Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:54:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2013 14:33:33 GMT -5
I invite those of you confused by the distinction between can and does to consider the emoluments of the phrase: you can go to Hell.
I say that without any animus at all, I assure you. It's purely a linguistic exercise, not at all a reflection of my sentiment.
Similarly, those who are confusing "the Contract" with some specific version of itself in some jurisdiction: we really need to play some Nomic.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:54:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2013 14:35:21 GMT -5
Which is realpolitik, but not at all how the social contractarians for the most part would express it. Stalin agrees, however: "power issues from the mouth of a gun."
|
|
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 20, 2013 14:39:38 GMT -5
Which is realpolitik, but not at all how the social contractarians for the most part would express it. Stalin agrees, however: "power issues from the mouth of a gun." power issues a lot of ways. consent and cooperation is one. the mouth of the gun is another. only an utterly illegitimate government will get the two backwards.
|
|
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 20, 2013 14:42:51 GMT -5
i am against it- in a time of recession. otherwise, i am absolutely for it. technically we've been in recession for decades... as with most other things, you seem to have a unique definition of recession. i can't fathom what it might be, so would you care to articulate it?
|
|
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 20, 2013 15:13:32 GMT -5
I invite those of you confused by the distinction between can and does to consider the emoluments of the phrase: you can go to Hell.
I say that without any animus at all, I assure you. It's purely a linguistic exercise, not at all a reflection of my sentiment.
Similarly, those who are confusing "the Contract" with some specific version of itself in some jurisdiction: we really need to play some Nomic.
I'll bite, if two or three more will. It sounds like fun. I read the Metamagical Themas ages ago while I was growing up, and it looks like Nomic was proposed by the same fellow. I can set up a dice app on the Games sub-board to handle rolling dice randomly. And I'm sure that ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ would enjoy playing. Hence we have three. djAdvocate, deminmaine, billisonboard, and @justaposter, would you be on board? We'd set it up so that the minimum commitment would simply be one post a day (either a rule change proposal on days where it's your turn, or a vote on a proposal every other day), with a rider that a neutral party like moon/Laura or mmhmm would stand in to vote for anyone who couldn't make it on a given day. Anyone else reading this, you're more than welcome to opt in too. The rules (or... meta-rules, I guess we might say) are found here. How about it? I'll even include a Mojo-to-English dictionary to translate expressions like "coincidentia oppositorum" and "emoluments" (last seen in print in the 1767 volume Ye Olde Indexe of Obscuur Wordes) in Mojo's proposals. As an aside: "emolument" is defined by M-W as "A salary, fee, or profit from employment or office." A paycheque, basically. So even as a stand-in for "intricacies" I don't see how it makes sense. Unless your point is that DJ can go to hell for his paycheque... which is kind of funny, now that I think about it.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Sept 20, 2013 16:39:08 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 If we're going by this definition, I concur. What I see now, is that individuals are not consenting, but are forced to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to authority. In return, our current system of government does not protect our remaining rights. So in the strict sense, I don't think we have a social contract in place at this time. Furthermore, a contract implies that two parties negotiate as equals, and both have something to gain and lose. A lone citizen is not an equal party in a contract with his government. Furthermore, the rules of the contract were put into place before the citizen was born.
|
|
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 20, 2013 17:14:22 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 If we're going by this definition, I concur. What I see now, is that individuals are not consenting, but are forced to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to authority. whoa there cowboy. are you in jail? does your wife lock you up? do you have a passport? do you have $1,000 or more to your name. in that case, nobody is forcing you to do ANYTHING. you can go online, and buy a ticket from any major airport to Panama City, and take the train to your final destination from there. no police will come after you. nor will the FBI. you are free to go, with our blessing. and you will never more have to "submit to our tyranny". otherwise, you can suck it up, and realize that you are part of a representative government, and that your tormentor is none other than you, and either do something about it, or simply live with it. your choice. oh, or you can whine endlessly on bulletin boards, for what good it does you. have at 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 20, 2013 17:16:41 GMT -5
As an aside: "emolument" is defined by M-W as "A salary, fee, or profit from employment or office." A paycheque, basically. So even as a stand-in for "intricacies" I don't see how it makes sense. Unless your point is that DJ can go to hell for his paycheque... which is kind of funny, now that I think about it. you are only thinking about this now? the devil's bargain was discussed about 4 pages ago.
|
|
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 20, 2013 17:19:56 GMT -5
Furthermore, a contract implies that two parties negotiate as equals, and both have something to gain and lose. A lone citizen is not an equal party in a contract with his government. Furthermore, the rules of the contract were put into place before the citizen was born. the social contract is not a contract between individuals and their government. it is a contract between the electorate and the government. this is not the United States of McDonalds. you can't have it your way (unless your way is reflected in the majority, or is protected by the constitution, in instances where it is not reflected). you an have it OUR way, as Americans. or you can buy that ticket, and find someplace that suits you better. or are you saying you can't do better than this?
|
|
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 20, 2013 17:22:37 GMT -5
As an aside: "emolument" is defined by M-W as "A salary, fee, or profit from employment or office." A paycheque, basically. So even as a stand-in for "intricacies" I don't see how it makes sense. Unless your point is that DJ can go to hell for his paycheque... which is kind of funny, now that I think about it. you are only thinking about this now? the devil's bargain was discussed about 4 pages ago. Who cares about that now. Are you up for the game of Nomic?
|
|
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 20, 2013 17:25:09 GMT -5
you are only thinking about this now? the devil's bargain was discussed about 4 pages ago. Who cares about that now. Are you up for the game of Nomic? dude. i am afraid to open that thread. maybe later. i could get lost in there.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 20, 2013 17:28:49 GMT -5
I have no objection to acting as a fill-in for vote, if necessary, Virgil.
|
|
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 20, 2013 17:41:02 GMT -5
I have no objection to acting as a fill-in for vote, if necessary, Virgil. Thanks mmhmm.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Sept 20, 2013 18:03:35 GMT -5
Dj,
I thought we were having a philisophical discussion, not discussing what I personally do, will do, or believe. The question was "does a social contract exist?" Not "does a social contract exist, and do you, Phenoix, personally participate?"
Personally, I'm on this ship until the end.
My question for you is, how many freedoms does a electorite have to give up in order for the social contract, should one exist, to cease to exist?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 20, 2013 18:14:07 GMT -5
Seeing our friend compared to Noam Chomsky is...... rich.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:54:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2013 18:22:30 GMT -5
The Social Contract is illusory. The Golden Rule supercedes. Those that have the wealth have the real power... which can only be countered by UNITY among those that they would oppress. "Consent of the Governed" is "The American Experiment".
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,779
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Sept 20, 2013 19:09:22 GMT -5
Not really true. Think of all the contracts you've signed in the years you've been alive. How many have you and the other party actually created and negotiated from scratch? There are tons of contracts that are I believe called contracts of adhesion where one side crafts them and the other basically has the choice to sign or not sign. Your mortgage, your rental agreement, your CC agreement, buying car insurance, etc. All of these are contracts you are likely party to and the gain and loss is not equal.
|
|
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 20, 2013 20:46:47 GMT -5
don't exaggerate. this is not NK. and property taxes were among the very first taxes. without enforcement, people would simply not pay them. Exactly...which means the social contract is not as "accepted" as some believe it to be. no. it means that we are a nation of laws, and that laws require enforcement. otherwise you have no nation, no laws, and no government. anarchism is quaint, but it has never survived more than a few years on a large scale.It is only with coersion/threats that the social contract is kept in place. that is true for ALL contracts. without enforcement mechanisms, people get complacent about following them. that doesn't mean the contracts are invalid. it just means that people forget the value of them, and have other things on their minds.
|
|
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 20, 2013 20:50:03 GMT -5
Dj, I thought we were having a philisophical discussion, not discussing what I personally do, will do, or believe. The question was "does a social contract exist?" Not "does a social contract exist, and do you, Phenoix, personally participate?" Personally, I'm on this ship until the end. My question for you is, how many freedoms does a electorite have to give up in order for the social contract, should one exist, to cease to exist? the freedom to appoint representatives, of course. until we reach that point, we get the government we elect.
|
|
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 20, 2013 20:59:05 GMT -5
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! WRONG! dj asserts nothing of the sort. he asserts precisely the opposite. DJ asserts that you can opt out of the contract, he just doesn't particularly care that electing to do so will either find you floating on a tub in the middle of the Atlantic, or riddled with bullets. huh? where do you get this stuff? electing to do so, in my case, will find me sail-fishing in CR. i didn't know that Canada was that harsh.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 20, 2013 22:02:41 GMT -5
Of course Bill is on board. Thanks for asking.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:54:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2013 23:07:27 GMT -5
We have. We only get to choose between the options presented by the elite. No matter which one we elect they are controlled by the money men and enact laws in their favour.
I will watch the Nomic game and see if I can follow it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:54:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2013 23:15:07 GMT -5
Actually I was thinking more on the lines that the current social contract and it's rules is what allows you to accumulate property in the first place. You acquired what you have based on these rules. If you opt out, you completely opt out and would therefore forfeit what you have been allowed to accumulate. The same goes for your state. You don't get to take advantage of all the benefits and then whelch when it's time to pay up. I submit to you that the bolded portions are idealized versions of the truth. In fact, routinely, people at all levels of society opt out of social contracutal obligations. Fathers abandon children. Warren Buffett refuses to pay his tax bill. Lawmakers refuse even to debate bills that will be politically embarrassing. We drive by the homeless man, locking our doors lest he accost us. We keep the twenty we found lying on the floor of the department store. We spread gossip about our neighbor. We kill our faithless spouses. And some of us do so with impunity. There is a system. It is gameable. It is so, because it is a system. You cannot make a rule without making a loophole, and somebody will exploit that loophole. We should play Nomic sometime. I'll concede those points to you. I guess I was thinking more on the lines of Paul being able to borrow money to buy property that he charges someone else for either to rent or buy and then complaining about having to pay taxes on money he made with money that wasn't his. If he wants to opt out of paying the taxes he loses the benefits of borrowing the money. He's not a big enough player to get away with not paying taxes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:54:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2013 23:18:17 GMT -5
Furthermore, a contract implies that two parties negotiate as equals, and both have something to gain and lose. A lone citizen is not an equal party in a contract with his government. Furthermore, the rules of the contract were put into place before the citizen was born. the social contract is not a contract between individuals and their government. it is a contract between the electorate and the government. this is not the United States of McDonalds. you can't have it your way (unless your way is reflected in the majority, or is protected by the constitution, in instances where it is not reflected). you an have it OUR way, as Americans. or you can buy that ticket, and find someplace that suits you better. or are you saying you can't do better than this? The more we talk about this the more it occurs to me that "the government" is really just a beard for the elite. Democracy probably started off as a pure thing but the power mongers have long since infiltrated and corrupted 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 21, 2013 0:31:00 GMT -5
the social contract is not a contract between individuals and their government. it is a contract between the electorate and the government. this is not the United States of McDonalds. you can't have it your way (unless your way is reflected in the majority, or is protected by the constitution, in instances where it is not reflected). you an have it OUR way, as Americans. or you can buy that ticket, and find someplace that suits you better. or are you saying you can't do better than this? The more we talk about this the more it occurs to me that "the government" is really just a beard for the elite. Democracy probably started off as a pure thing but the power mongers have long since infiltrated and corrupted it. no, i don't think so. this whole thing was started by white male landowners for white male landowners. i think it is actually evolving, and becoming freer for everyone ELSE over time, due to the desperate, crazy, and often fatal attempts of people trying to pry liberty out of the hands of the elite. and it will keep going until everyone is free, and has the same rights, imo. of course, this is just how i think of things. i am sure there are others.
|
|
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 21, 2013 0:31:59 GMT -5
We have. We only get to choose between the options presented by the elite. No matter which one we elect they are controlled by the money men and enact laws in their favour. spot on, lb. seriously, i can tell you think a lot about this stuff. i commend you.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 21, 2013 11:53:22 GMT -5
The Social Contract is illusory. The Golden Rule supercedes. Those that have the wealth have the real power... which can only be countered by UNITY among those that they would oppress. "Consent of the Governed" is "The American Experiment". We don't have anything even resembling the consent of the governed any longer. There's no recourse for upholding and enforcing the Constitution. The war on drugs? Illegal and unConstitutional. Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? Department of Education? DEA, EPA, and you name it-- all illegal and unConstitutional. TSA fondling our junk- way unConstitutional. ObamaCare? Illegal. Completely unConstitutional... but, but, but ,but you say- we have a SCOTUS, and they have ruled, so that's it. Five people have the final say? This is 'consent of the governed?" Sorry, but f*&^ that.
|
|
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 21, 2013 12:00:37 GMT -5
The Social Contract is illusory. The Golden Rule supercedes. Those that have the wealth have the real power... which can only be countered by UNITY among those that they would oppress. "Consent of the Governed" is "The American Experiment". We don't have anything even resembling the consent of the governed any longer. if that were true, there would be a people's revolution, and elections would cease.There's no recourse for upholding and enforcing the Constitution. sure there is. it is called the SCOTUS. The war on drugs? Illegal and unConstitutional. Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? Department of Education? DEA, EPA, and you name it-- all illegal and unConstitutional. TSA fondling our junk- way unConstitutional. ObamaCare? Illegal. Completely unConstitutional... but, but, but ,but you say- we have a SCOTUS, and they have ruled, so that's it. Five people have the final say? This is 'consent of the governed?" no, it is not just (5) justices. most laws are not tested that way. but yes, those that ARE tested that way have to survive that way. but if you don't like that system, what alternative would you suggest?Sorry, but f*&^ that. again, what is the alternative? self-government? what does that look like?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:54:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2013 18:55:58 GMT -5
We don't have anything even resembling the consent of the governed any longer. if that were true, there would be a people's revolution, and elections would cease.There's no recourse for upholding and enforcing the Constitution. sure there is. it is called the SCOTUS. The war on drugs? Illegal and unConstitutional. Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? Department of Education? DEA, EPA, and you name it-- all illegal and unConstitutional. TSA fondling our junk- way unConstitutional. ObamaCare? Illegal. Completely unConstitutional... but, but, but ,but you say- we have a SCOTUS, and they have ruled, so that's it. Five people have the final say? This is 'consent of the governed?" no, it is not just (5) justices. most laws are not tested that way. but yes, those that ARE tested that way have to survive that way. but if you don't like that system, what alternative would you suggest?Sorry, but f*&^ that. again, what is the alternative? self-government? what does that look like? Syria? Somalia? Afghanistan? Without a large centalized government you end up ruled (and more-often-than-not oppressed) by warlords, gang leaders, tyrants, satraps and such. "The Big Fish Eat The Little Fish."
|
|
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 23, 2013 9:58:56 GMT -5
again, what is the alternative? self-government? what does that look like? Syria? Somalia? Afghanistan? Without a large centalized government you end up ruled (and more-often-than-not oppressed) by warlords, gang leaders, tyrants, satraps and such. "The Big Fish Eat The Little Fish." right. a feudal society. not a libertarian utopia. i find it amazing that the same people that decry the greed and avarice of others seem to think that we would all get together and sing "koobaya" once the scourge of government was vanquished.
|
|