Especially so:
contracts that are unwritten and unspoken are no contracts at all
The whole basis for this post is that:
Every individual, regardless of background, all agree to the social contracts within a given society. These contracts are what make up the day to day interactions between individuals on a personable level. They are what I would consider to be the foundation of “peace” between each person/persons, and range in varying degrees on every conscious level. Some of the more basic social contracts consist of things like “I’ll leave you alone if you do the same”, or “I’m not going to harm you as long as you do the same”, and tend to increase in both length and complexity depending on whatever circumstance we’re dissecting.
Agreeing to something that is not written cannot be a contract, it's just a mutual understanding, or like you said, an expectation.
So the whole "social contracts" is a convolution of common sense. It would read:
*Every individual, regardless of background, all agree to mutual respect" And therefore it makes even less sense, because not only is that not observable, as background gives rise to the level of mutual respect:
https://www.treehugger.com/cars/study-reveals-obvious-rich-are-different-you-and-me-especially-behind-wheel.html
But then there is no point to argue that some "groups" are undermining this fantasy of "unsigned, unwritten contracts that everyone, regardless of background, all agree to". The foundation that he goes to expound on is not peace, as conflict occurs in spite of social contracts and outside his "social subversion" but the justification of the state even though he had not uttered that once.
Humans are social creatures, to say that they enter into social contractual agreements is as convoluted as you get, and the reason for creating this confusion isn't to express why "peace" is in a society when there's little if any evidence of said peace, but to justify the current social structure, and only that. Social contract is a term coined to legitimize the coercive power of the state. Social contract theory says that (individuals) some rights are handed over, with or without informed consent, in order for the state to defend the remaining (individual) rights. And why and how doesn't enter into that theory ever. There is no legitimate verifiable why should the people relinquish their rights so that a group or individual will secure their remaining rights, regardless of the fact that on the surface this is the MO of blackmail, extortion and coercion, not of anything legitimate (you don't compromise that which you value, ever). The usual motive/reason give for it is that people will abuse each other without it, and chaos will ensue, but clearly for over 2000 years that has not been the case for the millions upon millions that live in Zomia in complete anarchy, the motive that people will have unlimited rights and therefore lead to murder, rape and whatnot is not backed up by anything, not even logic, lest historical precedence. The method for securing the rights by giving up some rights is also not addressed by the theory, not even marginally. By giving up your rights you have effectively compromised them, and to expect that the remaining ones will not be compromised in the same manner is absurd, there is no guarantee of that and the numerous revolutions are evidence of this erosion happening.
I was greatly relieved to discover that unalienable rights, by definition, are non-transferable, and non-surrenderable. As a result, social contract cannot be achieved legitimately. It is impossible without explicit, spoken or written contract, otherwise there is no demonstration of knowledge, and, without which, there can be no consent. The social 'contract' is a protection racket, and is, at it's core, purest fraud. If it could be done without the individual's knowledge, it could be done entirely in secret, and no one would know which rights they've given up and which rights are being protected, if they knew there was anything to be aware of at all.. It would then be in the interest of the fraudster to deprive the unknowing 'contractee' of all rights.
I find that the writings of Lysander Spooner make the most sense to me. These are the most reasoned according to natural law. I still use the language of the constitution to communicate with those who are not able to conceive of genuine liberty. Sometimes I feel it to be a deceit, but I don't know another way to help pull some people up, out of the mire of slavery. Starting with Spooner and natural law is like speaking an alien language to many. It has occurred to me the possibility that over 90% of humanity may not even be able to comprehend natural law. I do hope this is not the fact.
As far as taxes go, I have never seen a case where the taxes were actually used to benefit the people. The whiskey tax, I believe, led to suppression of The Whiskey Rebellion, which was a particularly telling demonstration of government tyranny in a supposed 'land of liberty'.
90% was me being kind. I do think there are intelligent people out there who have simply been indoctrinated their entire lives and are struggling to get free. I find that I am still often in this category, when I am not paying close attention.
Possession vs ownership is clearly not semantics. That's why there is a difference made between 'to have' and 'to hold'. Police can not have any legitimate existence or authority. It is an impossibility, because it is a logical contradiction of natural rights and individual liberty. Despite the purported 'good intentions' behind the creation of police to 'protect' life and liberty, the result of the dynamics of imbuing a subset of the people with rights The People, at large, do not have, is well established, if not well known, and leads to corruption, if not outright despotism, every time it has been tried.
I think that 'protection of liberty' may not have any logical existence, only 'defense of liberty'. semantralist doesn't want to be correct, he wants to be right. I left him a poignant pun. Someone flagged that particular comment of yours with two dummy accounts with lots of SP (23,000 apiece) and no substance. I guess some people would rather despise the truth, than be freed by it.
I often find that arguing with an-caps and libertarians is almost as pointless as arguing with leftists, it's just a different degree of authoritarianism.
Thank you. I learn much more having conversation than faux debate with people who only desire to be right.
Don't mistake a sense of aggression or frustration with wanting to be "right". Being right or wrong is arbitrary when it comes to philosophical talking points such as politics or ideology. It's all opinions through rigorous thinking and scrutiny....just some times people rub you the wrong way and you have to cut communication before things end up at the point of "well fuck you" back and forth.
Again, you may want to learn what words mean.
Or perhaps learn to read better? I'd suggest studying structuralist approaches.
This couldn't be farther from the truth. You have no moral integrity because you compare a system that has long since passed to a system that is in place now. It would be the same proposition as me saying "I enjoy dating black men and women" and someone saying "Well slave owners like to fuck their slaves". The level of intellectual integrity you have is....by impair the same as those egregious progressive liberals.
I ended the conversation on the first post because I knew exactly how it would end, in a completely contrary stance for each of us, but you kept up the drama. You really are disingenuous.