4 ms·

I signed no contract. There's no social contract. Its literally a figment of your imagination.

Consultant32452 4y ago
I agree with you, but the social contract argument fails here even if you imagine a fantasy world where it would exist. I try to meet people where they are. Leftists arguments against leftists. Right-wing arguments against the right wing. And social contract arguments against social contractors.
harimau777 4y ago
Where do you go with that? If there's no social contract then there's nothing wrong with coercing people in the first place so the discussion is moot.
- Consultant32452 4y ago
  The social contract is just coercion by force with a nice fancy name so you don't murder the people who threaten you with violence and prison rape if you don't give them 40% of your income.
  - harimau777 4y ago
    Isn't the alternative might makes right; where the strong can force the weak to give 100% of their income?
    - Consultant32452 4y ago
      The system you have today is might makes right. If your government was overthrown by a foreign country and replaced, the only difference would be you would temporarily think the new government lacked legitimacy. But pretty soon you'd accept it as the new legitimate authority. This is your cognitive dissonance helping you cope with your submission to this illegitimate authority. In most cases it is better for the powerful to not take everything from the weak. You want to incentivize them to create more for your to control/take, but never let them keep enough to challenge you. An actual "social contract" would imply consent and the option to opt-out. But I will literally be thrown in a cage with rapists and murderers if I opt-out. That is the opposite of consent. What you call the social contract is nothing but top-down violent coercion.
- verisimi 4y ago
  All we have is now coercion. On account of figments of people's imagination. We could try embracing individual freedom. At least that won't be a fantasy.
  - harimau777 4y ago
    I'm not sure I follow. Without a social contract, on what philosophical/moral grounds should I care about anyone else's individual freedom? If there's no philosophical/moral ground, then why does it matter whether or not something is a fantasy?
    - verisimi 4y ago
      Firstly - there is no social contract - you (and I) signed nothing. No contract. Just training. Secondly - the governance structure you have now, does not care about your freedoms. I think I can make a strong case that what we have is domination of everyone by the worst of us. We are being herded into some sort of techno-dystopia, and no one in the governance structure is doing anything apart from waving things through. Thirdly - morality is real. At family gatherings you do not need the strong arm of the law. The strong arm of the law causes the events that put people in fear, so that it has a valid pretext to step in and assumes control - with people's blessing (as they are ignorant of the true circumstances). What you have is a large scale protection racket. And you are arguing for it. You have a lack of imagination regards alternative (free) ways to live, and are likely highly indoctrinated into the system you are trying to defend, possibly receiving some of the breadcrumbs.
      - harimau777 4y ago
        Certainly when I say "social contract" it's a metaphor. I don't literally mean a legal contract that people sign. Rather, what I mean is that in exchange for the benefits of living in a society (mutual safety, cooperation on tasks, exchange of ideas, etc.) people give up some of their individual rights (e.g. they agree to recognize private property). Part of what is confusing me, is that respect for individual freedom is often one of the primary components of the social contract. What I'm not understanding is what you are advocating. Are you saying that society should be structured around an absolute morality provided by a religion? Are you advocating some sort of neo-tribalism where society is built around extended family groups? Do you believe in anarchic utopianism where there would be no crime if there was no government?

I agree with you, but the social contract argument fails here even if you imagine a fantasy world where it would exist. I try to meet people where they are. Leftists arguments against leftists. Right-wing arguments against the right wing. And social contract arguments against social contractors.

harimau777 4y ago

Where do you go with that? If there's no social contract then there's nothing wrong with coercing people in the first place so the discussion is moot.

Consultant32452 4y ago
The social contract is just coercion by force with a nice fancy name so you don't murder the people who threaten you with violence and prison rape if you don't give them 40% of your income.
- harimau777 4y ago
  Isn't the alternative might makes right; where the strong can force the weak to give 100% of their income?
  - Consultant32452 4y ago
    The system you have today is might makes right. If your government was overthrown by a foreign country and replaced, the only difference would be you would temporarily think the new government lacked legitimacy. But pretty soon you'd accept it as the new legitimate authority. This is your cognitive dissonance helping you cope with your submission to this illegitimate authority. In most cases it is better for the powerful to not take everything from the weak. You want to incentivize them to create more for your to control/take, but never let them keep enough to challenge you. An actual "social contract" would imply consent and the option to opt-out. But I will literally be thrown in a cage with rapists and murderers if I opt-out. That is the opposite of consent. What you call the social contract is nothing but top-down violent coercion.
verisimi 4y ago
All we have is now coercion. On account of figments of people's imagination. We could try embracing individual freedom. At least that won't be a fantasy.
- harimau777 4y ago
  I'm not sure I follow. Without a social contract, on what philosophical/moral grounds should I care about anyone else's individual freedom? If there's no philosophical/moral ground, then why does it matter whether or not something is a fantasy?
  - verisimi 4y ago
    Firstly - there is no social contract - you (and I) signed nothing. No contract. Just training. Secondly - the governance structure you have now, does not care about your freedoms. I think I can make a strong case that what we have is domination of everyone by the worst of us. We are being herded into some sort of techno-dystopia, and no one in the governance structure is doing anything apart from waving things through. Thirdly - morality is real. At family gatherings you do not need the strong arm of the law. The strong arm of the law causes the events that put people in fear, so that it has a valid pretext to step in and assumes control - with people's blessing (as they are ignorant of the true circumstances). What you have is a large scale protection racket. And you are arguing for it. You have a lack of imagination regards alternative (free) ways to live, and are likely highly indoctrinated into the system you are trying to defend, possibly receiving some of the breadcrumbs.
    - harimau777 4y ago
      Certainly when I say "social contract" it's a metaphor. I don't literally mean a legal contract that people sign. Rather, what I mean is that in exchange for the benefits of living in a society (mutual safety, cooperation on tasks, exchange of ideas, etc.) people give up some of their individual rights (e.g. they agree to recognize private property). Part of what is confusing me, is that respect for individual freedom is often one of the primary components of the social contract. What I'm not understanding is what you are advocating. Are you saying that society should be structured around an absolute morality provided by a religion? Are you advocating some sort of neo-tribalism where society is built around extended family groups? Do you believe in anarchic utopianism where there would be no crime if there was no government?