I somewhat agree. The way I understand it is that contracts that are unwritten and unspoken are no contracts at all, but expectations of an individual. What is referred to as 'social contract' is simply the demonstrable individual natural rights that we respect in others, so as to have ours respected, 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. If there is not mutual respect, self defense comes into play. Of course, a basic understanding of the function of nature must be achieved to reach a level of competence, to act as a responsible adult in interactions with other adults. This is the understanding of competence in the natural lawful sense. In order to respect the rights of others, we must understand what rights are, and how they function as part of the dynamic of nature. These are negative rights, where a contract would be positive rights.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I don't agree with this sentiment. I tolerate people I don't respect at all because it's beneficial for me not to infringe on them. That has nothing to do with respect, and everything to do with being able to function on my own apart from others, without having to be infringed upon by any other individual. This is what I would call the basis of the "social contract" persay; I would almost just call it a social interaction pact just like most libertarians and an-caps refer to it in the sense of the NAP (non-aggression pact) or ZAP (zero aggression principle). However it differs from those two in the sense that beneficiality takes precedence over aggression being taken out of the equation.
I don't adhere to any natural laws, only natural rights in that each individual has the rights to themselves and the measures that they require to maintain themselves. Anything beyond that aspect will require societal measures to answer what then comes beyond maintaining a persons self.
Anything taken to a negative is not a right. Unless you're talking about unspoken agreements being "rights".
Feel free to disagree with the facts of reality all you want, but please do not mistake a fact for a sentiment. It is nothing of the kind. It is the same with your characterization of an unconscious, unspoken, and unwritten agreement as a contract, it is not, and can not be. A contract is an explicit agreement, entered into with knowledge and consent, or it doesn't and cannot exist.
It is clear from your interactions that you may want to learn what words mean before continuing to use them. Positive and negative rights is a clear and established dichotomy of concepts. Please inform yourself.
The problem is that it's not a "fact", it is very much so a sentiment. Just as my perspective is full of a multitude of different sentiments.
Philosophical positions are nothing more than subjective interpretations of reality. The term social contract is simply used to explain ths type of multi-conscious agreements we partake in (multi-conscious referring to conscious, subconscious, and unconscious).
As for negative and positive rights, I did not know they meant action and inaction when referred to rights. I don't use negative and positive in those regards, but I can understand the implications.
What is referred to as 'social contract' is simply the demonstrable individual natural rights that we respect in others, so as to have ours respected, 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. This remains a demonstrable fact, and calling it a sentiment does not make it so.
Creating a word salad out of several forms of the word 'conscious' does not make an unspoken and unwritten agreement a contract. It never has and never will, because it can not. It is an impossibility, as a contract requires knowledge and consent.
Positive and negative is the terminology. Communication requires use of common terminology.
"The beginning of wisdom is the defining of terms." Socrates
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.
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.