Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
There is none obviously.
Some people seem to think there is (perhaps there is in their case)
but I do feel the pressure and responsibility of the social contract. Which isn't the same as a contract with the State as an entity, obviously.
I never agreed to one of those. Isnt that an imaginary concept?
some words are allowed to be vague.
'Contract' on the other hand cannot be vague, or it is meaningless.
the definition of contract is something is binding, and which needs consent from both sides.
Therefore the implications of contract being vague or imaginary are much more severe to debate or understanding than any vagueness surrounding the meaning of the word 'society'
that are social and anti social.
The problem is that we seem to have 'big men' deciding what these are.....I often beg to differ
arguing about something that isn't really that important. As I said down there \/ it's not exactly a contract per se, but that's not the point really. It's just a concept with a slightly misleading name. wow.
if you weren't being difficult.
I don't fucking know. I thought I knew what I meant, but I was wrong.
you're a civil servant?
There is the social contract, and part of that is giving up control of, say, law and order to the state so we don't have to defend our property/loved ones so violently against other people who may wish to 'covet'.
And I never agreed to give up control of anything.
Also why would a government/state give two hoots what happens to 9999 individuals property or loved ones, just so long as 10000 others always support the goveenment/state in this?
society as a whole collectively agreeing that people should not be allowed to rape, murder and pillage, and the people in that society have given up their right to rape, murder and pillage in exchange for others doing the same. Whilst you may not have expressly agreed to this, the society you are born into has agreed to this over however many years, and it's constantly evolving. If you don't like what happens now, then use your vote and vote for the murdering raping pillaging party.
CAN OF WORMS ALERT!
I don't think the state always respects it, though. We kind of have to... coercion, etc. Especially with the internet and all that you can't really escape it, which sucks. Oh well.
what is this? something they make you sign at school nowadays?
We never had it in my day. (or I wasnt paying attention.
Not exactly offer, acceptance, consideration and intention to create legal relations, but there you go...
but its a bit b*****ks when you have a rubbish society isnt it.
And anyway how can you have 'Implied agreement'?
Can I imply (without asking) that you all agree with me?
its nonsense isnt it?
i.e. it patently isnt a contract as there is no actual agreement.
it should say 'assumed consent' rather than 'social contract' is deceptive and misleading to refer to 'social contract' (not of you guys, you were mislead into thinking that there was one)
agreement. When you buy something from a shop you have a contract don't you? But you don't say 'Mr Shopkeeper, I will offer to pay you the sum of £5 for this bicycle tyre'. Mr Shopkeeper doesn't say 'I accept your offer and we now have a legally binding contract. Therefore you must pay me the sum of £5 in return for this tyre'. You just put the tyre on the counter and give the man £5. Sometimes you don't even have to say a word. You still have a contract. Your behaviour means that you have made a contract even though it is not expressly made.
The term is misleading but again I say you're arguing about nothing really. I think that it does sound fine and dandy because I am relatively safe in the knowledge that my neighbour or my colleague won't be battering me tonight because I played my music too loud or sat in their favourite chair in the canteen.
what behaviour of mine is it that implies my consent? that i wake and breath air?
Consider my analagy instead........I put bicycle type through your letterbox with a bill for £5. If you do not pay me the £5 I will send agents round to get it one way or another......
then it is my duty to fight that society for my right to do that......all other priorities rescinded.
If I need to destroy that society then so be it (Im talking philosophically here)
(even if they dont move against society)
Governments/states tend to try to break up communes, or make life hard for them if they appear to be having too much success so that they might seem favourable for 'voters'
I did used to live communally....its great.
But living communally and differently puts you up as a potential enemy in the eyes of the state, and they will make life more difficult, than it would be anyway trying a new thing.
that is not a contract. That is my decision (not to kill someone for stealing my soup)
based on my viewpoint, which I have made it my duty to send to many different places to see and judge from all angles.
I now consider my viewpoint to be superior to that of many states, therefore my decisions would be superior than that of many states.
I would be insincere and imoral if i supported a viewpoint that I was convinced was inferior.
(just suspend belief and go along with the idea that I havnt got a god complex please.....just for the sake of argument)
no matter what 'the law' might let us get away with.
e.g. I chose NOT to buy water sharea or gas shares ( to give tacit approval to stealing these from public ownership) because to do so would have been immoral, many people seemed to think that because it was legal and they were encouraged to do so by the government that this meant that it was moral, that it didnt require them to think. That is dangerous because it means that you have given up your own will a bit
(in past centuries some rich people decided they thought slavery was not good (though legal)
(I just added that to pur what i said about non share buying into context, im not trying to say 'oh look at me arnt i good')
do you believe in 'bad laws'?
Of course not (see nazi germany, slaveownership in US etc etc)
it depends on the way they are applied, how immutable they are, and the quality of human interpreters between human reality and the artificial concept of verbal legal logic
Its basically just the opposite of a 'state of nature' where there is no state coercion, etc, and basically the idea is in the state of nature life is "nasty, brutish and short," so it is in everyone's rational self-interest to participate in this hypothetical social contract.
the social contract is the implicitly accepted rights and responsibility of living in a society, it is very difficult to opt out of but I don't see why anyone would because of the benefits of society
a bit of Hobbes and Locke too as well.
Locke's a bit too conservative for me, but he makes many valid points.
I like Rousseau cause he genuinely doesn't care for rationality, it's all ideals and romance. Plus there's holes in his argument which I can pick at in my essay.
I still dont like pron......I couldn't and wouldn't ban it, but I would try to not encourage people to feel particularly good about it (Is that even relevant? I dont know)
i believe that i am impelled to care about what happens to 'society'
I care about everyone and everything to various degrees, humans can cooperate innately as a species.
Of course we need more infrastructure to support such overpopulation
our administration/society has lost the technique of constructive criticism to alter how it behaves.
a group of humans have the right to stop an animal eating a particular plant.
Blowing smoke and noxious fumes into others faces...yes, but otherwise no.
I agree that humans as communal animals give up some individual rights, but that is a loose agreement not set in stone, some things humans agree with almost unanomously......we do not need the state to tell us these, indeed the idea of juries can be good......is it reasonable? do I feel threatened by this person?
before imprisoning them.
There are not just two options.
a) heavy beurocratic, inhuman, mistake ridden centralised control, that continues to work through brute force and gravity.
b) everyone just doing whatever they like with no-one helping anyone else (this is unrealistic anyway, as we are slightly communal animals)
there can be and have been, looser more co-operative forms of government that were not allowed to develop and improve in their own way
(just like petrol engines got developed and electric ones didnt)
For instance there were a wide variety of loosely knit co-operative societies in europe prior to Roman conquests. Some of these were not so nice, others were very nice, none were allowed to continue and develop.
Many of your arguments against what you think I would propose are basing it on the failures of Revolutionary france or Russia, yet I am not.
Consider how the the descendant centralised authoritarian ruling states of post roman europe have been.......sometimes very very (what you would call) barbarous and unpleasent......many centuries later we have arrived at that which you are saying 'there is no better aternative to'. Pre Roman/non centralised societies could also have evolved to have been something wonderful too.
Aha I hear you say that the roman centralised model is more competative in battle......you are right.
The centralised authoritarian model is the best at warfare up to now......the problem is we've never switchedd it off.......we're always on a friggin war footing, whether its mortal foes or inflation or deflation or unemployment or anything.......we, more than anyone before in history can have more food resource for an hour work than in any previous centuries.
Our borders are safer than in previous centuries. Yet we are not working less and becoming 'better nicer less stressed people'
Does this not actually indicate to you all that you are pursuing the wrong societorial model?
I was initially saying what I felt aout drks cos vikram asked if I was a libertarian and this is one of those things normlly used to measure (or accuse)
Then I was trying to explain that it is not either you believe in control and order or you believe in anarchy.
I was trying to give the idea that there have been freer examples of societies that existed prior to the heavily centralised roman model, ones that rely more on loose co-operation than dominance and mandatory compliance.
I wanted to explain that these models were beaten in battle by less free roman model.
I was doing this because more than one reply to my posts seemed to be hinting that the alternative to 'that which i seemed to be complaining about' was unworkable anarchy, that I had not sense of social responsibility, which I do have, a lot in fact, too much? so much it hurts to see injustice (I know it hurts you guys too)
I was trying to say just because i reject the idea of a contract, dont imagine that there cant be (or havnt been societies that can function without mandatory enforced 'contracts'
Refusal to recognise any sovereignty of laws ans social contracts does not mean social irresponsibility necessarily.
When the laws are good and just then then I will be following them anyway......when they are stupid or irrelevant I will not pay them much heed, except so as not to get into trouble (Im a good boy now ive got a family to potentially lose)
iF the law is bad (like in nazi germany......for ease of argument) then I hope that I will not obey.....although again the potential threat to my family would make me unable to be firm on this.
but I do feel that in any community (be it the population of the entire country or a small commune) you have certain rights and responsibilities in order to ensure the whole thing runs okay.
For example I feel I have a responsibility to work and pay taxes as I am able to do so and in return I have a right to healthcare, education and financial support from the government if I'm ever unable to work.
Also I have a responsibility to conduct my life in a manner where I won't cause physical harm to others and in exchange I've got the right to be protected from physical harm.
The state tends to be despised by both the left and the free market right but I thnk it's a hugely important concept that I for one am extremely grateful for.
in your leading your life.......something that I feel many will agree with......many individuals can agree this is a good thing.
but nonetheless I rather like the fact there's a state and system of laws in place to at least theoretically protect me from anyone who doesn't agree with this!
are not pointing at ourselves or loved ones
but states know that its better to have lots of guns.......and attack people to show you're not soft, than just to rely on other states good will.....you see the rest of the world is not individuals it is groups of people who have given up human values and accepted higher authorities on what is right or wrong...............................................................sorry that came out more patronising