i can tell you why: because their government really doesn't represent their interests. that is the simplest way of putting it. and this is why (according to not only me, but MANY who have studied this) voter participation rates are highest among "the political class" (predominantly high earning, college educated folk), and lowest among the "poor" (predominantly low income, low education folk). they are simply less invested in the system, and less likely to see it working for their benefit, and representing their views. and they are absolutely right. viewed from this standpoint, not participating in the political system is a rational choice. Actually, the system does a hell of lot more for the poor than it does the middle class...an entire political party panders to the poor on a daily basis. So, in that respect, the middle class should be the ones disenfranchised (and many are, I'm sure) rather than the poor.
|
|
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 19, 2013 12:11:52 GMT -5
again, well put. the definition of "social contract" allows for tacit consent. what that means is that if you live here, and you don't protest by filing grievances, or by renouncing your citizenship, it is ASSUMED that you agree with how things are done here, and have decided to participate in this experiment we call citizenship. until you start working, the sacrifices are absolutely minimal. you basically have a free ride. and you can use that time to formulate and opinion of whether you want to stay or go. use it wisely. but if you decide to stay, you are on the boat with the rest of us. But up above (when referring to mineral rights, etc) having those types of contracts continue from ancestral ownership is seen as bad...so why is it good for one but not the other? i am not following you. are you arguing that this planet is not part of our common heritage?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 0:20:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2013 12:14:55 GMT -5
Says who? says every moral and political philosopher of any worth since the enlightenment. who DOESN'T say it?If they run the show they are the government until they step down or are overthrown. no, in a representative government, citizens run the show. there is no "force" in that system whatsoever.I'm going to repeat that Paul and I are coming to very different conclusions. My concerns are focussed on why low income individuals would not b thrilled with this arrangement. i can tell you why: because their government really doesn't represent their interests. that is the simplest way of putting it. and this is why (according to not only me, but MANY who have studied this) voter participation rates are highest among "the political class" (predominantly high earning, college educated folk), and lowest among the "poor" (predominantly low income, low education folk). they are simply less invested in the system, and less likely to see it working for their benefit, and representing their views. and they are absolutely right. viewed from this standpoint, not participating in the political system is a rational choice. Wouldn't failure to vote not only denote a lack of tacit approval but be an indication of disaproval? And therefore support what I have been saying about there being no social contract AND challenge your claim of legitimacy for this government?
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 19, 2013 12:20:48 GMT -5
But up above (when referring to mineral rights, etc) having those types of contracts continue from ancestral ownership is seen as bad...so why is it good for one but not the other? i am not following you. are you arguing that this planet is not part of our common heritage? I'm saying this planet was bought and paid for years ago...complaining about that is futility We have zero - absolutely zero - say on land in this country. It was conquered and put in the coffers to be chopped up and taxed by bureaucrats long ago. Once that happened, any semblance of "ownership" or "heritage" died with it. You can't go anywhere in this world and sit without some bureaucrat kicking you out or expecting to be given something for it. Even if you found such a place, it would only be a matter of time before it was confiscated from you...
|
|