Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, Americans are endowed with rights and liberties that government was instituted to secure.
There's the contract. Right there. Americans have a government that exists to secure their rights and liberties, and the government cannot exist without the consent and support of the people. That's the social contract.
Your fellow citizens don't necessarily agree with you when you decide you don't support the government's actions. That's the rub.
Not that I can think of. It used to be divine right of kings, but people don't believe that politicians/rulers have the right to rule from God anymore...so the social contract was what replaced that.
Uh, no. Just no.
The theory is that every government, even a dynastic monarchy, is based on a social contract between the people and the government, with certain expectations from the people, and with certain obligations being required by the government.
There's the contract. Right there. Americans have a government that exists to secure their rights and liberties, and the government cannot exist without the consent and support of the people. That's the social contract.
Your fellow citizens don't necessarily agree with you when you decide you don't support the government's actions. That's the rub.
The problem is when I try to make you do things at gunpoint and claim that you consented when you didn't. The big lie is that having a majority decide something makes it okay to impose it on the minority.
Sort of my take on it as well. I used the word ostracize deliberately - Athens, of course, kicked out people whose behavior was too obnoxious, by direct vote, and the process was not without its problems, quite the contrary. This in a small city of 25,000 citizens.
In smaller villages, the reputation-based system is of course not just practicable, but likely the way it used to be: If you're an untrustworthy individual, your reputation keeps you from dealing with others on an even footing. Which is, to circle back, a clear example of a working social contract.
Nowadays, people who criticize government corruption are tagged with bad reputationals.
The problem is when I try to make you do things at gunpoint and claim that you consented when you didn't. The big lie is that having a majority decide something makes it okay to impose it on the minority.
First of all, the government rarely tries to make you do anything at gunpoint, and when they do, it's usually because you are breaking the law.
There is no big lie.
The Constitution outlines the agreement Americans have made with their government. The minority have legal recourse if their rights are being violated.
Because we as human beings choose to live together as social beings, we have to recognize that we have to balance our rights against the rights of others.
If you can't handle this basic truth, then you need to find some hermit-like existence, where no one else matters but you.
First of all, the government rarely tries to make you do anything at gunpoint, and when they do, it's usually because you are breaking the law.
There is no big lie.
The Constitution outlines the agreement Americans have made with their government. The minority have legal recourse if their rights are being violated.
Because we as human beings choose to live together as social beings, we have to recognize that we have to balance our rights against the rights of others.
If you can't handle this basic truth, then you need to find some hermit-like existence, where no one else matters but you.
"Kicking out" people is in direct violation of the NAP.
Using force or the threat of force to physically remove someone from a location based on a majority decree is pure good old fashion involuntary statism.
That is unless the banished individual agreed to a contract spelling out such measures.
The outcome is the same. If nobody wants to sell the ostracized individual food or water or firewood, well...
This also assumes, of course, that you have a way to provide surefire evidence on who the offender actually was.
Again, medieval villages did much self-policing along those lines, and if you were shunned, you would very likely die during the first bad winter - not from an open act of aggression, just from being cut off from the exchanges of food, fuel, salt - life's essentials. Of course, forensic science being what it was, it was not unusual for the wrong person to end up accused. Being the odd one out is dangerous in such situations.
Where's the appeal, the impartial judge, the right to defense, the jury of one's peers?
First of all, the government rarely tries to make you do anything at gunpoint, and when they do, it's usually because you are breaking the law.
What I mean is that every law is a threat of violence...even something as small as a parking ticket. If you refuse to comply, at some point you'll be locked in a cage or killed. The only way to avoid those things is to do as you're told. I don't equate following the law with goodness. If you're told to do something, you don't just obey because it's the law. That's how oppression comes about.
Quote:
There is no big lie.
The Constitution outlines the agreement Americans have made with their government. The minority have legal recourse if their rights are being violated.
This is the imprecise thinking we're taught, but it isn't accurate. It's like 6 roommates living together, 4 or 5 decide to pitch in for a fancy new TV, and then they threaten the others into helping pay for it and claim "We all made an agreement". No you didn't...you just forced them to help you buy your TV against their will.
Quote:
Because we as human beings choose to live together as social beings, we have to recognize that we have to balance our rights against the rights of others.
If you can't handle this basic truth, then you need to find some hermit-like existence, where no one else matters but you.
I completely agree with that. I advocate voluntary cooperation and organization over coerced interactions. I wouldn't call using force to make people do what you want "living together as social beings". I respect other people's right to make their own decisions instead of forcing my views on them, and I expect the same in return.
The outcome is the same. If nobody wants to sell the ostracized individual food or water or firewood, well...
This also assumes, of course, that you have a way to provide surefire evidence on who the offender actually was.
Again, medieval villages did much self-policing along those lines, and if you were shunned, you would very likely die during the first bad winter - not from an open act of aggression, just from being cut off from the exchanges of food, fuel, salt - life's essentials. Of course, forensic science being what it was, it was not unusual for the wrong person to end up accused. Being the odd one out is dangerous in such situations.
Where's the appeal, the impartial judge, the right to defense, the jury of one's peers?
That's probably how it should work, except I think we've moved past that stage of the witch trials and other injustices (at least in western society), and once there's a paradigm shift in a society it very rarely goes backward. People generally understand the mistakes and injustices of the past, and that wouldn't go away. I don't think people want to live in a society where it's easy to be wrongfully punished.
The outcome is the same. If nobody wants to sell the ostracized individual food or water or firewood, well...
This also assumes, of course, that you have a way to provide surefire evidence on who the offender actually was.
Again, medieval villages did much self-policing along those lines, and if you were shunned, you would very likely die during the first bad winter - not from an open act of aggression, just from being cut off from the exchanges of food, fuel, salt - life's essentials. Of course, forensic science being what it was, it was not unusual for the wrong person to end up accused. Being the odd one out is dangerous in such situations.
Where's the appeal, the impartial judge, the right to defense, the jury of one's peers?
The outcome being the same is the old "ends" argument. We must focus on the "means".
Would you rather be put to death by an involuntary state for breaking a fictional contract you never consented to if/when that entity decided to enforce the tenets
OR
Would you rather starve to death in the wilderness because you broke a contract you actually agreed upon with all your cognitive bearings (infants fresh out of the womb can apparently consent to not buying alcohol until age 21 in the current statist world...must be consent by kicking the right leg within 10 minutes of birth or something )?
Yes, you die in both instances but I know which one I'd pick.
Your question pertaining to judicial rights/reviews can still exist in the voluntary associations of the free world. All the more reason to get off your butt and form contracts that you feel express your morals/values to represent YOU.
Know why the feds have such a high conviction rate when they actually do indict? Yes, it could be all those folks are guilty (of "crimes" they never consented to being crimes I might add) or maybe it's because it's the fed's ballpark, their balls, their bats, and their umps.
In any event, technology/access to information has made it much harder to bulldoze your way into turning a specific person's life into a living hell. I suppose those with massive beefs against an individual would stop at nothing to frame them but that rubbish is going to catch up to you when we are all on equal footing. To be blunt, nobody likes dealing with a d***head.
Even the government gets caught doing that crap nowadays. Ever since Watergate we've had more exposure to their nefarious ways.
I'm telling you guys, once you get a taste of just being left alone the more you'll like it. All the hand wringing over that woman in KY not issuing marriage licenses, #blacklivesmatter, the Presidential race, etc is just a ruse. The constant exhausting battle to somehow enforce your morality on others isn't worth it. You'll have a tough enough time living up to your own expectations. I know I do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)?