the social contract

[Joker]

@stephenstillwell

@Joker

Don’t count on me becoming metaphysical anytime soon. I despise metaphysics.

I’m a materialist sharp shooter as well a empiricist.

God has his abundance of tricks but in his struggles amongst obstacles he has the Devil to carry out his deeds for him.

• Nihilist proverb

And apparently a contradictionist

@Joker

I believe the described somthing is a manipulative fabrication that beyond the naive ponderings of individuals in support of it, it itself does not exist therefore there is nothing to improve.

In spite of your beliefs, there exist informed ponderers who are adversely effected by the non-existent something, and have good reason to seek an improvement.

@Joker

Only the individuals in support of such a delusion believes there is somthing to improve. They believe their delusions to be so real that in their hysteria they demand that everyone throw their attention away to them without regard to how others feel differently in comparison.

This suggests you believe that you have some psychic ability to determine the thoughts and motivations of large groups of people without having any direct or meaningful contact with them. How is that not metaphysical?

@Joker

In other words it is a religious invisible inconspicuous document driven by hysteria which pretends to be moral and in being the best interests of all people but in the end realistically through its ulterior motives it is a force used to threaten people into making them docile cattle for marketable investments.

Here you embody a non-existent object with intention and motivation. That is quite metaphysical.

My previous observation was more metaphorical than metaphysical, and was derived from personal observations, however distorted they may be.

Large groups of people with whom you have no contact, and are not aware of, are an empirical reality. Your writing suggests a rigid and narrow perception that assures the avoidance of certain people.

Where to begin? …Where to begin?

And apparently a contradictionist

My signature is metaphorical and it was intended to show satyrical humor.

In spite of your beliefs, there exist informed ponderers who are adversely effected by the non-existent something, and have good reason to seek an improvement.

If you mean that they are threatened with a extreme force of prejudice in conforming to someone elses doctrine of improvement than yes I guess you could say they are effected where their only chance of survival is to obey or atleast that is what the media machine would tell us.

Just like the government even a man from a local insane asylum can wave a gun in the air making other people confess that he himself is god even if the other people threatened may think that he is completely absurd.

All it takes is a force of arms and one can make people do anything. People are so easily manipulated and the invisible document of the social contract counts on it.

This suggests you believe that you have some psychic ability to determine the thoughts and motivations of large groups of people without having any direct or meaningful contact with them. How is that not metaphysical?

Your suggestions are equally pathetic as you previous post. I observe things through my expiriences and through watching the physical world in order to get conclusive results. I have never had any use for the pathetic doctrine of metaphysics.

And upon the day that I should ever embrace metaphysics it would be better to shoot me dead.

I am a materialist and empiricist foremost.

Here you embody a non-existent object with intention and motivation. That is quite metaphysical.

Not really. People are full of intentions and motivations. In order to understand people all one has to do is study them.

This is where history comes in handy which you should try reading sometime. Just a suggestion.

[Sandman]

@Juggernaut

@Sandman

You break it, you feel the consequences. It sure does smell/taste/look like a contract - even though no physical contract exists. But no-one pretended that it actually did exist, but nevertheless its an useful abstraction to explain the functions of society and our own obligations.

What causes you to believe that the social contract is only a threat of consequences? It is an obligation of society to provide justice, and is the commitment of the population to not take law into their own hands. It has nothing to do with actual crime. That is another issue altogether except in one sense. It is that no person should enforce his own law upon others, and that law is the provence of society. So; all concede that it is the state which seeks justice on behalf of its citizens, and no man will legally seek vengeance. No civilization, and in fact, no large community can survive if vengeance leads everyone by the snout. Still, both honor and justice are essential values to humanity, and the burden is not on them alone, but on everyone, to seek justice for all injured people.

Let me see if I can explain myself.

What I mean by ‘consequences’ is, at the bottom of the heart, the very function of a social contract, well any contract indeed, that by agreeing to certain constraints you gain some goods (or freedoms or anything at all). If you do not live within your constraints you loose the gains. Over time this function will of course be socialized in man under the values honor and justice, which serves to reinforce the power of the social contract.

But if breaking the contract didn’t have any consequences, society would cease to exist.

[Sandman]

@Joker

@Sandman

You break it, you feel the consequences. It sure does smell/taste/look like a contract - even though no physical contract exists. But no-one pretended that it actually did exist, but nevertheless its an useful abstraction to explain the functions of society and our own obligations.

In other words it is a religious invisible inconspicuous document driven by hysteria which pretends to be moral and in being the best interests of all people but in the end realistically through its ulterior motives it is a force used to threaten people into making them docile cattle for marketable investments.

This is how I am interpretating your post. Are we by chance on the same page here? If we are well I certainly agree.

We agree on the inner logic (I think) but not on the moral judgment of the social contract. I’m rather positive, and ipso facto I don’t agree on it’s ulterior motive. I think it’s rather vulgar marxismen that the invisible force will make us docile cattle used by the evil market and the implicit notion of a ‘willing’ market seems rather implausible (if the market is just emerged, then what drives this emergens?).

[Juggernaut]

@Sandman

@Juggernaut

@Sandman

You break it, you feel the consequences. It sure does smell/taste/look like a contract - even though no physical contract exists. But no-one pretended that it actually did exist, but nevertheless its an useful abstraction to explain the functions of society and our own obligations.

What causes you to believe that the social contract is only a threat of consequences? It is an obligation of society to provide justice, and is the commitment of the population to not take law into their own hands. It has nothing to do with actual crime. That is another issue altogether except in one sense. It is that no person should enforce his own law upon others, and that law is the provence of society. So; all concede that it is the state which seeks justice on behalf of its citizens, and no man will legally seek vengeance. No civilization, and in fact, no large community can survive if vengeance leads everyone by the snout. Still, both honor and justice are essential values to humanity, and the burden is not on them alone, but on everyone, to seek justice for all injured people.

Let me see if I can explain myself.

What I mean by ‘consequences’ is, at the bottom of the heart, the very function of a social contract, well any contract indeed, that by agreeing to certain constraints you gain some goods (or freedoms or anything at all). If you do not live within your constraints you loose the gains. Over time this function will of course be socialized in man under the values honor and justice, which serves to reinforce the power of the social contract.

But if breaking the contract didn’t have any consequences, society would cease to exist.

We clearly get some justice and lots of law pretending to be justice out of the social contract. We offer peace, and society promises us justice. So breaking the peace is the greatest crime, and that is where the penalty is the greatest. We have given up on each man being the sherrif. Now justice is lodged in the whole people, and this is not a permanent home. It is like honor, an individual attribute, and people are just, not states, and people are honorable, not states. You cannot remove from a person by force of law either the need to have justice, or the obligation to give it. The essential citizen is a man of honor admitted to society on his word, good to his word. If he tolerates injustice done to himself or others he has witnessed his own dishonor. It is fine to talk about the society providing justice in return for peace. No peace should be forthcoming until justice is found. If it becomes necessary to reclaim your honor with your justice, you should do so as long as you face the law like a man. If the price of peace does not buy justice because wealth has run up the price, then seize justice.

[Gaiaguerrilla]

In its entirety you have to think of the social contractor as . . . say . . . a millwright plans to build.

Nothing is effectively ensured, but responsabilities can be shared for rights to be well enforced. Nothing is really a natural right. But the social contract is indeed a natural tendency as any animal will prefer to cooperate toward a mutual benefit rather than a mutual loss.

[Juggernaut]

@Gaiaguerrilla

In its entirety you have to think of the social contractor as . . . say . . . a millwright plans to build.

Nothing is effectively ensured, but responsabilities can be shared for rights to be well enforced. Nothing is really a natural right. But the social contract is indeed a natural tendency as any animal will prefer to cooperate toward a mutual benefit rather than a mutual loss.

All rights are natural or they are not rights. Fresh air is natural, fresh water is natural. Good government is natural; as are all those needs upon which our lives depend. We find rights everywhere to be essential to our well being, and then it is only a question of which ones we can deny to others because we think we can live without.

[Juggernaut]

@Gaiaguerrilla

In its entirety you have to think of the social contractor as . . . say . . . a millwright plans to build.

Nothing is effectively ensured, but responsabilities can be shared for rights to be well enforced. Nothing is really a natural right. But the social contract is indeed a natural tendency as any animal will prefer to cooperate toward a mutual benefit rather than a mutual loss.

Everything people find essential is a natural right, and it is as natural to defend it as to kill for it. People cannot live without some rights, which are powers, and yes they are granted and defended cooperatively; but are a human value, really, and the difference between humans and animals.
I guess I should have edited the last post rather than hitting your post again. Forgive me dear friends.

[Joker]

@Juggernaut

@Gaiaguerrilla

In its entirety you have to think of the social contractor as . . . say . . . a millwright plans to build.

Nothing is effectively ensured, but responsabilities can be shared for rights to be well enforced. Nothing is really a natural right. But the social contract is indeed a natural tendency as any animal will prefer to cooperate toward a mutual benefit rather than a mutual loss.

All rights are natural or they are not rights. Fresh air is natural, fresh water is natural. Good government is natural; as are all those needs upon which our lives depend. We find rights everywhere to be essential to our well being, and then it is only a question of which ones we can deny to others because we think we can live without.

Rights are fictitious idealisms created by men dreaming about a comfortable and convenient world without conflict who at the same time do not realize that conflict is just as much a part of nature like anything else.

Rights are constructed values that can be de-valued like anything else. What one creates another can destroy.

There is no such thing as universal rights, entitlements or privileges beyond religion.

In reality people are entitled to nothing. People are privileged to nothing.

People have no rights other than what they create and fight for by themselves.

[Juggernaut]

@Joker

@Juggernaut

@Gaiaguerrilla

In its entirety you have to think of the social contractor as . . . say . . . a millwright plans to build.

Nothing is effectively ensured, but responsabilities can be shared for rights to be well enforced. Nothing is really a natural right. But the social contract is indeed a natural tendency as any animal will prefer to cooperate toward a mutual benefit rather than a mutual loss.

All rights are natural or they are not rights. Fresh air is natural, fresh water is natural. Good government is natural; as are all those needs upon which our lives depend. We find rights everywhere to be essential to our well being, and then it is only a question of which ones we can deny to others because we think we can live without.

Rights are fictitious idealisms created by men dreaming about a comfortable and convenient world without conflict who at the same time do not realize that conflict is just as much a part of nature like anything else.

Rights are constructed values that can be de-valued like anything else. What one creates another can destroy.

It is not the value that is constructed, but the defense of the value, rights which is constructed. All people have rights, and all people in the defense of themselves defend their rights. If we think today that all people enjoy individual rights we should realize that the norm in history, and in prehistory, is that groups held the rights that individuals enjoyed, and no one enjoyed what they were not obligated by.

There is no such thing as universal rights, entitlements or privileges beyond religion.

Then why religion? I sreligion more essential to life than any other freedom? I agree what you say of privileges, and property is such a privilege. But each is entitled in a common wealth to the wealth produced by the society. If property as a privilege acts against the entitlements of the country to the proceeds of the country than something will have to be modified. But there are universal rights, and this has been an argument since Roman times, that all nations are alike, equal in their rights and needs from society.

In reality people are entitled to nothing. People are privileged to nothing.

In reality people die for want of rights, and the legal process resulting in an execution is a process by which one is removed from rights. The question is, is one obligated to respect what another disrespects. If you see one man trample on the rights of another, are you obligated to respect his rights? If we do not follow our parents and their parents in respect for rights we soon lose the common thread holding the fabric of society together, and we became animals; a fate that society and rights should protect us from.

People have no rights other than what they create and fight for by themselves.

You are rights, that the social support for rights is essential to their existence. Ones community is that group which will defend your rights. Rights are a form, and like all forms is a form of relationship. The last man on earth would have no need for rights, and rights like all other forms would have no meaning. I think the issue is not in finding the bottom limit of rights no person can live without, but finding what limits of rights is beneficial to society, and individual, -that does not bring groups or individuals into conflict. I do think people must pay for the privileges enjoyed by a few with rights enjoyed and needed by many. To have property protected all must do without necessary rights.

[Joker]

People have no rights other than what they create and fight for by themselves.
You are rights, that the social support for rights is essential to their existence. Ones community is that group which will defend your rights. Rights are a form, and like all forms is a form of relationship. The last man on earth would have no need for rights, and rights like all other forms would have no meaning. I think the issue is not in finding the bottom limit of rights no person can live without, but finding what limits of rights is beneficial to society, and individual, -that does not bring groups or individuals into conflict. I do think people must pay for the privileges enjoyed by a few with rights enjoyed and needed by many. To have property protected all must do without necessary rights.

I do think people must pay for the privileges enjoyed by a few with rights enjoyed and needed by many. To have property protected all must do without necessary rights.

That is where we disagree.

I believe people “mustn’t” do anything they don’t want to.