The Social Contract: Real or Fiction?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

So, are Native Americans bound by the "social contract".  People can just show up, put a line around you, call it a state, or a nation, and you're fucked?  Is that how it goes?  Watching libs argue their way out of this one should be fun.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 22, 2013 18:55:58 GMT -5 @patiencetried said:

Sept 21, 2013 12:00:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

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."

That's a big bunch of hooey.  And it's not an intellectual argument- it's a threat.  It's the old protection racket language yet again.

EDIT- this is important- nevermind the ominous predictions of what "might" happen without the "social contract".  Make the intellectual argument for government.  I'll tell you what- you can't.  I know where the argument for government comes from, and none of you lefties are gonna wanna go there.  There's really no moral, or intellectual underpinning for government.  

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 20, 2013 23:18:17 GMT -5 @justaposter said:

Sept 20, 2013 17:19:56 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

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.

Wait- you posted something and *I* liked it AND mmhmm liked it, too?!? We're not going to start with a bunch of agreeing with one another again, are we?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 23, 2013 20:49:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

So, are Native Americans bound by the "social contract".  People can just show up, put a line around you, call it a state, or a nation, and you're fucked?  Is that how it goes?  Watching libs argue their way out of this one should be fun.

how we treated the Indians was no better than slavery, and akin to genocide.  they were treated as the enemy: something that needed to be contained.  they were never welcome in this nation, and they were never really franchised until it is too late.  ditto for Hawaii, the US Territories, and the places we colonized during the Spanish American war.  they had no say, and they were robbed at gunpoint.

victims of conquest have no rights other than those granted by the conquestor.  is that how you see yourself, Paul?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 23, 2013 20:48:01 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

your signature is not required.  the fact that you are still here is all that is required.  fly away, little crow.

edit: you argument fails at so many levels, Paul.  natural law is also unwritten, and unsigned.  the holy covenant is unsigned.  there are a thousand examples of tacit consent.  you can reject all of them, along with 350 years of accepted and uncontroversial political philosophy if you like.  at your own peril, of course.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 23, 2013 20:51:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sept 22, 2013 18:55:58 GMT -5 @patiencetried said:

 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."

That's a big bunch of hooey.  And it's not an intellectual argument- it's a threat. 

how so?

It's the old protection racket language yet again..  

and why shouldn't it be?  why should the people not have the right to create institutions which defend those that have little or no power against those that have a great deal of it?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 23, 2013 21:04:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 23, 2013 20:49:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

So, are Native Americans bound by the "social contract".  People can just show up, put a line around you, call it a state, or a nation, and you're fucked?  Is that how it goes?  Watching libs argue their way out of this one should be fun.

how we treated the Indians was no better than slavery, and akin to genocide.  they were treated as the enemy: something that needed to be contained.  they were never welcome in this nation, and they were never really franchised until it is too late.  ditto for Hawaii, the US Territories, and the places we colonized during the Spanish American war.  they had no say, and they were robbed at gunpoint.

victims of conquest have no rights other than those granted by the conquestor.  is that how you see yourself, Paul?

Well, I was born with imaginary lines drawn around me, and bound to a fictitious "social contract", so I guess if the shoe fits....

[djAdvocate]

Sept 23, 2013 21:21:21 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sept 23, 2013 21:04:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

how we treated the Indians was no better than slavery, and akin to genocide.  they were treated as the enemy: something that needed to be contained.  they were never welcome in this nation, and they were never really franchised until it is too late.  ditto for Hawaii, the US Territories, and the places we colonized during the Spanish American war.  they had no say, and they were robbed at gunpoint.

victims of conquest have no rights other than those granted by the conquestor.  is that how you see yourself, Paul?

Well, I was born with imaginary lines drawn around me, and bound to a fictitious "social contract", so I guess if the shoe fits....

odd that you took the opposite POV on the slavery thread.  did the wind shift?

edit:  you were a "taker" before you were (18), in all likelihood.  you should have got out while the getting was good.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 23, 2013 21:05:33 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 23, 2013 20:48:01 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

your signature is not required.  the fact that you are still here is all that is required.  fly away, little crow.

edit: you argument fails at so many levels, Paul.  natural law is also unwritten, and unsigned.  the holy covenant is unsigned.  there are a thousand examples of tacit consent.  you can reject all of them, along with 350 years of accepted and uncontroversial political philosophy if you like.  at your own peril, of course.

A calendar is not an argument.  Make it 10,000 years- you still have not made the case.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 23, 2013 21:22:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Sept 23, 2013 21:21:21 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Well, I was born with imaginary lines drawn around me, and bound to a fictitious "social contract", so I guess if the shoe fits....

odd that you took the opposite POV on the slavery thread.  did the wind shift?

No, I drew the distinction between slavery and scut work.  I stayed focused on the argument at hand.  I am happy to have the broader philosophical discussion here, though.  This thread is NOT stupid.  If you're not sure- just ask me.  I'll tell you: I approve.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 23, 2013 21:22:36 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sept 23, 2013 21:05:33 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

your signature is not required.  the fact that you are still here is all that is required.  fly away, little crow.

edit: you argument fails at so many levels, Paul.  natural law is also unwritten, and unsigned.  the holy covenant is unsigned.  there are a thousand examples of tacit consent.  you can reject all of them, along with 350 years of accepted and uncontroversial political philosophy if you like.  at your own peril, of course.

A calendar is not an argument.  Make it 10,000 years- you still have not made the case.

red herring.  "calendar" had nothing to do with the argument.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 23, 2013 21:23:55 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sept 23, 2013 21:22:30 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

odd that you took the opposite POV on the slavery thread.  did the wind shift?

No, I drew the distinction between slavery and scut work. 

i see.  but you see yourself as a slave of government.  is that right?

I stayed focused on the argument at hand.  I am happy to have the broader philosophical discussion here, though.  This thread is NOT stupid.  If you're not sure- just ask me.  I'll tell you: I approve.

that's nice.

[Virgil Showlion]

Paul circa 2055.

[mmhmm]

Sept 23, 2013 20:52:19 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sept 20, 2013 23:18:17 GMT -5 @justaposter said:

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.

Wait- you posted something and *I* liked it AND mmhmm liked it, too?!? We're not going to start with a bunch of agreeing with one another again, are we?

Just shows to go ya, paul - don't try to pigeon-hole me (or, anyone else, for that matter).

[djAdvocate]

Sept 23, 2013 22:27:34 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Sept 23, 2013 20:52:19 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Wait- you posted something and *I* liked it AND mmhmm liked it, too?!? We're not going to start with a bunch of agreeing with one another again, are we?

Just shows to go ya, paul - don't try to pigeon-hole me (or, anyone else, for that matter).

i mostly agree, as well.  but i don't think that government was ever "pure".  it has always been an elite institution.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Sept 23, 2013 22:24:58 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Paul circa 2055.

I clean up shit now, so if there's a such thing as reincarnation- I guess that would make sense.  FYI- the number one business of millionaires in America:  scrap metal.  Scavenging isn't to be knocked. 

[Virgil Showlion]

I guess it's only fair I do DJ too.



                                                                                                           DJ circa 2055.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 24, 2013 13:49:02 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I guess it's only fair I do DJ too.



                                                                                                           DJ circa 2055.

do i really suck that much?

[Virgil Showlion]

In spite of any good the social contract provides, it is an engine that does not collect and discharge wealth in equal measure for each participant. The extent to which the economy imposed by the contract is parasitic has been debated since the dawn of history. However, we can say for certain that the closer the reality is to Paul's reality, the more highly correlated poverty is to uselessness (in the sense of Bertrand Russell's "useless eaters"), and hence the more conducive to parasitism the social contract becomes. Furthermore, given the sheer size of modern-day governments, if it happens to be an engine conducive to parasitism, it also happens to be the greatest engine of parasitism ever conceived by man.

The leech being an archetypal parasite, we might reasonably assume it to be the karmic form for staunch supporters of such an engine (...at least as far as my vague understanding of animal reincarnation is concerned). Which presumes, of course, that Paul's views are approximately correct.

[formerroomate99]

Sept 23, 2013 20:51:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Sept 22, 2013 18:55:58 GMT -5 @patiencetried said:

 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."

That's a big bunch of hooey.  And it's not an intellectual argument- it's a threat.  It's the old protection racket language yet again.

EDIT- this is important- nevermind the ominous predictions of what "might" happen without the "social contract".  Make the intellectual argument for government.  I'll tell you what- you can't.  I know where the argument for government comes from, and none of you lefties are gonna wanna go there.  There's really no moral, or intellectual underpinning for government.  

What you call a threat, I see as having a realistic view of human nature. 

[Deleted]

What is the difference between "a large centralized government" and "warlords, gang leaders, tyrants..."?

Sadly, there is no punchline.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 24, 2013 14:40:18 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

Sept 23, 2013 20:51:00 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

That's a big bunch of hooey.  And it's not an intellectual argument- it's a threat.  It's the old protection racket language yet again.

EDIT- this is important- nevermind the ominous predictions of what "might" happen without the "social contract".  Make the intellectual argument for government.  I'll tell you what- you can't.  I know where the argument for government comes from, and none of you lefties are gonna wanna go there.  There's really no moral, or intellectual underpinning for government.  

What you call a threat, I see as having a realistic view of human nature. 

agreed.  i think it is excessively idealistic to a Chomskyesque degree to think that everyone will just behave in the absence of law.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 24, 2013 14:45:19 GMT -5 @thatmojoguy said:

What is the difference between "a large centralized government" and "warlords, gang leaders, tyrants..."?

Sadly, there is no punchline.

there is if you want an answer: "consent of the governed." 

seriously, do you guys REALLY think that this is an illegitimate rule?  because, out here, we call that "crazy talk".

[billisonboard]

Read a book one time about some "great" adventurer who had traveled to some incredibly high elevation lake in South America, built a boat using century's old technology, and was circumnavigating the lake. Stopped one night at the home of people living on the shore, he asked them what they thought was the meaning of live. He wrote in the book that as these people thought about an answer, he was excited by what these 'people of the earth' would have as an answer. Their answer, "Chickens".

[djAdvocate]

Sept 24, 2013 14:39:19 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

In spite of any good the social contract provides, it is an engine that does not collect and discharge wealth in equal measure for each participant. The extent to which the economy imposed by the contract is parasitic has been debated since the dawn of history. However, we can say for certain that the closer the reality is to Paul's reality, the more highly correlated poverty is to uselessness (in the sense of Bertrand Russell's "useless eaters"), and hence the more conducive to parasitism the social contract becomes. Furthermore, given the sheer size of modern-day governments, if it happens to be an engine conducive to parasitism, it also happens to be the greatest engine of parasitism ever conceived by man.

The leech being an archetypal parasite, we might reasonably assume it to be the karmic form for staunch supporters of such an engine (...at least as far as my vague understanding of animal reincarnation is concerned). Which presumes, of course, that Paul's views are approximately correct.

i don't support parasitism, Virgil.  it makes me sad that you view my perspective that way, but i doubt that any amount of defense of my position will change that, so suit yourself.

i am 100% for self reliance.  not 99%.  100%.  if that SEEMS inconsistent to you, then you don't understand me.  which is fine, so long as you don't continue to pretend that you do.

[Deleted]

How does "consent of the governed" practically differ from rational self-interest with a gun to one's head?

[djAdvocate]

Sept 24, 2013 14:59:24 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Read a book one time about some "great" adventurer who had traveled to some incredibly high elevation lake in South America, built a boat using century's old technology, and was circumnavigating the lake. Stopped one night at the home of people living on the shore, he asked them what they thought was the meaning of live. He wrote in the book that as these people thought about an answer, he was excited by what these 'people of the earth' would have as an answer. Their answer, "Chickens".

does the sum of the hexadecimals for that add up to 42?

[Deleted]

What entertains me about this is the incoherence of a position that holds your blameless neighbor responsible in potentia for the most monstrous crimes, unless he actively petitions you for the power to perpetrate them with impunity as a guardian of this nebulous and implicit social contract, whereupon he magically becomes trustworthy.

Because if he isn't trustworthy as the maker of Law, then the Law is no protection from your neighbor; and if he isn't a threat to your prosperity as a fellow citizen, then there is nothing against which the Law need protect you.

Juvenal's satirical enquiry, echoed by the scholarly Alan Moore, remains in wait of a satisfactory answer.

[djAdvocate]

Sept 24, 2013 14:59:46 GMT -5 @thatmojoguy said:

How does "consent of the governed" practically differ from rational self-interest with a gun to one's head?

given that there is no gun pointed at my head, i would say that the Venn Diagram of these two things has no overlap whatsoever.

is that how they roll in Florida?  because that would explain a lot.