Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I can explain it, but I'm not going to post the equivalent of entire chapters in a book. It's easier to just direct you to the material that explains it. However, we know you aren't going to read it.
I addressed that and you just quoted it. I colored it for you now. You don't want to explain everything, so you're going to explain nothing. I got it. But I'm not going off and reading more books/links based on you explaining nothing. So as I said, we're not moving forward.
Brian won't explain anything. Oddball won't explain anything and he gets insulted to have his views questioned. None of you will explain anything. No wonder you can't convince even a tap in putt like me who would love to be an anarchist, but I won't be until I am convinced by content, which none of you will provide
Perhaps the problem is that you refuse to see an argument in favor of government? Government with power to do whatever it sees fit--what we now have--is bad government, yes. But even that is far far better than anarchy in which you are never free but in constant risk of loss of life, injury, loss of property, etc. I don't want to live in that kind of society any more than I want to live under a self-serving dictatorship.
Consider folks moving west where there is absolutely no law, no government services. They settle somewhere spread out over the farms and ranches they stake out. And because they brought Christian or similar values with them they choose to live peacefully together and help out each other. This is the ideal Marx envisioned though he would have eliminated any concept of personal property and made the society totally communal.
After awhile others are moving into or passing through the area, some not so restrained by Christian or similar values and it becomes more difficult to keep order. So those there agree to pool resources to hire one or more people to protect their property. And it makes since to pool resources for fire protection and impose certain sensible laws so that all can know what is and is not legal. And to elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all. Now you have the most rudimentary form of government, pure social contract strictly controlled by all those who have directly participated in it.
As various merchants begin to set up shop to service all the farmers and ranchers and other merchants, it makes sense to elevate one or more citizens to a mayor or city counsel system to coordinate/regulate the various shared services, water and sewer systems, power, streets and roads enjoyed by all so that each one doesn't have to invent all those wheels for himself/herself. This social contract form of government--government of the people, by the people, and for the people--the very type the Founders envisioned when they drafted and signed the Constitution--is beneficial to all.
A government in which the people govern themselves is good government. A government that presumes to govern the people will almost always be less good and will invariably gravitate toward being self serving. Anarchy will invariably be savage, cruel, hateful, and good for nobody other than the strongest and meanest.
The error occurs at “elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all”. This “representation” is impossible, especially for “all”. No man can validly represent another; it’s simply contrary to reality itself. He would have to become the other and leave himself behind. The idea of becoming numerous people is even more absurd.
I know you just recently arrived, so I will repeat that government is authority - the purported right to rule (not merely the ability). No such right exists. Natural law defines rights, man cannot create them any more than he can create laws of physics. Authority is literally the falsely claimed “right” to do what others do not have the right to do. It is an inequality of rights, which has no rational basis, and is fundamentally immoral.
If you want to establish an organization that only defends natural law rights, that’s great, but that is not government. It does not have authority, and it does not presume rights in excess of those held by any individual.
I think you too are not understanding the concept of natural rights, social contract, or what I have been arguing. But the hour is getting late and I'm headed for bed soon. Do have a good night.
We understand that you believe in a myth. There is no such thing as the "social contract." 99% of the people you claim consented to it did no such thing. Contracts require consent to be valid, which makes your mythical social contract invalid. Your "America: take it or leave it" argument is the lowest kind of thuggish morality ever uttered in public.
All those things can be done without government, which is merely the central monopoly over violence in a given region. Anarchists have provided ample solutions to the problems you have outlined. How well they work? No one knows...
All you ever get from an anarchist. The problem can be solved.
How?
When you do have an idea, let me know. In the meantime, you're ideas are worthless.
Just to pick one, feel free to pick another if you'll ever engage in content about it. How can you not have general recognition of the boundary to your property?
You will never live securely without that, and that reduces your freedom, it doesn't expand it
I never said that I am an anarchist.
That being said anarchist have provided ample solutions so there you go. To give you an example, you probably can not function without general recognition to the boundary of your property, which is why the solution is to have that recognition done privately instead of having the government in charge. By the way, can you tell us how that recognition works for you currently, when the government openly loots about 40% of your stuff? Real great, real great... those are some real boundaries to your property right there, nothing can penetrate them.
I am not going to lecture here about the dozens of different solutions to the dozens of different problems. Whole books have been written, if you are interested pick one up.
All those things can be done without government, which is merely the central monopoly over violence in a given region. Anarchists have provided ample solutions to the problems you have outlined. How well they work? No one knows...
All you ever get from an anarchist. The problem can be solved.
How?
When you do have an idea, let me know. In the meantime, you're ideas are worthless.
Just to pick one, feel free to pick another if you'll ever engage in content about it. How can you not have general recognition of the boundary to your property?
You will never live securely without that, and that reduces your freedom, it doesn't expand it
I never said that I am an anarchist.
That being said anarchist have provided ample solutions so there you go. To give you an example, you probably can not function without general recognition to the boundary of your property, which is why the solution is to have that recognition done privately instead of having the government in charge. By the way, can you tell us how that recognition works for you currently, when the government openly loots about 40% of your stuff? Real great, real great... those are some real boundaries to your property right there, nothing can penetrate them.
I am not going to lecture here about the dozens of different solutions to the dozens of different problems. Whole books have been written, if you are interested pick one up.
Saying that property recognition can be done privately as a solution to replacing government with no further description of how that would work is a logical fallacy called begging the question.
I'll ask you the obvious question, but I'm not going to keep doing your work for you.
Two companies decide to be property recognition companies. They draw different lines between you and your neighbor.
Now what?
The problem isn't the government. The problem is we the people. We get the government we deserve. The more we become like a democracy, the more we become socialized.
The role of the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. Not to do for the people what they can and should be doing for themselves. The problem is that people who want the government to do for them what they can and should be doing for themselves, elect public servants that will agree to do for them what they should be doing for themselves.
Of course this is untenable over the long haul and will ultimately lead to debauching the dollar and anarchy. Which means we will need government to protect the weak from the strong which was the original basis for government in the first place.
God help us in what that government will look like when this all comes crashing down.
Exactly.The problem isn't the government. The problem is we the people. We get the government we deserve. The more we become like a democracy, the more we become socialized.
The role of the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. Not to do for the people what they can and should be doing for themselves. The problem is that people who want the government to do for them what they can and should be doing for themselves, elect public servants that will agree to do for them what they should be doing for themselves.
Of course this is untenable over the long haul and will ultimately lead to debauching the dollar and anarchy. Which means we will need government to protect the weak from the strong which was the original basis for government in the first place.
God help us in what that government will look like when this all comes crashing down.
I have to applaud this because you pretty well nailed the situation that currently exists. Of course you left out the other side of the argument which is the anarchists saying that no government can be good government and therefore there should be no government.
But they provide no solution for how the strong will not be deterred or discouraged from preying on the weak and how anything other than violence will determine who will be able to access available resources.
The government the Founders gave us was a government limited to very specific functions such as:
1. The ability to pass such laws and regulation as necessary for the various states to operate as one nation without doing violence to each other. (The strong would not be allowed to prey upon the weak.)
2. The authority to negotiate trade agreements with other nations for the benefit of all.
3. The authority to create a common currency and such infrastructure and policy as necessary to promote the general (everybody's) welfare such as construction of post roads (federal roads) crossing state lines.
4. The responsibility to provide the common defense which included defense of our own borders against intruders and rules by which new states would be allowed to join the union, i.e. those who would respect and honor the U.S. Constitution.
Pretty much everything else was to be left to the various states who could organize themselves into whatever sorts of society they wished to have.
Such was the social contract mutually agreed by those determined to create a nation like no other with unalienable rights and liberties facilitated and uninterferred with by a central government that had never existed until the U.S.A. was formed.
And the people abdicated the social contract and created the corrupt and self serving mess we have now when it allowed the federal government overstep its restraints and be populated with people who would use government to their own personal advantage. And they do so by using the people's money to bribe or bludgeon them into acquiescence.
We have nobody to blame for that but ourselves. And nobody will be able to restore the social contract except for we the people with the courage and determination to do so.
All those things can be done without government, which is merely the central monopoly over violence in a given region. Anarchists have provided ample solutions to the problems you have outlined. How well they work? No one knows...
All you ever get from an anarchist. The problem can be solved.
How?
When you do have an idea, let me know. In the meantime, you're ideas are worthless.
Just to pick one, feel free to pick another if you'll ever engage in content about it. How can you not have general recognition of the boundary to your property?
You will never live securely without that, and that reduces your freedom, it doesn't expand it
I never said that I am an anarchist.
That being said anarchist have provided ample solutions so there you go. To give you an example, you probably can not function without general recognition to the boundary of your property, which is why the solution is to have that recognition done privately instead of having the government in charge. By the way, can you tell us how that recognition works for you currently, when the government openly loots about 40% of your stuff? Real great, real great... those are some real boundaries to your property right there, nothing can penetrate them.
I am not going to lecture here about the dozens of different solutions to the dozens of different problems. Whole books have been written, if you are interested pick one up.
Saying that property recognition can be done privately as a solution to replacing government with no further description of how that would work is a logical fallacy called begging the question.
I'll ask you the obvious question, but I'm not going to keep doing your work for you.
Two companies decide to be property recognition companies. They draw different lines between you and your neighbor.
Now what?
Then they will have to settle the dispute. One of them fucked up pretty bad, not even understanding the definition of a line.
Since people generally won't tolerate these kinds of fuck ups, such companies are pretty unlikely to exist. Heck, even the government always gets the lines right. If government gets it right, basically a retard will get it right. The McDonalds of private law agencies would get it right...
Maybe focus on a bit more interesting questions... it's absurd to claim that the companies would not know how to draw a line. Your scenario would only be a possibility if humans took five steps back in evolution and occupied trees. In that case I am not sure that there would be much to draw...
I addressed that and you just quoted it. I colored it for you now. You don't want to explain everything, so you're going to explain nothing. I got it. But I'm not going off and reading more books/links based on you explaining nothing. So as I said, we're not moving forward.
Brian won't explain anything. Oddball won't explain anything and he gets insulted to have his views questioned. None of you will explain anything. No wonder you can't convince even a tap in putt like me who would love to be an anarchist, but I won't be until I am convinced by content, which none of you will provide
Perhaps the problem is that you refuse to see an argument in favor of government? Government with power to do whatever it sees fit--what we now have--is bad government, yes. But even that is far far better than anarchy in which you are never free but in constant risk of loss of life, injury, loss of property, etc. I don't want to live in that kind of society any more than I want to live under a self-serving dictatorship.
Consider folks moving west where there is absolutely no law, no government services. They settle somewhere spread out over the farms and ranches they stake out. And because they brought Christian or similar values with them they choose to live peacefully together and help out each other. This is the ideal Marx envisioned though he would have eliminated any concept of personal property and made the society totally communal.
After awhile others are moving into or passing through the area, some not so restrained by Christian or similar values and it becomes more difficult to keep order. So those there agree to pool resources to hire one or more people to protect their property. And it makes since to pool resources for fire protection and impose certain sensible laws so that all can know what is and is not legal. And to elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all. Now you have the most rudimentary form of government, pure social contract strictly controlled by all those who have directly participated in it.
As various merchants begin to set up shop to service all the farmers and ranchers and other merchants, it makes sense to elevate one or more citizens to a mayor or city counsel system to coordinate/regulate the various shared services, water and sewer systems, power, streets and roads enjoyed by all so that each one doesn't have to invent all those wheels for himself/herself. This social contract form of government--government of the people, by the people, and for the people--the very type the Founders envisioned when they drafted and signed the Constitution--is beneficial to all.
A government in which the people govern themselves is good government. A government that presumes to govern the people will almost always be less good and will invariably gravitate toward being self serving. Anarchy will invariably be savage, cruel, hateful, and good for nobody other than the strongest and meanest.
The error occurs at “elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all”. This “representation” is impossible, especially for “all”. No man can validly represent another; it’s simply contrary to reality itself. He would have to become the other and leave himself behind. The idea of becoming numerous people is even more absurd.
I know you just recently arrived, so I will repeat that government is authority - the purported right to rule (not merely the ability). No such right exists. Natural law defines rights, man cannot create them any more than he can create laws of physics. Authority is literally the falsely claimed “right” to do what others do not have the right to do. It is an inequality of rights, which has no rational basis, and is fundamentally immoral.
If you want to establish an organization that only defends natural law rights, that’s great, but that is not government. It does not have authority, and it does not presume rights in excess of those held by any individual.
I think you too are not understanding the concept of natural rights, social contract, or what I have been arguing. But the hour is getting late and I'm headed for bed soon. Do have a good night.
We understand that you believe in a myth. There is no such thing as the "social contract." 99% of the people you claim consented to it did no such thing. Contracts require consent to be valid, which makes your mythical social contract invalid. Your "America: take it or leave it" argument is the lowest kind of thuggish morality ever uttered in public.
I agree with that. The social contract is just an excuse to justify removal of individual property rights by tyrannical governments who redistribute disproportionate amounts to themselves.
A true liberal or a true conservative would be a political libertarian because that is the only way that they are free to pursue the values they hold.
Now Democrats aren't liberals at all, they are authoritarian leftists. They would never be libertarian, they have no values in common with liberty and freedom
All those things can be done without government, which is merely the central monopoly over violence in a given region. Anarchists have provided ample solutions to the problems you have outlined. How well they work? No one knows...
All you ever get from an anarchist. The problem can be solved.
How?
When you do have an idea, let me know. In the meantime, you're ideas are worthless.
Just to pick one, feel free to pick another if you'll ever engage in content about it. How can you not have general recognition of the boundary to your property?
You will never live securely without that, and that reduces your freedom, it doesn't expand it
I never said that I am an anarchist.
That being said anarchist have provided ample solutions so there you go. To give you an example, you probably can not function without general recognition to the boundary of your property, which is why the solution is to have that recognition done privately instead of having the government in charge. By the way, can you tell us how that recognition works for you currently, when the government openly loots about 40% of your stuff? Real great, real great... those are some real boundaries to your property right there, nothing can penetrate them.
I am not going to lecture here about the dozens of different solutions to the dozens of different problems. Whole books have been written, if you are interested pick one up.
Saying that property recognition can be done privately as a solution to replacing government with no further description of how that would work is a logical fallacy called begging the question.
I'll ask you the obvious question, but I'm not going to keep doing your work for you.
Two companies decide to be property recognition companies. They draw different lines between you and your neighbor.
Now what?
Then they will have to settle the dispute. One of them fucked up pretty bad, not even understanding the definition of a line.
Since people generally won't tolerate these kinds of fuck ups, such companies are pretty unlikely to exist. Heck, even the government always gets the lines right. If government gets it right, basically a retard will get it right. The McDonalds of private law agencies would get it right...
Maybe focus on a bit more interesting questions... it's absurd to claim that the companies would not know how to draw a line. Your scenario would only be a possibility if humans took five steps back in evolution and occupied trees. In that case I am not sure that there would be much to draw...
Not all lines are so clear. Some are, some are not. Not everyone lives in a subdivision. And that it's clear as your response doesn't answer the question.
So you just want to be reasonable. One of the property lines gives him most of the space between your houses. The other is in the middle. You knock on his door and point that out. You're a reasonable guy, but property line should be in the middle. He tells you he likes the other line, that's what you are both going to follow. Then he tells you to fuck off and slams the door in your face.
The next day he builds a fence and starts digging a pool in the property you think is yours. You go to your other neighbors and they say wow, you were screwed. They aren't getting involved. He's 6'5 and 280 and has a bad temper and holds grudges. They tell you good luck.
So what do you do now?
Why? We defeated the largest communist country ever to exist without firing a single shot at them.No regieme change unless commies are involved though
Exactly, I take a lot of pride in maintaining my lawn!The fear would be from not knowing who you are dealing with. Every transgression would be met by the whim of the one being transgressed. What could go wrong.That’s because the number of people willing to commit acts of aggression are nigh-unto negligible, contrary to what politicians and their media would have you believe. The fact that government exists and violent crime is rare does not mean violent crime is rare because of government.
Why is it just violent crimes that you find to be a problem, is embezzlement or other forms of theft not important since they are not violent?
The number of people willing to take what is not there is not negligible in this country, if you have ever had the displeasure to work retail you would know this.
The only thing that stops even a few of these people is the fear of jail.
We could have public hangings and such held by the transgressed party. WalMart could chop the hand off of shoplifters in a public event, that would surely dissuade further theft.
That guy that walks up on my lawn, well maybe he is going to steal my Amazon package, I better shot him in the head before he has a chance, it is my lawn after all.
The other day someone parked on the road in front of my house but they got too far over and their tire was on my grass, which damaged my grass. I take great pride in my grass, I think that killing my grass is worthy of death.
Heaven help my neighbor if he decides to dam up the stream running across our properties.
Perhaps the problem is that you refuse to see an argument in favor of government? Government with power to do whatever it sees fit--what we now have--is bad government, yes. But even that is far far better than anarchy in which you are never free but in constant risk of loss of life, injury, loss of property, etc. I don't want to live in that kind of society any more than I want to live under a self-serving dictatorship.
Consider folks moving west where there is absolutely no law, no government services. They settle somewhere spread out over the farms and ranches they stake out. And because they brought Christian or similar values with them they choose to live peacefully together and help out each other. This is the ideal Marx envisioned though he would have eliminated any concept of personal property and made the society totally communal.
After awhile others are moving into or passing through the area, some not so restrained by Christian or similar values and it becomes more difficult to keep order. So those there agree to pool resources to hire one or more people to protect their property. And it makes since to pool resources for fire protection and impose certain sensible laws so that all can know what is and is not legal. And to elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all. Now you have the most rudimentary form of government, pure social contract strictly controlled by all those who have directly participated in it.
As various merchants begin to set up shop to service all the farmers and ranchers and other merchants, it makes sense to elevate one or more citizens to a mayor or city counsel system to coordinate/regulate the various shared services, water and sewer systems, power, streets and roads enjoyed by all so that each one doesn't have to invent all those wheels for himself/herself. This social contract form of government--government of the people, by the people, and for the people--the very type the Founders envisioned when they drafted and signed the Constitution--is beneficial to all.
A government in which the people govern themselves is good government. A government that presumes to govern the people will almost always be less good and will invariably gravitate toward being self serving. Anarchy will invariably be savage, cruel, hateful, and good for nobody other than the strongest and meanest.
The error occurs at “elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all”. This “representation” is impossible, especially for “all”. No man can validly represent another; it’s simply contrary to reality itself. He would have to become the other and leave himself behind. The idea of becoming numerous people is even more absurd.
I know you just recently arrived, so I will repeat that government is authority - the purported right to rule (not merely the ability). No such right exists. Natural law defines rights, man cannot create them any more than he can create laws of physics. Authority is literally the falsely claimed “right” to do what others do not have the right to do. It is an inequality of rights, which has no rational basis, and is fundamentally immoral.
If you want to establish an organization that only defends natural law rights, that’s great, but that is not government. It does not have authority, and it does not presume rights in excess of those held by any individual.
I think you too are not understanding the concept of natural rights, social contract, or what I have been arguing. But the hour is getting late and I'm headed for bed soon. Do have a good night.
We understand that you believe in a myth. There is no such thing as the "social contract." 99% of the people you claim consented to it did no such thing. Contracts require consent to be valid, which makes your mythical social contract invalid. Your "America: take it or leave it" argument is the lowest kind of thuggish morality ever uttered in public.
I agree with that. The social contract is just an excuse to justify removal of individual property rights by tyrannical governments who redistribute disproportionate amounts to themselves.
A true liberal or a true conservative would be a political libertarian because that is the only way that they are free to pursue the values they hold.
Now Democrats aren't liberals at all, they are authoritarian leftists. They would never be libertarian, they have no values in common with liberty and freedom
Your comment re social contract--also all others who reject the concept--indicate a woeful lack of information as to what social contract is.
Once again, the social contract contained in the Constitution outlines what authority the people will give the government for the benefit of the people, and limits the authority the government will be allowed by the people. This is so terribly important to understand and, in today's socially engineered environment and group think, apparently is so difficult to teach these days.
Some here have indicated good understanding and knowledge of what social contract is and the history behind it. And some have expressed extremely uninformed opinions about it.
Again, the Constitution is a social contract establishing rules for how the new government would be structured and what its authority would be. Nobody who signed it and/or agreed to live by it got everything they wanted and everybody had to compromise, but as neither monarchy, totalitarian government, nor anarchy was considered acceptable, they reached the best agreement that they could at that time.
Another description of social contract is how the pioneers who settled communities without benefit of roads or help from any other sources and created infrastructure from scratch, mutually chose how they would organize themselves for mutual benefit. They mutually agreed on what laws would determine what would and would not be legal, and they mutually agreed on what resources and services would be shared rather than each person/family having to provide everything themselves--education for children, water supply, city streets, law enforcement, fire protection, etc. etc. etc. No doubt nobody then agreed with every point of the social contract or got everything they wanted, but they were able to negotiate and compromise on an organization that everybody could comfortably live with.
so·cial con·tract
NOUN
Those who say they never agreed to any such social contract miss the point completely. How unfeasible would it be for all those joining a particular society to demand that the society reorganize itself to suit them? However a just society does provide means for the people to mutually correct its mistakes, right wrongs, and improve things as does the U.S. Constitution.
- an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.
All you ever get from an anarchist. The problem can be solved.
How?
When you do have an idea, let me know. In the meantime, you're ideas are worthless.
Just to pick one, feel free to pick another if you'll ever engage in content about it. How can you not have general recognition of the boundary to your property?
You will never live securely without that, and that reduces your freedom, it doesn't expand it
I never said that I am an anarchist.
That being said anarchist have provided ample solutions so there you go. To give you an example, you probably can not function without general recognition to the boundary of your property, which is why the solution is to have that recognition done privately instead of having the government in charge. By the way, can you tell us how that recognition works for you currently, when the government openly loots about 40% of your stuff? Real great, real great... those are some real boundaries to your property right there, nothing can penetrate them.
I am not going to lecture here about the dozens of different solutions to the dozens of different problems. Whole books have been written, if you are interested pick one up.
Saying that property recognition can be done privately as a solution to replacing government with no further description of how that would work is a logical fallacy called begging the question.
I'll ask you the obvious question, but I'm not going to keep doing your work for you.
Two companies decide to be property recognition companies. They draw different lines between you and your neighbor.
Now what?
Then they will have to settle the dispute. One of them fucked up pretty bad, not even understanding the definition of a line.
Since people generally won't tolerate these kinds of fuck ups, such companies are pretty unlikely to exist. Heck, even the government always gets the lines right. If government gets it right, basically a retard will get it right. The McDonalds of private law agencies would get it right...
Maybe focus on a bit more interesting questions... it's absurd to claim that the companies would not know how to draw a line. Your scenario would only be a possibility if humans took five steps back in evolution and occupied trees. In that case I am not sure that there would be much to draw...
Not all lines are so clear. Some are, some are not. Not everyone lives in a subdivision. And that it's clear as your response doesn't answer the question.
So you just want to be reasonable. One of the property lines gives him most of the space between your houses. The other is in the middle. You knock on his door and point that out. You're a reasonable guy, but property line should be in the middle. He tells you he likes the other line, that's what you are both going to follow. Then he tells you to fuck off and slams the door in your face.
The next day he builds a fence and starts digging a pool in the property you think is yours. You go to your other neighbors and they say wow, you were screwed. They aren't getting involved. He's 6'5 and 280 and has a bad temper and holds grudges. They tell you good luck.
So what do you do now?
My response does not answer the question... on how to draw a line?
Dude, if you can't figure that out, you should not be participating here. We can't possibly hold your hand all the way through the process.
Rest assumed, there are plenty of people perfectly equipped to deal with lines.
Clearly there will be a similar rule that exists now. IE the one who first cultivates the property gets to draw the line. Since most property with any relevance is already owned there won't ever be an issue. You are pretending to be clueless focusing on stuff even a leftist would know how to solve.
The Constitution was created as a constraint upon all who swore an oath to it, and freely agreed to live under its principles...If there's any "contract" here, it only apples to those volunteering to live under said constraints....I defy anyone to point out where it delineates any privileges, benefits, obligations or responsibilities onto the people themselves.Again, the Constitution is a social contract establishing rules for how the new government would be structured and what its authority would be. Nobody who signed it and/or agreed to live by it got everything they wanted and everybody had to compromise, but as neither monarchy, totalitarian government, nor anarchy was considered acceptable, they reached the best agreement that they could at that time.
Another description of social contract is how the pioneers who settled communities without benefit of roads or help from any other sources and created infrastructure from scratch, mutually chose how they would organize themselves for mutual benefit. They mutually agreed on what laws would determine what would and would not be legal, and they mutually agreed on what resources and services would be shared rather than each person/family having to provide everything themselves--education for children, water supply, city streets, law enforcement, fire protection, etc. etc. etc. No doubt nobody then agreed with every point of the social contract or got everything they wanted, but they were able to negotiate and compromise on an organization that everybody could comfortably live with.
so·cial con·tract
NOUN
Those who say they never agreed to any such social contract miss the point completely. How unfeasible would it be for all those joining a particular society to demand that the society reorganize itself to suit them? However a just society does provide means for the people to mutually correct its mistakes, right wrongs, and improve things as does the U.S. Constitution.
- an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.
Yes, I would rather live in civil society. I was being facetious.Exactly, I take a lot of pride in maintaining my lawn!The fear would be from not knowing who you are dealing with. Every transgression would be met by the whim of the one being transgressed. What could go wrong.That’s because the number of people willing to commit acts of aggression are nigh-unto negligible, contrary to what politicians and their media would have you believe. The fact that government exists and violent crime is rare does not mean violent crime is rare because of government.
Why is it just violent crimes that you find to be a problem, is embezzlement or other forms of theft not important since they are not violent?
The number of people willing to take what is not there is not negligible in this country, if you have ever had the displeasure to work retail you would know this.
The only thing that stops even a few of these people is the fear of jail.
We could have public hangings and such held by the transgressed party. WalMart could chop the hand off of shoplifters in a public event, that would surely dissuade further theft.
That guy that walks up on my lawn, well maybe he is going to steal my Amazon package, I better shot him in the head before he has a chance, it is my lawn after all.
The other day someone parked on the road in front of my house but they got too far over and their tire was on my grass, which damaged my grass. I take great pride in my grass, I think that killing my grass is worthy of death.
Heaven help my neighbor if he decides to dam up the stream running across our properties.
But under anarchy what is to prevent him from doing it? Or from shooting you with impunity if you decide to take action to undo it? The one of you who shoots first determines how that will go. Or if you shoot at the same time, you're both dead or badly injured and that's okay? This is the proper way to handle disputes or who gets access to natural resources?
Wouldn't you prefer a law that says you and your neighbor must properly share a water supply that spans both of your properties, neither of you are allowed to pollute it or restrict it with impunity, and you can petition regress via law enforcement if your neighbor violates that law?
Well said.Exactly.The problem isn't the government. The problem is we the people. We get the government we deserve. The more we become like a democracy, the more we become socialized.
The role of the government is to do for the people what the people cannot do for themselves. Not to do for the people what they can and should be doing for themselves. The problem is that people who want the government to do for them what they can and should be doing for themselves, elect public servants that will agree to do for them what they should be doing for themselves.
Of course this is untenable over the long haul and will ultimately lead to debauching the dollar and anarchy. Which means we will need government to protect the weak from the strong which was the original basis for government in the first place.
God help us in what that government will look like when this all comes crashing down.
I have to applaud this because you pretty well nailed the situation that currently exists. Of course you left out the other side of the argument which is the anarchists saying that no government can be good government and therefore there should be no government.
But they provide no solution for how the strong will not be deterred or discouraged from preying on the weak and how anything other than violence will determine who will be able to access available resources.
The government the Founders gave us was a government limited to very specific functions such as:
1. The ability to pass such laws and regulation as necessary for the various states to operate as one nation without doing violence to each other. (The strong would not be allowed to prey upon the weak.)
2. The authority to negotiate trade agreements with other nations for the benefit of all.
3. The authority to create a common currency and such infrastructure and policy as necessary to promote the general (everybody's) welfare such as construction of post roads (federal roads) crossing state lines.
4. The responsibility to provide the common defense which included defense of our own borders against intruders and rules by which new states would be allowed to join the union, i.e. those who would respect and honor the U.S. Constitution.
Pretty much everything else was to be left to the various states who could organize themselves into whatever sorts of society they wished to have.
Such was the social contract mutually agreed by those determined to create a nation like no other with unalienable rights and liberties facilitated and uninterferred with by a central government that had never existed until the U.S.A. was formed.
And the people abdicated the social contract and created the corrupt and self serving mess we have now when it allowed the federal government overstep its restraints and be populated with people who would use government to their own personal advantage. And they do so by using the people's money to bribe or bludgeon them into acquiescence.
We have nobody to blame for that but ourselves. And nobody will be able to restore the social contract except for we the people with the courage and determination to do so.
1. Locke believed that most people are good and respect the rights of others because their conscience tells them they should. However, some people are not so good. Sometimes people who are stronger and more skilled abuse those who are weaker or less skilled.
2. Locke believed that in a state of nature, people protect their natural rights – life, liberty and property- by using their own strength and skill. The weaker and less skilled would find it difficult to protect their rights. Instead, the weaker people would try to protect their rights by joining together against the strong.
3. Locke believed that in a state of nature, no one’s life, liberty or property would be safe because there would be no government or laws to protect them. This is why people agreed to form governments. According to Locke, governments do no exist until people create them.
4. Locke believed that in a state of nature, no one would have the right to govern (rule over) you, and you would not have the right to govern anyone else. According to Locke, the only way the people get the right to govern anyone else is when the people give their consent (approval/permission). If the people have not given their consent to create a government, the government is not lawful or legal. In other words, the power of a lawful government comes from the consent (permission) of the people.
Why do people agree to form a social contract?
Although people agree everyone has natural rights (life, liberty and property), they worry about how those rights will be protected. In a state of nature, people might feel free to do anything they want to do. However, their rights would not be protected and that would make them feel insecure.
For John Locke, the great problem was to find a way to protect each person’s natural rights so that everyone could enjoy them and live at peace with each other. He felt that the best way to solve this problem is for each person to agree with others and create a government that gives it the power to make and enforce laws. Locke called this kind of agreement a social contact.
As in all contracts, you must give up something to get something (compromise). In a social contract everyone promises to give up the right to do everything they want in exchange for security that can be provided by a government. Each person agrees to obey the limits placed on them by the laws of the government. Everyone gains the security of knowing that their rights to life, liberty, and property are protected.
According to Locke, the main purpose of government is to protect those natural rights that the individual cannot effectively protect in a state of nature.
The error occurs at “elect a leader who is authorized to speak for all”. This “representation” is impossible, especially for “all”. No man can validly represent another; it’s simply contrary to reality itself. He would have to become the other and leave himself behind. The idea of becoming numerous people is even more absurd.
I know you just recently arrived, so I will repeat that government is authority - the purported right to rule (not merely the ability). No such right exists. Natural law defines rights, man cannot create them any more than he can create laws of physics. Authority is literally the falsely claimed “right” to do what others do not have the right to do. It is an inequality of rights, which has no rational basis, and is fundamentally immoral.
If you want to establish an organization that only defends natural law rights, that’s great, but that is not government. It does not have authority, and it does not presume rights in excess of those held by any individual.
I think you too are not understanding the concept of natural rights, social contract, or what I have been arguing. But the hour is getting late and I'm headed for bed soon. Do have a good night.
We understand that you believe in a myth. There is no such thing as the "social contract." 99% of the people you claim consented to it did no such thing. Contracts require consent to be valid, which makes your mythical social contract invalid. Your "America: take it or leave it" argument is the lowest kind of thuggish morality ever uttered in public.
I agree with that. The social contract is just an excuse to justify removal of individual property rights by tyrannical governments who redistribute disproportionate amounts to themselves.
A true liberal or a true conservative would be a political libertarian because that is the only way that they are free to pursue the values they hold.
Now Democrats aren't liberals at all, they are authoritarian leftists. They would never be libertarian, they have no values in common with liberty and freedom
Your comment re social contract--also all others who reject the concept--indicate a woeful lack of information as to what social contract is.
Once again, the social contract contained in the Constitution outlines what authority the people will give the government for the benefit of the people, and limits the authority the government will be allowed by the people. This is so terribly important to understand and, in today's socially engineered environment and group think, apparently is so difficult to teach these days.
Some here have indicated good understanding and knowledge of what social contract is and the history behind it. And some have expressed extremely uninformed opinions about it.
Again, the Constitution is a social contract establishing rules for how the new government would be structured and what its authority would be. Nobody who signed it and/or agreed to live by it got everything they wanted and everybody had to compromise, but as neither monarchy, totalitarian government, nor anarchy was considered acceptable, they reached the best agreement that they could at that time.
Another description of social contract is how the pioneers who settled communities without benefit of roads or help from any other sources and created infrastructure from scratch, mutually chose how they would organize themselves for mutual benefit. They mutually agreed on what laws would determine what would and would not be legal, and they mutually agreed on what resources and services would be shared rather than each person/family having to provide everything themselves--education for children, water supply, city streets, law enforcement, fire protection, etc. etc. etc. No doubt nobody then agreed with every point of the social contract or got everything they wanted, but they were able to negotiate and compromise on an organization that everybody could comfortably live with.
so·cial con·tract
NOUN
Those who say they never agreed to any such social contract miss the point completely. How unfeasible would it be for all those joining a particular society to demand that the society reorganize itself to suit them? However a just society does provide means for the people to mutually correct its mistakes, right wrongs, and improve things as does the U.S. Constitution.
- an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.
We're not really talking about the same thing. You're talking about what the social contract actually is. I'm talking about how it's used. I understand what it is and how John Locke defined it. I'm definitely a believer in most of Locke's theories.
However, it's used to justify the State removing your property and liberty for any reason that it wants. And that it's called a "social" contract makes it easy for authoritarian leftists like the Democrat party to justify removing your property for socialist reasons.
I am saying I don't like the term in today's political environment, it's used for evil not good
The Constitution was created as a constraint upon all who swore an oath to it, and freely agreed to live under its principles...If there's any "contract" here, it only apples to those volunteering to live under said constraints....I defy anyone to point out where it delineates any privileges, benefits, obligations or responsibilities onto the people themselves.Again, the Constitution is a social contract establishing rules for how the new government would be structured and what its authority would be. Nobody who signed it and/or agreed to live by it got everything they wanted and everybody had to compromise, but as neither monarchy, totalitarian government, nor anarchy was considered acceptable, they reached the best agreement that they could at that time.
Another description of social contract is how the pioneers who settled communities without benefit of roads or help from any other sources and created infrastructure from scratch, mutually chose how they would organize themselves for mutual benefit. They mutually agreed on what laws would determine what would and would not be legal, and they mutually agreed on what resources and services would be shared rather than each person/family having to provide everything themselves--education for children, water supply, city streets, law enforcement, fire protection, etc. etc. etc. No doubt nobody then agreed with every point of the social contract or got everything they wanted, but they were able to negotiate and compromise on an organization that everybody could comfortably live with.
so·cial con·tract
NOUN
Those who say they never agreed to any such social contract miss the point completely. How unfeasible would it be for all those joining a particular society to demand that the society reorganize itself to suit them? However a just society does provide means for the people to mutually correct its mistakes, right wrongs, and improve things as does the U.S. Constitution.
- an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.
You just described what is known in legal circles as a contract of adhesion...These are regularly nullified ab initio by courts.
Adhesion Contract
The Constitution was created as a constraint upon all who swore an oath to it, and freely agreed to live under its principles...If there's any "contract" here, it only apples to those volunteering to live under said constraints....I defy anyone to point out where it delineates any privileges, benefits, obligations or responsibilities onto the people themselves.Again, the Constitution is a social contract establishing rules for how the new government would be structured and what its authority would be. Nobody who signed it and/or agreed to live by it got everything they wanted and everybody had to compromise, but as neither monarchy, totalitarian government, nor anarchy was considered acceptable, they reached the best agreement that they could at that time.
Another description of social contract is how the pioneers who settled communities without benefit of roads or help from any other sources and created infrastructure from scratch, mutually chose how they would organize themselves for mutual benefit. They mutually agreed on what laws would determine what would and would not be legal, and they mutually agreed on what resources and services would be shared rather than each person/family having to provide everything themselves--education for children, water supply, city streets, law enforcement, fire protection, etc. etc. etc. No doubt nobody then agreed with every point of the social contract or got everything they wanted, but they were able to negotiate and compromise on an organization that everybody could comfortably live with.
so·cial con·tract
NOUN
Those who say they never agreed to any such social contract miss the point completely. How unfeasible would it be for all those joining a particular society to demand that the society reorganize itself to suit them? However a just society does provide means for the people to mutually correct its mistakes, right wrongs, and improve things as does the U.S. Constitution.
- an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.
You just described what is known in legal circles as a contract of adhesion...These are regularly nullified ab initio by courts.
Adhesion Contract
I think you too are not understanding the concept of natural rights, social contract, or what I have been arguing. But the hour is getting late and I'm headed for bed soon. Do have a good night.
We understand that you believe in a myth. There is no such thing as the "social contract." 99% of the people you claim consented to it did no such thing. Contracts require consent to be valid, which makes your mythical social contract invalid. Your "America: take it or leave it" argument is the lowest kind of thuggish morality ever uttered in public.
I agree with that. The social contract is just an excuse to justify removal of individual property rights by tyrannical governments who redistribute disproportionate amounts to themselves.
A true liberal or a true conservative would be a political libertarian because that is the only way that they are free to pursue the values they hold.
Now Democrats aren't liberals at all, they are authoritarian leftists. They would never be libertarian, they have no values in common with liberty and freedom
Your comment re social contract--also all others who reject the concept--indicate a woeful lack of information as to what social contract is.
Once again, the social contract contained in the Constitution outlines what authority the people will give the government for the benefit of the people, and limits the authority the government will be allowed by the people. This is so terribly important to understand and, in today's socially engineered environment and group think, apparently is so difficult to teach these days.
Some here have indicated good understanding and knowledge of what social contract is and the history behind it. And some have expressed extremely uninformed opinions about it.
Again, the Constitution is a social contract establishing rules for how the new government would be structured and what its authority would be. Nobody who signed it and/or agreed to live by it got everything they wanted and everybody had to compromise, but as neither monarchy, totalitarian government, nor anarchy was considered acceptable, they reached the best agreement that they could at that time.
Another description of social contract is how the pioneers who settled communities without benefit of roads or help from any other sources and created infrastructure from scratch, mutually chose how they would organize themselves for mutual benefit. They mutually agreed on what laws would determine what would and would not be legal, and they mutually agreed on what resources and services would be shared rather than each person/family having to provide everything themselves--education for children, water supply, city streets, law enforcement, fire protection, etc. etc. etc. No doubt nobody then agreed with every point of the social contract or got everything they wanted, but they were able to negotiate and compromise on an organization that everybody could comfortably live with.
so·cial con·tract
NOUN
Those who say they never agreed to any such social contract miss the point completely. How unfeasible would it be for all those joining a particular society to demand that the society reorganize itself to suit them? However a just society does provide means for the people to mutually correct its mistakes, right wrongs, and improve things as does the U.S. Constitution.
- an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.
We're not really talking about the same thing. You're talking about what the social contract actually is. I'm talking about how it's used. I understand what it is and how John Locke defined it. I'm definitely a believer in most of Locke's theories.
However, it's used to justify the State removing your property and liberty for any reason that it wants. And that it's called a "social" contract makes it easy for authoritarian leftists like the Democrat party to justify removing your property for socialist reasons.
I am saying I don't like the term in today's political environment, it's used for evil not good
When the state confiscates your property for the 'general good' other than what the government must take in order to fulfill its obligations re the social contract, that is in no way social contract. And even when the state imposes necessary taxes, under social contract it is obligated to do so without prejudice or preference to any class or group. When it must impose such fees as necessary to provide specific services to those who choose to use them, in that case those who use the services are the ones who pay for them. The federal government has no constitutional authority to confiscate anybody's property in order to provide benefits to any individual, group, demographic, state etc.
The federal government was given no authority to seize any property without just compensation and outside its authority and restrictions specified in the Constitution.
That the federal government or any other state or local government does illegal things outside its specific authority has nothing to do with social contract. And when we the people allow them to do it with impunity, we have abdicated our obligations and responsibility as U.S. citizens. You can't blame social contract for that either.
Yes, I would rather live in civil society. I was being facetious.Exactly, I take a lot of pride in maintaining my lawn!The fear would be from not knowing who you are dealing with. Every transgression would be met by the whim of the one being transgressed. What could go wrong.Why is it just violent crimes that you find to be a problem, is embezzlement or other forms of theft not important since they are not violent?
The number of people willing to take what is not there is not negligible in this country, if you have ever had the displeasure to work retail you would know this.
The only thing that stops even a few of these people is the fear of jail.
We could have public hangings and such held by the transgressed party. WalMart could chop the hand off of shoplifters in a public event, that would surely dissuade further theft.
That guy that walks up on my lawn, well maybe he is going to steal my Amazon package, I better shot him in the head before he has a chance, it is my lawn after all.
The other day someone parked on the road in front of my house but they got too far over and their tire was on my grass, which damaged my grass. I take great pride in my grass, I think that killing my grass is worthy of death.
Heaven help my neighbor if he decides to dam up the stream running across our properties.
But under anarchy what is to prevent him from doing it? Or from shooting you with impunity if you decide to take action to undo it? The one of you who shoots first determines how that will go. Or if you shoot at the same time, you're both dead or badly injured and that's okay? This is the proper way to handle disputes or who gets access to natural resources?
Wouldn't you prefer a law that says you and your neighbor must properly share a water supply that spans both of your properties, neither of you are allowed to pollute it or restrict it with impunity, and you can petition regress via law enforcement if your neighbor violates that law?
