[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Your story starts with five guys in a room. What are they doing in the room? How did they get there? That’s social contract theory. Outside the room the four strongest guys would just cave in the fifth guy’s head and take his money then turn on each other. Recognising that this is an unpleasant way to live the five guys decide to enter a room together.[/quote]
They are all sitting in the room. One was born in the room and has been there his whole life, others started in other rooms and made their way to that room. Please explain how the scenario you described outside of the room differs from what I described inside. I don’t see how it does, unless you claim that humans become less brutal when they join together, which seems like a ridiculous claim.
Social contract theory is to the state what a sugary coating is to a dog turd.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t think we’re in disagreement here. But I think you are in denial. How does a society protect private property rights without a gun in the room? Further, has does it do so without majoritarian consent and placing the gun in the hands of representatives with vested authority? This is social contract theory. If you want to reject all forms of majoritarianism and only accept an individual’s right to the gun, then how do you prevent individuals from joining together(majoritarianism) against others?
Example: five anarchists are in a room and each has a gun. Three anarchists decide to point their guns at the other two and rob them. These three anarchists have now become socialists.[/quote]
He does not seem to be in denial; he has admitted that there is a gun in the room. He only wants everyone to admit and recognize the same. There is no way to get rid of the gun in the room. It exists and isn’t going away.
There is no way to prevent individuals from joining together to abuse others. I believe that’s part of what orion wants everyone to recognize.
I can’t speak for orion, but I want people to be honest about the way we live. When we speak about the government, I don’t want to hear people talking about the government as if we each choose it. The government of the U.S. does not fully represent or protect anyone. It violates the rights of everyone. Be honest with yourself; when you talk about taxes, admit that taxation is exactly the same as robbery; when you talk about elections, admit that your vote did not make a difference(unless the election actually happens to have been decided by one vote, of course); when you talk about the Constitution, admit “that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.”(Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority)
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Your story starts with five guys in a room. What are they doing in the room? How did they get there? That’s social contract theory. Outside the room the four strongest guys would just cave in the fifth guy’s head and take his money then turn on each other. Recognising that this is an unpleasant way to live the five guys decide to enter a room together.[/quote]
They are all sitting in the room. One was born in the room and has been there his whole life, others started in other rooms and made their way to that room. Please explain how the scenario you described outside of the room differs from what I described inside. I don’t see how it does, unless you claim that humans become less brutal when they join together, which seems like a ridiculous claim.
Social contract theory is to the state what a sugary coating is to a dog turd.[/quote]
I’ve explained it to you before. Outside the room it’s every man for himself and no law. Inside the room a social contract exists whereby everyone agrees to give up certain rights in order to safeguard others. Basically a protection racket I admit.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I don’t think we’re in disagreement here. But I think you are in denial. How does a society protect private property rights without a gun in the room? Further, has does it do so without majoritarian consent and placing the gun in the hands of representatives with vested authority? This is social contract theory. If you want to reject all forms of majoritarianism and only accept an individual’s right to the gun, then how do you prevent individuals from joining together(majoritarianism) against others?
Example: five anarchists are in a room and each has a gun. Three anarchists decide to point their guns at the other two and rob them. These three anarchists have now become socialists.[/quote]
He does not seem to be in denial; he has admitted that there is a gun in the room. He only wants everyone to admit and recognize the same. There is no way to get rid of the gun in the room. It exists and isn’t going away.
There is no way to prevent individuals from joining together to abuse others. I believe that’s part of what orion wants everyone to recognize.
I can’t speak for orion, but I want people to be honest about the way we live. When we speak about the government, I don’t want to hear people talking about the government as if we each choose it. The government of the U.S. does not fully represent or protect anyone. It violates the rights of everyone. Be honest with yourself; when you talk about taxes, admit that taxation is exactly the same as robbery; when you talk about elections, admit that your vote did not make a difference(unless the election actually happens to have been decided by one vote, of course); when you talk about the Constitution, admit “that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.”(Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority)[/quote]
There are different types of tax and different types of elections. You’re dabbling in relativism. An election in the Congo where one candidate gets 142% of the vote is not the same as an election in a Western country. A tax that goes to bail out a hedge fund or bank is not the same as a tax that goes to pay for a military to protect the sovereignty of the nation.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’ve explained it to you before. Outside the room it’s every man for himself and no law. Inside the room a social contract exists whereby everyone agrees to give up certain rights in order to safeguard others. Basically a protection racket I admit.
[/quote]
The only laws that exist are natural(universal gravitation, etc.). What you’re saying is that outside of the state, every man must look out for himself; in a state, the vast majority of men willingly submit to enslavement.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
There are different types of tax and different types of elections. You’re dabbling in relativism. An election in the Congo where one candidate gets 142% of the vote is not the same as an election in a Western country. A tax that goes to bail out a hedge fund or bank is not the same as a tax that goes to pay for a military to protect the sovereignty of the nation.
[/quote]
Look again, friend. http://www.moral-relativism.com/ read that and tell me who’s dabbling in relativism. I am stating that robbery and slavery are wrong; in every possible scenario, they are wrong. To refer to the way government operates as something else is to dabble in relativism.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
There are different types of tax and different types of elections. You’re dabbling in relativism. An election in the Congo where one candidate gets 142% of the vote is not the same as an election in a Western country. A tax that goes to bail out a hedge fund or bank is not the same as a tax that goes to pay for a military to protect the sovereignty of the nation.
[/quote]
Look again, friend. http://www.moral-relativism.com/ read that and tell me who’s dabbling in relativism. I am stating that robbery and slavery are wrong; in every possible scenario, they are wrong. To refer to the way government operates as something else is to dabble in relativism.
[/quote]
You are ignoring actual conditions and realities. To equate the conditions of a Slavic serf in 18th Russia to the conditions of a welfare bum in 21st century America is absurd. To equate a bank robbery to a tax for a military budget is also absurd. It’s these distinctions that are worthy of examination and debate. The view that you’re espousing is utterly devoid of reason and sound judgement.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
First of all, I wanted to ask those of you on this fine forum if you felt this is an accurate representation of what the Founding Fathers “meant” (is there a source for that?), and if so, why the hell didn’t they more clearly express it? [/quote]
Well, to be honest, they were pretty clear in the Bill of Rights, and we still have to litigate to keep those basic freedoms.
I mean, the 2nd in particular is really fucking clear. People twist that shit every day.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Cite a civilization that force or the threat of force did not exist by the government (or substitute equitable term for ruling class of the people).[/quote]
Force isn’t necessarily implicit but only at very grass roots levels. I think the only comparison today would be clubs we decide to take part in. At the point the decision is made to become part of a community there is more a convention of rules that everyone comes to agree on.
But, once people are born into these societies with rules it seems there is a disconnect, and force seems exerted, at least unless people have the option of leaving said society to establish a new one. This is the ideal that our own society was based on. But, as land and resources run out so does our liberty.
That’s a flaw I’ve been pointing out on several fronts for a long time.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
Cite a civilization that force or the threat of force did not exist by the government (or substitute equitable term for ruling class of the people).[/quote]
Force isn’t necessarily implicit but only at very grass roots levels. I think the only comparison today would be clubs we decide to take part in. At the point the decision is made to become part of a community there is more a convention of rules that everyone comes to agree on.
But, once people are born into these societies with rules it seems there is a disconnect, and force seems exerted, at least unless people have the option of leaving said society to establish a new one. This is the ideal that our own society was based on. But, as land and resources run out so does our liberty.
That’s a flaw I’ve been pointing out on several fronts for a long time. [/quote]
Excellent post. The option of leaving the rule of the U.S. does not exist, at least not after the War of Northern Aggression. If one is not free to govern himself and, by extension, his property, one is not free. I know that a “Rah-Rah, America” guy will point out that citizens are allowed to leave this country, but one is NOT free to remove U.S. rule from the property he supposedly owns. Just recognize that citizens of any state do not own their property.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I mean, the 2nd in particular is really fucking clear. People twist that shit every day.
[/quote]
What does “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” mean?
I personally take the 2nd amendment to mean that we allow people to keep weapons so that they can form “well-regulated” militias at a moment’s notice for defense (whether by external or internal threats).
I guess the Framers decided that it would be less practical to keep everyone’s weapons at the militia’s HQ or something, because that HQ could be taken by the enemy and everyone wouldn’t have weapons.
Seriously though, I think the 2nd amendment is incredibly complex and people who just look at the “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” are missing the point.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Force isn’t necessarily implicit but only at very grass roots levels. I think the only comparison today would be clubs we decide to take part in. At the point the decision is made to become part of a community there is more a convention of rules that everyone comes to agree on.
But, once people are born into these societies with rules it seems there is a disconnect, and force seems exerted, at least unless people have the option of leaving said society to establish a new one. This is the ideal that our own society was based on. But, as land and resources run out so does our liberty.
That’s a flaw I’ve been pointing out on several fronts for a long time. [/quote]
Are you saying that, as long as you willingly join a community and agree to abide by its rules, it’s not a use of force to make you follow the rules?
And if you are born into a community then it is a use of force to make you follow the rules, since you didn’t willingly join the community?
Heh. So you’re essentially throwing the theory of social contract out the window. Fair enough, this is a reasonable criticism to make.
But, as you said, there’s no real way around it. What will you do then?
[quote]magick wrote:
So you’re essentially throwing the theory of social contract out the window. [/quote]
The theory that a “social contract” exists is absolutely ridiculous. That theory is nothing but an excuse for some to rule others. When did you sign the contract? In no way does such a contract exist.
If a man tells you that you can either be his slave or he will shoot you in the head, two of your friends refuse, he shoots them in their heads, and then you agree to be his slave, is that a legitimate contract? If any other product had to be “sold” in that matter, would it be considered a decent product?
There may be no way around brutality and slavery, but let’s call a spade a spade and admit that’s what we have. Let’s not hide behind nationalism/patriotism and pretend to be better or different.
Well, the fundamental issue is that society cannot be formed without laws and boundaries. Otherwise people will just go about doing horrible things.
And you are essentially stating that these laws and boundaries equate to slavery, as you have no say in whether you submit to it or not if you are born into a state. It just exists.
[quote]magick wrote:
Well, the fundamental issue is that society cannot be formed without laws and boundaries. Otherwise people will just go about doing horrible things.
And you are essentially stating that these laws and boundaries equate to slavery, as you have no say in whether you submit to it or not if you are born into a state. It just exists.
It just feels like a vast overstatement to me.[/quote]
Society can’t be formed without rules protecting people and property, or without boundaries distinguishing one man’s property from the next. No state has ever limited itself to either of those functions. In case you haven’t noticed, cooperating with a group that desires a monopoly on violence has not prevented people from doing horrible things.
Let’s say a slave in 1810 Georgia was permitted by his master to travel to Alabama on the condition that he return at some point. The slave went to Alabama, traveled around for three weeks, then returned to his home. Is he still a slave? If he was gone for three years before returning, would he still be a slave? If that slave had agreed to become a slave in exchange for a cabin and small piece of land, could it possibly be said that his future children had agreed to their enslavement?
Is a man free by virtue of having a lenient master, or is a man free when he does not have a master?
[quote]magick wrote:
So you’re essentially throwing the theory of social contract out the window. [/quote]
The theory that a “social contract” exists is absolutely ridiculous. That theory is nothing but an excuse for some to rule others. When did you sign the contract? In no way does such a contract exist.
If a man tells you that you can either be his slave or he will shoot you in the head, two of your friends refuse, he shoots them in their heads, and then you agree to be his slave, is that a legitimate contract? If any other product had to be “sold” in that matter, would it be considered a decent product?
There may be no way around brutality and slavery, but let’s call a spade a spade and admit that’s what we have. Let’s not hide behind nationalism/patriotism and pretend to be better or different.[/quote]
This is one of the things I’ve come to grip with that’s really pretty ugly. There is no way around the brutality. Within the States in order for us to establish our country we had to basically get rid of Native Americans to live out our ideals, and they worked great until we ran out of land to take from Native Americans. The thing is we took this land we live on.
The other thing is, once the land and resources are taken up and claimed by families, they are generally locked up and owned by those families for good. In our country we are pretty dumb/ stupid about socio/economic mobility. We like to push the examples of people who go from rags to riches, but the reality is people who make it big from the bottom are an extreme minority.
The biggest determinor of wealth is how much money one is born with. And, the disparity of wealth in terms of rich and poor grows with every presidency, Dem or Repub. We in the United States are extremely hopeful for opportunity and grasp tightly to examples of rags to riches, even though they hardly exist.
The theory that a “social contract” exists is absolutely ridiculous. That theory is nothing but an excuse for some to rule others. When did you sign the contract?
[/quote]
The argument is, that the social contract is tantamount to the legal concept of an “implied contract.” An example of an implied contract would be a patient visiting a doctor. If the patient refused to pay the doctor after accepting his services then the patient has breached the implied contract.
No it’s not. Because:
The conditions of the social contract must be consistent with the preservation of natural rights.
And
Force cannot be used to create the contract, only to ensure adherence to a contract entered into voluntarily by the parties.
The theory that a “social contract” exists is absolutely ridiculous. That theory is nothing but an excuse for some to rule others. When did you sign the contract?
[/quote]
The argument is, that the social contract is tantamount to the legal concept of an “implied contract.” An example of an implied contract would be a patient visiting a doctor. If the patient refused to pay the doctor after accepting his services then the patient has breached the implied contract.
No it’s not. Because:
The conditions of the social contract must be consistent with the preservation of natural rights.
And
Force cannot be used to create the contract, only to ensure adherence to a contract entered into voluntarily by the parties.[/quote]
Except the problem with natural rights is that they are tied up in land and natural resources.
Once the land and resources are all taken up, the only thing that actually binds people to the social contract is force and the fact that there is no land or resources for us that don’t have any to go out and claim/ reap/ use. We have to try and work/ buy our way into ownership from those who are looking to profit on what they already own.
The only way to really own anything worth a shit is to work your whole damned life so hopefully you can pass it on to your worthless kids, who then wont appreciate the value of hard work.
Eventually it’s all gonna crumble due to unsustainability. There are too many people in the world, and as food and shit gets more desperate the greedy and powerful get taken down… It eventually happens in every Western Civ.
The conditions of the social contract must be consistent with the preservation of natural rights.
And
Force cannot be used to create the contract, only to ensure adherence to a contract entered into voluntarily by the parties.[/quote]
Sounds awesome! Where do I sign THIS contract? The one I apparently agreed(although I was never asked) to when I was born(although I did not participate in my own creation) doesn’t protect natural rights and was created by force!