4 ms·

>social contract Thats a bad case of framing. Contract implies willing participants and free choice. You have a story which with you justify forcing people aro

>social contract Thats a bad case of framing. Contract implies willing participants and free choice. You have a story which with you justify forcing people around.

Tijdreiziger 5y ago
> You have a story which with you justify forcing people around. I repeat: that’s the definition of the social contract. You are forced, by threat of violence, not to engage in harmful activities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
- cf141q5325 5y ago
  You just repeated the wording of your story while ignoring my post entirely. 1) Contract implies consenting parties. Using the word in another capacity is a frame. It being a popular one doesnt change that. 2) Your actions entailing a lot more then just your declared intentions. As in your definition of harmful being quite broad. Or differently put, you have a story which with you justify forcing people around.
  - Tijdreiziger 5y ago
    Any contract must be backed up by force, or else it’s meaningless. As an example, if you enter into a legal contract, that contract is backed up by the threat of litigation (and by extension, force). If it weren’t, there wouldn’t be any incentive to obey it. And yes, I do believe that the consensus is that activities with an outsized climate impact are harmful.
    - cf141q5325 5y ago
      IF you enter. There is the choice that is lacking is this case. Without the choice there is no contract, just the force. And if it were consensus you wouldnt have to force it. Both "contract" and "consensus" are nice frames for forcing people to do what you think is right. At least be honest about it.
      - Tijdreiziger 5y ago
        If enough members of society disagree with the terms of the contract, they may vote in representatives who change those terms, or alternatively they may revolt and install new representatives that way (see e.g. the French Revolution, American Revolution or Arab Spring). If you instead hold the view that _every single individual_ should be able to opt out of the contract (i.e. should be able to choose not to be subject to the rule of law), then you go back to ‘anarchism is the only form of free government’, which is where we started this discussion 6 comments ago. QED.
        cf141q5325 5y ago
        You just gave me your story again, you being able to repeat it has nothing to do with QED. For the individual there is no contract and no consensus, you just said so. For the individual its do as you are told at the threat of violence. Differently put, you just repeated a story which with you justify forcing other individuals around. You not liking this framing doesnt change that. edit: I am not repeating myself for fun here. Once we agree that your "consensus based societal contract" is code for "forcing other individuals to do as you tell them at the threat of force", we can look at what anarchists actually say and how much better of a story they have. How much better is "being born into an involuntary "contract" that dictates your actions at the threat of violence" described as slavery vs "consensual contract"? All completely unrelated to the implications. Facts generally dont care for implications. You not wanting to hear them dont make them go away.
        Tijdreiziger 5y ago
        My initial comment, which (I think) we have been debating thus far, stated "If you take this argument to its logical conclusion, anarchism is the only form of free government." It seems that we are in agreement on this point? If so, I'm really not sure on which point you're disagreeing with me (with a healthy amount of sneering, nonetheless, which I might remind you is against HN guidelines). Is it that the term 'social contract' offends you? You may also replace 'contract' with 'flubbitz' in my argument; the argument still holds. I used the term 'social contract' because it's a well-understood term in the English language ('high school level' according to Dictionary.com).
    - sundbry 5y ago
      Others maintain the view that central bank driven infinite debt a/k/a "economic growth" is the key driver of global warming, rather than it's antithesis.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

>social contract Thats a bad case of framing. Contract implies willing participants and free choice. You have a story which with you justify forcing people around.

Tijdreiziger 5y ago

> You have a story which with you justify forcing people around. I repeat: that’s the definition of the social contract. You are forced, by threat of violence, not to engage in harmful activities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

cf141q5325 5y ago
You just repeated the wording of your story while ignoring my post entirely. 1) Contract implies consenting parties. Using the word in another capacity is a frame. It being a popular one doesnt change that. 2) Your actions entailing a lot more then just your declared intentions. As in your definition of harmful being quite broad. Or differently put, you have a story which with you justify forcing people around.
- Tijdreiziger 5y ago
  Any contract must be backed up by force, or else it’s meaningless. As an example, if you enter into a legal contract, that contract is backed up by the threat of litigation (and by extension, force). If it weren’t, there wouldn’t be any incentive to obey it. And yes, I do believe that the consensus is that activities with an outsized climate impact are harmful.
  - cf141q5325 5y ago
    IF you enter. There is the choice that is lacking is this case. Without the choice there is no contract, just the force. And if it were consensus you wouldnt have to force it. Both "contract" and "consensus" are nice frames for forcing people to do what you think is right. At least be honest about it.
    - Tijdreiziger 5y ago
      If enough members of society disagree with the terms of the contract, they may vote in representatives who change those terms, or alternatively they may revolt and install new representatives that way (see e.g. the French Revolution, American Revolution or Arab Spring). If you instead hold the view that _every single individual_ should be able to opt out of the contract (i.e. should be able to choose not to be subject to the rule of law), then you go back to ‘anarchism is the only form of free government’, which is where we started this discussion 6 comments ago. QED.
      - cf141q5325 5y ago
        You just gave me your story again, you being able to repeat it has nothing to do with QED. For the individual there is no contract and no consensus, you just said so. For the individual its do as you are told at the threat of violence. Differently put, you just repeated a story which with you justify forcing other individuals around. You not liking this framing doesnt change that. edit: I am not repeating myself for fun here. Once we agree that your "consensus based societal contract" is code for "forcing other individuals to do as you tell them at the threat of force", we can look at what anarchists actually say and how much better of a story they have. How much better is "being born into an involuntary "contract" that dictates your actions at the threat of violence" described as slavery vs "consensual contract"? All completely unrelated to the implications. Facts generally dont care for implications. You not wanting to hear them dont make them go away.
        Tijdreiziger 5y ago
        My initial comment, which (I think) we have been debating thus far, stated "If you take this argument to its logical conclusion, anarchism is the only form of free government." It seems that we are in agreement on this point? If so, I'm really not sure on which point you're disagreeing with me (with a healthy amount of sneering, nonetheless, which I might remind you is against HN guidelines). Is it that the term 'social contract' offends you? You may also replace 'contract' with 'flubbitz' in my argument; the argument still holds. I used the term 'social contract' because it's a well-understood term in the English language ('high school level' according to Dictionary.com).
  - sundbry 5y ago
    Others maintain the view that central bank driven infinite debt a/k/a "economic growth" is the key driver of global warming, rather than it's antithesis.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]