8 ms·

Yes, I'm familiar with the social contract. There is no such thing in the real world. It's a post-facto justification for what is enforced by other means. It ha

Yes, I'm familiar with the social contract. There is no such thing in the real world. It's a post-facto justification for what is enforced by other means. It has zero legal applicability. There are laws passed by legislators who are elected. The rule of law is established by force, not by any sort of contract or agreement. There is no social contract except in philosophy class and books that have no legal standing.

bduerst 12y ago
Not entirely. John Locke's take is that you agree to a rule of law by choosing to live in it, and that you can move to another government if you disagree. Only Thomas Hobbe's take was based purely on force, because he viewed the nature of man as being vile and completely evil, which isn't surprising given the environment he lived in.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- Chinjut 12y ago
  I think you mean Thomas Hobbes. :)
  - bduerst 12y ago
    Derp. Good catch. Was reading the comic yesterday.
gclaramunt 12y ago
An aging population is never good for any government. Unless you are a really overpopulated country, having a positive birthrate is a good thing (translates to economic growth). The case for encouraging the population to have children is pretty straightforward...
- parennoob 12y ago
  Another way to increase younger population is also to encourage immigration in that population group. However, for other reasons, this will never be acknowledged as a reasonable measure :)
  - tsotha 12y ago
    Eh, what? Not only is this acknowledged as reasonable in many countries, it's policy.
    - parennoob 12y ago
      The anti-immigration sentiment often seen in the US (sometimes even on HN), and in a lot of European countries seems to say otherwise.
      - tsotha 12y ago
        There isn't much anti-immigration sentiment in the US. What we have in the US is anti illegal immigration sentiment. In terms of European countries there was an article about a week ago regarding Americans going to Germany for free college. The Germans were hoping they'd stay. I think people worry about the quality of immigrants. We want more young Sergei Brins and fewer middle aged guys with a sixth grade education.
        joncrocks 12y ago
        While that may be technically true, AFAIK it's hard for someone to immigrate to the US. If I wanted to move to the US tomorrow, I believe it would involve me having to get a job before I got there. One could argue that saying that you're against illegal immigration and making legal immigration very difficult is the same as saying that you don't really want immigration.
        tsotha 12y ago
Crito 12y ago
Well in that case.... > "I don't get why employers should be forced to pay for someone's choice to have children." Because > "There are laws passed by legislators who are elected. The rule of law is established by force" That's why. The men with the power, who control the men with the guns, have declared that this is the way our society should work. There is your realpolitik answer.
- sgift 12y ago
  > The men with the power, who control the men with the guns, have declared that this is the way our society should work. Obviously, in this case, that didn't happen or mindfulgeek wouldn't have been let go.
  - Crito 12y ago
    The system these powerful men have set up does not prevent people from breaking the rules the powerful men have set. It does however lay out potential consequences for breaking the rules, should the victim choose to navigate this system in the correct way. They are powerful, but not omnipotent. They are men, not gods.
    - sgift 12y ago
      Good point, now we can get a (for me?) more interesting discussion: - Was something illegal done here? - If yes, why is it (seemingly) so easy to do this? - How can this be changed? - Should it be changed? (In my opinion: Yes, a law which is easily breakable is useless) Note: I only raise questions of legality here, not morality. I will not even start to discuss the morality of this action, because in my opinion anyone who says anything besides "horrible, not tolerable" in his analysis of what happened here has such a fundamental different set of core values from myself that any discussion would be a complete waste of time.
      - digikata 12y ago
        It seems relatively easy to rob or murder someone. Does that make the laws against such activities useless?
phubbard 12y ago
Groups must persist; therefore a group must sacrifice to ensure that the actual next generation is created and cared for. Schools, parental leave, etc, are all required. Any society that neglects these would seem to be self-limiting.
hacknat 12y ago
K, you are more than welcome to go ahead and break our laws. Oh you don't feel like suffering the consequences we've set up for doing so? Then you've agreed to the social contract. Countries that have to reestablish sovereignty with each succeeding generation are failed states.

bduerst 12y ago

Not entirely. John Locke's take is that you agree to a rule of law by choosing to live in it, and that you can move to another government if you disagree. Only Thomas Hobbe's take was based purely on force, because he viewed the nature of man as being vile and completely evil, which isn't surprising given the environment he lived in.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Chinjut 12y ago
I think you mean Thomas Hobbes. :)
- bduerst 12y ago
  Derp. Good catch. Was reading the comic yesterday.

gclaramunt 12y ago

An aging population is never good for any government. Unless you are a really overpopulated country, having a positive birthrate is a good thing (translates to economic growth). The case for encouraging the population to have children is pretty straightforward...

parennoob 12y ago
Another way to increase younger population is also to encourage immigration in that population group. However, for other reasons, this will never be acknowledged as a reasonable measure :)
- tsotha 12y ago
  Eh, what? Not only is this acknowledged as reasonable in many countries, it's policy.
  - parennoob 12y ago
    The anti-immigration sentiment often seen in the US (sometimes even on HN), and in a lot of European countries seems to say otherwise.
    - tsotha 12y ago
      There isn't much anti-immigration sentiment in the US. What we have in the US is anti illegal immigration sentiment. In terms of European countries there was an article about a week ago regarding Americans going to Germany for free college. The Germans were hoping they'd stay. I think people worry about the quality of immigrants. We want more young Sergei Brins and fewer middle aged guys with a sixth grade education.
      - joncrocks 12y ago
        While that may be technically true, AFAIK it's hard for someone to immigrate to the US. If I wanted to move to the US tomorrow, I believe it would involve me having to get a job before I got there. One could argue that saying that you're against illegal immigration and making legal immigration very difficult is the same as saying that you don't really want immigration.
        tsotha 12y ago

Crito 12y ago

Well in that case.... > "I don't get why employers should be forced to pay for someone's choice to have children." Because > "There are laws passed by legislators who are elected. The rule of law is established by force" That's why. The men with the power, who control the men with the guns, have declared that this is the way our society should work. There is your realpolitik answer.

sgift 12y ago
> The men with the power, who control the men with the guns, have declared that this is the way our society should work. Obviously, in this case, that didn't happen or mindfulgeek wouldn't have been let go.
- Crito 12y ago
  The system these powerful men have set up does not prevent people from breaking the rules the powerful men have set. It does however lay out potential consequences for breaking the rules, should the victim choose to navigate this system in the correct way. They are powerful, but not omnipotent. They are men, not gods.
  - sgift 12y ago
    Good point, now we can get a (for me?) more interesting discussion: - Was something illegal done here? - If yes, why is it (seemingly) so easy to do this? - How can this be changed? - Should it be changed? (In my opinion: Yes, a law which is easily breakable is useless) Note: I only raise questions of legality here, not morality. I will not even start to discuss the morality of this action, because in my opinion anyone who says anything besides "horrible, not tolerable" in his analysis of what happened here has such a fundamental different set of core values from myself that any discussion would be a complete waste of time.
    - digikata 12y ago
      It seems relatively easy to rob or murder someone. Does that make the laws against such activities useless?

phubbard 12y ago

Groups must persist; therefore a group must sacrifice to ensure that the actual next generation is created and cared for. Schools, parental leave, etc, are all required. Any society that neglects these would seem to be self-limiting.

hacknat 12y ago

K, you are more than welcome to go ahead and break our laws. Oh you don't feel like suffering the consequences we've set up for doing so? Then you've agreed to the social contract. Countries that have to reestablish sovereignty with each succeeding generation are failed states.