Ideolgues and their hatred of the societal ramparts we call interactions.
I've had this written up for some time, but have never found the proper place to post it until now. [: Thank you Steemit.
Simple Social Structuring.
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. As I said before, I would consider these to be the foundation of peace on a personable level, however there are individuals or groups that have the desire to break apart the metaphorical “strings” of these social contracts in order to gain ideological grounds.
On initial analysis of these individuals or groups, I have observed a phenomena I would call “social subversion”; [that is] the purpose and intent to undermine the fundamentals of social interactions within any given society [so as to shift power to the seemingly “under privileged” (e.g. post-modernist theory, critical theory, Marxist theory, etc…) or to a lesser extent a perceived absolute authority (fascist states, socialist states, totalitarian/authoritarian practices and implementations)]. It would seem that the intent is to create a system that would benefit all “appropriate social classes” equally. This sentiment is one that has held an expression all throughout history, and tends to be the driving force of individuals or groups whose focus is mainly towards a destabilization of socio-economic aspects of a society. It is especially so within the leading world countries today with a hyper focused lens on capitalism; and any relatively parallel system of economy.
This sentiment always confuses me. It shows the individuals or groups expressing it, as never expressing anything other than their desires for a better system suited for equality. Instead however, the expression of the sentiment becomes the goal. The actions towards achieving the outcomes for or towards equality get swept under the bus and forgotten. This leads me to conclude a few things about their motives: that they don’t care about whatever they’re actually expressing, they want power [either social, economic, or political], and possibly more that I’ve yet to uncover.
The Effects of Undermining.
I don't have to tell most people here how intensely history has shown us how fast-moving groups lay ruin to most societies. But I don't think most individuals are aware of how fast moving most of these ideological frameworks of said groups really are. Take for instance the current politisphere in here in the United States. When we had the progressive liberals start pushing and pushing; remember the phrase "give an inch give a mile", their ideology into every facet of media and politics, we saw a massive shift in the social paradigm. This brought with it the large miasma of post-modern academic works from the "social sciences" that supposedly highlighted the systemic problems within our society. The effects we see from that are people not only disagreeing on fundamental levels, but now they have no other way to express it other than complete censorship, and if necessary they will resort to violence for said censorship.
I'm no psychologist (no doubt), but I can see that the ideological landscape has lead to a battleground for the perceived "correct" route for society. And it is the goals of these ideologically driven zealots to undermine the already functional social atmosphere of whatever society they wish to infest. This definitely goes for any and all subscribers of any [specific] ideological framework.
A proposition
This will lead into my next post. I have a proposition about how to not only combat this mentality within ourselves, but to help create a method forward and try to work with others. This proposition is to reconstruct your own ideological framework, with an emphasis on not subscribing to other ideological frameworks but instead using them as a tool for understanding.
Now I know that what I’ve stated seems like it is baseline assertions to be used against any and all oppositions, especially those that I don’t like or care for. However I would argue for anyone to reconsider this, as my goal is to (hopefully) start a dialogue about the events unfolding within current societies, with an emphasis on analyzing ideological frameworks and the language used by subscribers of those frameworks. But for now I want to continue on with the discussions and dialogues, whilst scrutinizing all ideology to some better end.
Part 2 will come soon. But as always I thank you for reading. [:
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for sharing
Have a great weekend
Much appreciated for stopping by. [:
I'm interested in reading your next post.
Glad to have generated some interest. :D I'm usually very critical of what I write to begin with, so posting things always makes me feel really weird and anxious for awhile.
I've got a few sociology degrees under my belt so I think I understand what you're getting at. I'm a bit of a Marxist and see why people want to undermine the system in place to have complete equality, especially those groups who are disadvantaged. I see a lot of the battles for equality being fought also being harmful in ways because it creates a lot of discontent and anger and fighting. It's weird that groups wanting a peaceful-equal society cause chaos because they are breaking up normal day to day functions of society. It's a big issue to discuss so I'll see what your next posts discuss cover to learn more about your perspective.
according to @baah;
i will say it's a societal ideology that has supporting and opposing individuals.