3 ms·

> I'm pretty sure society is not obligated to have an interest in you It somewhat stops being a society if it says to some members "whether you live or die is

> I'm pretty sure society is not obligated to have an interest in you It somewhat stops being a society if it says to some members "whether you live or die is irrelevant to me, I will not care either way". That's what some people experience at least some of the time. There's a social contract. Is it still binding you if society doesn't hold up its end?

lazide 4y ago
If society feels like it wants it to, it’s hard to evade the various means of enforcement society has created and funded for the purpose.
- luckylion 4y ago
  That's true, and I don't think society will say "we've let you down but in return you don't owe taxes". I meant to ask more about the ethics. Should you feel obligated to uphold your end if the other side does not?
  - lazide 4y ago
    Practically, does it matter if the other side has guns and doesn’t care what the person thinks? (Ethically, of course, spherical cows and all, there are many ways to discuss it - but why?)
    - luckylion 4y ago
      Society doesn't function because of law enforcement (and the threat of violence by the state), it functions because the super majority doesn't break the laws. If the social contract breaks away, you can have an army but you can't run a modern society on threats, or you'll exhaust the resources by government watchmen, and you'll end up with 10% in society being productive and the rest watching them and each other.
      - lazide 4y ago
        I think you misunderstand my point. Good fences make good neighbors. Enforcement is the fence. Functional societies have reasonable fences, and rarely need to test them in the majority case, because they’re functional. There is no point in thinking about testing something you know works. When someone starts wandering off, or a problem case is there, it also deals with them in a way that doesn’t undermine everything else. It keeps problems at bay. Without that fence, or when the fence starts being moved so it’s NOT in the right place, problems cascade and grow, society starts fighting itself and others as trust is lost in institutions and other people, and eventually, either vigilantism, civil war or mass corruption is the result. Like you’re discussing. It’s a constant, ongoing process. This also makes it pretty rough being an edge case, which is the context of the thread we’re in. A society beyond a certain, relatively small size without law enforcement (or similar boundary setting and enforcement) will, no matter how amazing, fall apart as the natural forces of corruption and selfishness tear at it unchecked. It doesn’t have to be a professional corps of folks, but it has to be a working mechanism though. Even small groups have this. Usually in the form of a chief, village head, etc. Larger groups of course need something more formalized eventually, just due to scale. Regardless, not towing the line is going to get you stomped on, unless you’re able to get under the radar, or are part of a large enough group that you can force the apparatus to leave you alone. Though that definitely contributes to the whole ‘mass corruption’ problem.

lazide 4y ago

If society feels like it wants it to, it’s hard to evade the various means of enforcement society has created and funded for the purpose.

luckylion 4y ago
That's true, and I don't think society will say "we've let you down but in return you don't owe taxes". I meant to ask more about the ethics. Should you feel obligated to uphold your end if the other side does not?
- lazide 4y ago
  Practically, does it matter if the other side has guns and doesn’t care what the person thinks? (Ethically, of course, spherical cows and all, there are many ways to discuss it - but why?)
  - luckylion 4y ago
    Society doesn't function because of law enforcement (and the threat of violence by the state), it functions because the super majority doesn't break the laws. If the social contract breaks away, you can have an army but you can't run a modern society on threats, or you'll exhaust the resources by government watchmen, and you'll end up with 10% in society being productive and the rest watching them and each other.
    - lazide 4y ago
      I think you misunderstand my point. Good fences make good neighbors. Enforcement is the fence. Functional societies have reasonable fences, and rarely need to test them in the majority case, because they’re functional. There is no point in thinking about testing something you know works. When someone starts wandering off, or a problem case is there, it also deals with them in a way that doesn’t undermine everything else. It keeps problems at bay. Without that fence, or when the fence starts being moved so it’s NOT in the right place, problems cascade and grow, society starts fighting itself and others as trust is lost in institutions and other people, and eventually, either vigilantism, civil war or mass corruption is the result. Like you’re discussing. It’s a constant, ongoing process. This also makes it pretty rough being an edge case, which is the context of the thread we’re in. A society beyond a certain, relatively small size without law enforcement (or similar boundary setting and enforcement) will, no matter how amazing, fall apart as the natural forces of corruption and selfishness tear at it unchecked. It doesn’t have to be a professional corps of folks, but it has to be a working mechanism though. Even small groups have this. Usually in the form of a chief, village head, etc. Larger groups of course need something more formalized eventually, just due to scale. Regardless, not towing the line is going to get you stomped on, unless you’re able to get under the radar, or are part of a large enough group that you can force the apparatus to leave you alone. Though that definitely contributes to the whole ‘mass corruption’ problem.