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.
As with all social animals, there are individuals who submit themselves to the "state," whether it be the herd, the hive, the pack, or whatever, and those who choose insularity and become in effect a lone wolf. In that case, they are no longer subject to the social group. They don't get to change the social group, however, they can submit or go it alone.
Why would they need to "go it alone"? I'm amazed to see that by inference chimpanzees, gorillas, and elephants have the "state"
You understand the difference between a voluntary community and a state, do you not?
The issue with a state is that it forces, well pretty much everything, from submission of wealth to association.
I've been told by at least one poster that people would just stop, en masse, interacting with the bully, and he'd rein in his behavior.
There's two levels, of direct action.
Firstly is he being aggressive? If so the community, and the person have every right to defend themselves. Violation of the NAP cedes all rights of the aggressor, including their right to life. I've said before, under the NAP you cannot initiate violence, but if violence is initiated against you, you're free to put down the aggressor literally like a rabid dog.
If not then shunning is an adequate punishment, they have two options, either compromise, or, leave. While you may chuckle at the thought of shunning, consider how difficult life would be for those so shunned, they can't trade, get services, utilities, etc. From their local community Shunning has worked as a means of behavioral correction for millenia, long before organized imprisonment.
Then there's a tertiary option for those who have consented.
Courts/Arbitration, which can determine fault and corrective action, such as just compensation for the victim, and punishment of the guilty.
I've been told by at least one poster that people would just stop, en masse, interacting with the bully, and he'd rein in his behavior.
Who told you that?
Natural law states you are born free from contractual obligations and the only way to enter into a contract is to give legitimate consent. That is consent in the form of two or more parties, free from duress and with the cognitive ability to do, coming to terms on an issue. You folks know this and do it every day when it comes to your daily lives. You buy cars this way, exchange goods this way, agree to work or employee people this way. Hooray! It works!
All we are saying is that since raping, robbing, and killing will probably exist let's not preordain it by socially constructing a State and changing the meaning of consent from the above to the wild ride of sliding out of a vagina.
I would prefer it if the raping, robbing, and killing wasn't preordained and simply left up to the individual. I wake up every morning and think to myself: will I rape, rob, or kill today? Answer: No. Wow, that's one down. Hopefully my voluntary associations with others will end up this well as I go about my day. The more I'm involved in imperial affairs the more likely I'm to be a victim or a perpetrator of violence since it is condoned and sanctioned. This can take the form of voting, willfully paying taxes, using Sammy's greenbacks, or outright working for the State. Aside from the voting I once did all of these things.
Yes, you guys get frustrated because logically and morally you can't deny this truth. We only pick on you because the vast majority of statists like yourself aren't evil or would willfully violate the rights of others.
We aren't asking for a solution to the fact that life is going to be messy. Individuals will break the non-aggression principle. We are only asking that you don't condone and/or actively promote the system in which a certain level of violence is sanctioned in the hope that it can prevent future violence. That's immoral and illogical and you know it. And it doesn't work. You know that too. That's why this whole "move to Somalia" line you folks use is so tiresome.
None of us are clean. We are just asking for you to be honest with yourself. It's very liberating. Be dirty and frustrated together. That should appeal to you folks with your love of collectivism.
I'm paraphrasing a long conversation, it'd hardly be fair to drop a name.
Quote:
Natural law
Society is imaginary, but natural law isn't?
You seem to think people do not understand your philosophy. We do. It's not at all new.
Quote:
That is consent in the form of two or more parties, free from duress and with the cognitive ability to do, coming to terms on an issue. You folks know this and do it every day when it comes to your daily lives. You buy cars this way, exchange goods this way, agree to work or employee people this way. Hooray! It works!
For some transactions, certainly. Doesn't hurt to have a judiciary ready to enforce contracts and a body of law to assist in their interpretation.
Quote:
We are only asking that you don't condone and/or actively promote the system in which a certain level of violence is sanctioned in the hope that it can prevent future violence. That's immoral and illogical and you know it.
It's pragmatic. Life outside the ivory tower sometimes puts you in a situation of having to choose the lesser evil.
Quote:
And it doesn't work.
Seems to work better than most other that have tried. At this point in history, you're enjoying an unprecedented degree of freedom to make your own choices and influence the society you live in. But if you're asking for philosophical purity, sorry. Can't help you there.
Last edited by Dane_in_LA; 06-17-2019 at 12:14 PM..
I think you may be taking the word just a bit too literally.
Incidentally, social contract theory isn't the only school of thought used to argue that government has authority over the individual.
Contract is the word that is used, and it's mis-use is a classic propaganda technique - there is no contract as defined by dictionary definitions, but "social coercion theory", doesn't have the same ring to it.
The theory still seems to be regarded as the most relevant theory in the West.
Contract is the word that is used, and it's mis-use is a classic propaganda technique - there is no contract as defined by dictionary definitions, but "social coercion theory", doesn't have the same ring to it.
The theory still seems to be regarded as the most relevant theory in the West.
I have many a beef with Rousseau, but gotta confess it's the first time I've seen him called a propagandist.
I'm paraphrasing a long conversation, it'd hardly be fair to drop a name.
Society is imaginary, but natural law isn't?
Natural law exists if a man is alone in the woods and doesn't know another man even exists on the planet. Your law is contingent upon humans interacting, which is no doubt what we voluntarily decide to do, but it is not the baseline/default setting of a human being. Feral humans are proof of this.
Natural law created man. Man created social constructs. We've got you beat by one step. By all means, take it back even more. We can all take another look at it. I'm just trying to get you to admit (because logically and morally you know) that this is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
You seem to think people do not understand your philosophy. We do. It's not at all new.
Could have fooled me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
For some transactions, certainly. Doesn't hurt to have a judiciary ready to enforce contracts and a body of law to assist in their interpretation.
Voluntary judiciaries, voluntary contracts, and voluntary policing (aka private) can handle these things if you are so inclined. The key, IMO, is voluntary/private insurance which will make people whole again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
It's pragmatic. Life outside the ivory tower sometimes puts you in a situation of having to choose the lesser evil.
Well, this is easy to say as we debate over the internet as to the benefits of pragmatism when clearly we aren't currently the collateral damage of the State's nefarious ways. Major collateral damage. You're a slave and a victim on some level...just like me and everyone else.
Ever notice how us anarchists beat the hell out of both Team Red and Team Blue? It's because you both do the same things just with a slight twist on how the social contract aligns with the decision. Sometimes the teams don't even pretend to differentiate from each other though. My favorite being the story of the 16-year-old American boy killed by an Obama drone strike with his 8-year-old sister getting blown up by Trump a few years later. I notice you statists rarely argue with each other over that one because well...pragmatism produces collateral damage...and there it is in the form of 2 innocent children.
Ever think one day you might be expendable like them in the eyes of your State? You pay taxes, wave the flag, and vote to keep a low profile. I get it. Boat rockers are usually the first to go but these kids did nothing wrong. It can happen to you and when it does your pragmatism and acceptance of collateral damage will change. Well, would have changed if you weren't dead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Seems to work better than most other that have tried. At this point in history, you're enjoying an unprecedented degree of freedom to make your own choices and influence the society you live in. But if you're asking for philosophical purity, sorry. Can't help you there.
I'm just asking you to admit that you are being logically and morally inconsistent. The sky doesn't fall. You don't get sent to prison. Maybe you'll start to think of different ideas. The guilt isn't even that bad after awhile. Not sure if that's a good thing or not honestly. I mean...I killed those two kids for no reason at all and I have to live with it. At the very least getting you to admit you killed them too would help not only yourself but maybe I could talk it over with you. Maybe we could all talk it over together after admitting it and get better solutions.
Voluntarily associate of course...no guns to heads.
I have many a beef with Rousseau, but gotta confess it's the first time I've seen him called a propagandist.
Whenever a word's meaning is very different from it's accepted meaning, there will be a reason for that- I doubt he was trying to be ironic.
My main issue is with the OP trying to claim valid dissent to the social contract somehow represents propaganda, when's it's actually the OP's arguments that typifies propaganda.
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.
