NoMoreRicers Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 I was asking people for their thoughts on the so called 'social contract,' and what made it legitimate. Here is the url: http://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/101175.html I was just hoping anybody that was interested and had a few minutes could take a look at it and tell me what you think! Feel free to create an account and join in if you would like.
Bradford26 Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 There is no way to tell if the government-provided services are beneficial or detrimental compared to other solutions because you may not choose to pay for a different solution. Therefore, you cannot be said to have benefitted from the system. The individual from the other forum did not mention property rights in his argument. When I see an argument based on the idea that you can always move to another country, the inevitable conclusion is that the government owns everyone and everything within it's imaginary geographic outline. Someone who promotes that idea is talking about absolute forceful enslavement and isn't actually debating with you. Something Stef said in a podcast is that society is scar tissue. I imagine that when people talk about the social contract they are talking about scar tissue, especially since this individual says that the social contract existed before anyone had conceived of it. Thank you for reading.
Pepin Posted June 19, 2013 Posted June 19, 2013 Is there anything specific in regards to the social contract that you'd like addressed? I don't find debates on the social contract to be very useful because people tend to not even know what they are saying. I am quite certain that the argument isn't likely to go anywhere because nobody actually believes what they are saying, rather they get anxious at the thought of being in support of partial enslavement, and have to cover it up through rationalization of words.
Naddrin Kentlar Posted June 20, 2013 Posted June 20, 2013 the problem with 'social contract' is that people think that when they buy land in a state's perimeter they really belive it's 'property' while it's actual 'rent' that they pay through taxes. another problem is that it's a contract where one side has the power to change the terms at will. A landlord can decide to build a new elevator shaft through your rented apartment, and reducing your living space, and then also charge you by increasing the rent because the building now has an elevator, even if you personally live at the ground floor and have absolutely no need for an elevator. You can take it, or leave it. it's a matter of value where both parties gain. The core of the capitalist principle. The state gets a slave, while you get somewere to live. If I'm the person that sells you water in the middle of the desert with 5000$ a bottle, we both gain by that principle. So the state sais .. here's this evil deal, take it or leave it. You have freedom to chose. also there's an issue with monopoly power. You won't see many Apple devices beeing sold in Microsoft stores. Because Microsoft will say .. hey this is my place I do however I feel, and I have no need for competition inside my perimeter.
Recommended Posts