Social Contract

[Anonymous No.3828348]

I have repeatedly asked for evidence that I, and the others living in the United States, have consented.

You have provided no valid evidence so far.

The times you said "I have evidence", they have been pretenses. Lies.

I do not accept any pretense as a substitute for valid observable evidence of consent.

Staying in your house is not equivalent to telling strangers "yes, you are authorized to take my things and to put me in a cage if I disobey". To say one can substitute for the other is a lie.
Using the roads that the strangers have built around your house, leaving you with no other choice to move around or consider yourself kidnapped by those strangers, is also not equivalent to saying "yes, strangers, you are authorized to take my money". It is evidence of kidnapping.
Having to give money to strangers to prevent them from kidnapping you is not evidence that you have consented to these strangers' orders, but evidence of extortion.

I do not accept lies and perversions as evidence.

Do you have any real evidence?

[Marion Bartoli is my Waifu No.3828380]

So basically you don't know what "social contract" means. Do you really have to start a thread for this? No.

[Anonymous No.3828399]

>>3828348

Evidence---in the legal sense---is used for FINDING OF FACT. This is a matter of law. The only FACT that needs to be verified is that you are in the United States.

[Anonymous No.3828412]

So go partially bury a shipping container into the side of a hill in the woods a few km's outside of a city and live off the grid.

[Anonymous No.3828416]

The social contract is bullshit.

If I'm not free to leave (taxes and licensing to leave and to wherever I'd be showing up) and I'm not free to remove consent (withholding tax money) then I'm subject to whatever the people with the guns want me to do. That is unless I devote my entire life to being so electable and am running for a significant position where the incumbents party is less favored this election cycle, then I have a small, fleeting voice that the establishment can make irrelevant at any time.

This is not a social contract, this is a free range farm.

/watch?v=RqF-awFssf0

[Anonymous No.3828425]

When I was younger I didn't fully understand the concept of the social contract.
I thought: "I didn't agree to any contract! Fuckers!"
But the social "contract" is only termed that way because that is the way it is best understood.
You live in this world. You automatically give up certain rights so that others give theirs up as well.
Together, everyone submits to the "rule of law" so that human society can have order.
This way, contract might be replaced with "implicit agreement".
This is the way that human society has found order.
Without the "Implicit Social Agreement" there would be roving bands of people vying for power and resources, and you may or may not be fucked then.
No one can be totally free, because it violates the "human rights" of others. If you are free to do whatever you want, then you may be taking away someone elses right as well.
Perhaps there should be an "anarchy zone" for people who believe it should not be this way.
Inb4 "that's [African/third world] countries" (basically true).
The main argument (in the United States, at least) is over how strong or loose the government's rule should be in various areas.

[Anonymous No.3828426]

Consent is self evident under democracy

[Anonymous No.3828427]

>>3828348
To put it in the most simplified example possible, let assume that you can save the life of a man, about to die just in front of you. If you can save him, but refuse to do it, then you are responsible of his death and carry the guilt of it, or at least a part of it (the other part being carried by what caused his dying state).

Social Contract is the same thing, except you don't see the dying man, but he still exists and you can still save him.

[Anonymous No.3828430]

>>3828348

If it really bothers you that much, emigrate to a country with policies more to your liking and apply for citizenship. If no country on Earth resembles the free market utopia you so desire, then you can nullify your citizenship and be an official non-person while still living in the United States

You still get to pay sales tax, emergency room visits, drive on the roads, nobody is allowed to murder you, etc. On the other hand, you will not be able to find a real job, to legally own your own home, or to vote or run for office.

[Anonymous No.3828432]

>>3828426
it's not self-evident. it's just a rationalization for coercion.

democracy is essential for for socialists because they think that the government is somehow subject to the people's will (contrary to a business, so they say). this is obviously false.

[Anonymous No.3828435]

>>3828348
accepting the benefits and rejecting the responsibilities are not the hallmark of a citizen

[Anonymous No.3828439]

>>3828432
>government is somehow subject to the people's will

If it's not, then you're clearly doing it wrong. It's not a matter of the system being wrong, it's a matter of you royally fucking things up

Businesses bare no responsibility after payment. the only thing stopping them from doing a shitty job is competition but if theres no competition or if the business leaders just don't give a fuck because they're moving on to grater things then they won't give a fuck about

[Anonymous No.3828459]

hmmmm...

what do we have here?
Autism, Narcissist, or Schizotypal?

[Anonymous No.3828469]

if the social contract is valid, the racial contract is valid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i20eckvzkJc

i don't understand why people have problems admitting that the government is violence (actually i do).

[Anonymous No.3828480]

>>3828469
>if the social contract is valid, the racial contract is valid.

nonsequitur

[Anonymous No.3828483]

>>3828480
>nonsequitur

you have no idea what that word means.

[Anonymous No.3828494]

You consented by living here. You are perfectly free to leave.

[Anonymous No.3828496]

>>3828483
What that guy decribes as a racial contract does not follow logically from the social contract. That's what the word means.

[Anonymous No.3828498]

Anyway, OP, your answer is here: >>3828427

[Anonymous No.3828509]

>>3828348

IF you are paying income tax....It means you SIGNED your W4.... did you not read the FINE PRINT????

[Anonymous No.3828513]

if govt and taxes are your biggest problem
congrats, you don't have problems!

[Anonymous No.3828522]

The turnout rate in the 2008 presidential election was over 60% of all eligible voters. That means that the majority of Americans that are of age and not possessing a criminal record chose to participate in the political process as laid out by the constitution of the United States.

Low voter turnout is a sign that the social contract between citizens and government is weak to nonexistent as it indicates a loss of confidence in not just the government, but the political institutions themselves. Though there have been times in the past where turnout has been quite bad, that is not the case at present.

[Anonymous No.3828538]

>>3828494

I refuse to believe the OP is too stupid to realize this.

When you walk into a store or place of business, you implicitly consent to follow their rules and code of conduct. Don't like it? Leave. Or start a protest. Or take a baseball bat to the place. Or blow it up.

Don't like what you see in your country? Sitting idly by is tantamount to your conceding.

[Anonymous No.3828552]

The social contract is that you are allowed to interact with everyone else who pays taxes. Why should you enjoy the trade, benefits, and protection those who do pay taxes enjoy? If you try and break away, you are no longer protected by the contract and are in a sense "At war" with the government. If you want to call that extortion, go ahead, but any reasonable person would rather live in an participate in society than run around in the forest.

[Anonymous No.3828561]

If there truly were no evidence of consent on your part you wouldn't be part of society
therefore you'd belong in a zoo or mental institution,
only actually mentally disabled people don't participate in society to the extent to which you seem to be describing

you can also opt out

what you seem to mean is the legitimacy of the united states to govern within its territories

in which case might I suggest you discuss this with the millitary and intelligence agencies instead?

[Anonymous No.3828566]

OP
You accepted the contract when you decided to do nothing.
Your not rebelling against society.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3828657]

>>3828538

Walk into a store (chosen), slide out of a vagina (not chosen).

I think we are done here.

[Anonymous No.3828661]

>>3828657
Staying in a store (chosen), staying in a country (chosen).

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3828665]

>>3828380

> contract
> no terms, no agreement

Pick on only.

>>3828427

But you are not responsible at all for seeing a death. You have no responsibility or obligation to them because of your ability to see.

>>3828494

> choosing to live here
> sliding out of a vagina

Pick one.

>>3828552

It is a common misconception to say benefits. It is also hilariously used when defending the illegality of working for a company without joining the state-backed union.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3828669]

>>3828661

Walking into a store (initial), staying where you were put (not chosen).

We are still done.

[Anonymous No.3828672]

>>3828665
>thinking social contract should be a formal contract
>implying it's less important just because it's not written down

UK doesn't have a written constitution. it doesn't mean we don't have one

[Anonymous No.3828675]

>>3828669
>staying where you were put .
>(not chosen)

not necessarily.

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.3828676]

if you dont want to play by their rules "taxes". Then how can you get whiny when they dont play by your rules "kidnapping". Saying they cant kidnap you is hypocritical.

[Anonymous No.3828681]

Without personal rights it is anarchy. Dog eat dog.

If u withhold your tax or otherwise break your side of the contract dont expect any rights of yours to be protected as it is the government side of the contract.

Then you cant really complain if the government (or anyone else for that matter) contravenes the rights you would have had

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3828687]

>>3828672

Not written or spoken.

>>3828675

Yes, necessarily. You have no obligation to a a specific land mass with a man-made "border," nor do you have an obligation to the savages that live there.

>>3828676

> you have to play by their rules or they will aggress you

I think that is the argument from the libertarian prospective. Why would you (a silly statist) point it out?

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3828691]

>>3828681

> taxes
> a contract you agreed to

Pick only one.

[Anonymous No.3828695]

>>3828687
>Yes, necessarily.
Nope.
>You have no obligation to a a specific land mass with a man-made "border,"

Yet in the same breath you claim you cannot leave. Nothing is stopping you, you could walk to Mexico today if you desired.

[Anonymous No.3828706]

>>3828687
>You have no obligation to a a specific land mass with a man-made "border,"

of course not. So go ahead live alone. we won't miss you.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3828725]

>>3828695

The state stops you form simply leaving.

Your hopes:

"Oh hi there, I am simply leaving this country."

"Good day to you sir, would you like a hand with your property?"

Reality:

"I would like to leave this country."

"Let me see your paperwork, let me check your property, etc, etc, etc."

[Anonymous No.3828726]

>>3828691
>implying that is relevant to what i just said

[Marion Bartoli is my Waifu No.3828735]

>>3828726
> responding to Liberty

[Anonymous No.3828740]

>>3828691
Ah liberty, our favorite libertard troll.
Any revelations you care to share with us that haven't already been thoroughly explored 50 years ago?

A libertarian nation will never survive. And no, anything you're citing is just twisting the facts to apply to it.

[Anonymous No.3828742]

>>3828725
You have never even tried to cross the border, have you?

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3828752]

>>3828740

I am not a libertarian.

>>3828742

Of course not.

[Anonymous No.3828758]

>>3828665
>But you are not responsible at all for seeing a death. You have no responsibility or obligation to them because of your ability to see.

Wrong. You are partly responsible. If you can save his life, by doing something that's not even difficult or live endangering for yourself, and yet, let him die. His death become partly your fault. The other part belong to what his responsible of his dying state, but by doing nothing, where you could have save him, a share of the responsibility fall on you.

When you have the possibility to save a man, there is an obligation to save him. If you let him die and if the family of this man can prove you could have saved him (with little effort), then sending you in prison, along with the man who inflicted the death in the first place, is justified. He might stay in jail longer than you, but your responsibility in this man's death is indisputable.

[Anonymous No.3828765]

>>3828725
>impling you have property rights outside of a social contract

[Anonymous No.3828771]

>>3828665
>You have no responsibility or obligation to them because of your ability to see.

Missed the point. This is not the ability to see that matter, it's the ability TO SAVE.

[Anonymous No.3828772]

>>3828752
>Of course not.
So you willfully make false and ignorant statements, basically.

[Anonymous No.3828780]

>>3828522
quite the opposite; when turnout is low, the people have expressed their satisfaction of the status quo

soviets had 100% voters voting, not us

[Anonymous No.3828782]

>>3828725
Actually, it's more likely that the authority that will check that is the one you wish to enter to, not the one you wish to leave.

[pascal !n5Z3VuZapw No.3828788]

>>3828687

Because it gets to the root of the social contract. By not violating the laws set down by those in power, they try to ensure others do not violate them either. You are not bound by the social contract, feel free to go rape and pillage, but once you do, dont complain about someone else doing the same to you. "rights" as people generally consider them are artificial. The only reason you can own propertt is because the social contract says others relinquish their rights to whay is defined as your belongings, the only reason you have freedom is because the social contract says others relinquish their rights to inprison you.

[Anonymous No.3828790]

>>3828780
I don't think altered votes count can be acceptable to form valid statistics.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3828801]

>>3828758

I have no obligation to a human, to a beaver, to anything for any reason other than consent to an obligation.

>>3828765

> implying rights exist

> mfw

>>3828771

Replace see with save, my answer does not change.

>>3828772

non sequitur

>>3828780

Was voting a requirement? In Australia for example, you have to vote or you will be fined.

[NiggerFaggot No.3828809]

>>3828801
>non sequitur
You say the state stops you from leaving, yet you have never tried.

Go on, try it. You'll be pleasantly surprised.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3828825]

>>3828809

> you have never tried breathing in space, therefore you don;t know if you can

Tell me more, wizard.

[NiggerFaggot No.3828838]

>>3828825
So because you haven't, no one can or has before?

[Anonymous No.3828839]

>>3828801

Liberty why do you not believe in natural rights?

Also, if you are not a libertarian what are you?

[Anonymous No.3828842]

>>3828801
But there is Obligation.
If you see a man dying and can save him, you HAVE the obligation to do it.

Whether you like it or not.
It's the most basic rule of living together. As soon as there is more than one person, a minimum of respect is required with each other.

If you let a man die you could have saved, IMO, you deserve to go in jail.

[Anonymous No.3828847]

>>3828842

It may be a moral obligation but it isn't a legal one.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3828851]

>>3828839

I do not generally believe in emotionally nice sounding man-made creations.

>>3828842

There is no such obligation. That is simply what you claim you would do.

[Anonymous No.3828853]

>>3828839
>rights
>natural

choose one

[Anonymous No.3828856]

>>3828801
>for any reason other than consent to an obligation.
Of course there is an obligation, but the point is not whether or not it is an obligation, the point is: does that obligation must remain, is it good, or wrong.

[Anonymous No.3828875]

I want to know more about how the state would try to stop you leaving, Liberty. No, really. I've never heard any argument focused on how difficult it is to get yourself to Somalia, for obvious reasons. I didn't think the government or economy would actively stop you, but I don't think you'd hold this position for literally no reason either . . . so yeah, colour me confused and curious here.

[Anonymous No.3828883]

>>3828801
But you DO have responsibility over his death. By not saving him, you get a share of the responsibility of his death.

Every human have a minimum of responsibility toward each other. That's the inevitable consequence of living together.

Whether you like it or not, you have the responsibility of this man's live. For the simple assurance that if you ever get in the same situation than him, someone will save you.

[Anonymous No.3828884]

forfeit of obligations towards others means forfeiting ones status as a member of society and a human being

animals can't own property only their owners can

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3828905]

>>3828875

> leave america to go to a country with several states

I will pass.

[Anonymous No.3828914]

>>3828851
Yes there is. It's the one imposed to you by society.

If you are to refuse this responsibility, then go live in the wood, live of your hunt,and never interact with any other humans ever.

Because as soon as you interact with someone else, to improve your comfort of live, it means that you recognize the other and his right to live.

It means that if you let the man die, his family gain the right to kick your ass.

If there was one right that should be granted to any human, it's the right to live.

[Anonymous No.3828919]

>>3828875
>implying Somalia is libertarian
>implying it's not a fascist Islamic theocracy

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3828920]

>>3828884

I thought might makes right? Have fun grabbing that lion's food. Although they can't own property because they have no ability to understand the concept. which is the true requirement.

>>3828883

sigh

> you are responsible
> why
> because you are
> why
> because you are
> why
> because you are

Yeah, nah.

[Anonymous No.3828921]

>>3828883

If you havent any argument beside the one you blatantly repeated at least three times, then the time for you to leave is now.

[Anonymous No.3828961]

>>3828920
your sentences are becoming incoherent

you have the obligation because you were born human thus being nurtured by human society
failure to reciprocate will result in exclusion
its that simple

[Anonymous No.3828962]

>>3828842

Anon, for a few thousand to the right charity you could save a life. And it wouldn't be impossible to get those thousands. You could sell some of those electronics you don't need, you could cook for yourself for a year instead of gobbling that overpriced pre-made oversalted crap you eat, or you could find someone well-dressed, hold a knife to their throat, and . . . ask politely. You have options, is what I'm getting at here.

If someone who walks away from the dying is a killer, then you are a killer, anon.

[Anonymous No.3828970]

>>3828914

>Yes there is It's the one imposed to you by society

By what Society?
Where is the evidence for that statement?

>If you are to refuse this responsibility, then go live in the wood, live of your hunt,and never interact with any other humans ever

False Dilemma

I can continue to live where i am and not have such responsibility.

>Because as soon as you interact with someone else, to improve your comfort of live, it means that you recognize the other and his right to live.

> to improve your comfort of live

False Dilemma
What if i dont want to improve that and instead i just want to interact?

>it means that you recognize the other and his right to live.

So when a killer interacts with his victim, he recognizes his entitlement to live?

>It means that if you let the man die, his family gain the right to kick your ass.

By what justification?

>If there was one right that should be granted to any human, it's the right to live.

Certainly.
As long as i am not involved.

[Anonymous No.3828997]

>>3828851
There is this obligation.

Let's take this. A man is dying, you can save him. you don't do it. People ask you "Why didn't you save him?" You answer "I had no obligation to save him." They say"Wait, does this mean that if any of US is in danger, you will do nothing to save us either?" You answer "Indeed, and none of you are obliged to do it either, none are forced to help someone in danger, even if there is no risk doing so."

They say "I don't want that. I want to be sure that, if I am ever in trouble, any people who can will save my live" "Me too" "Me too, the world if full of danger", "Me too, imagining dying, than seeing someone walking away when he could save me, it's just horrible." "But how can we be sure this hasshole won't do it again?" "Lets punch him in the face, that'll teach him, or do something worst if he do it again." "Who is for?" "For!" "For!" "For!" "For!" "For too!" You say "Con!"

They says "Seems you lose" and you get punched in the face. there is your obligation.

[Anonymous No.3829008]

>>3828970
if you don't repay getting treated nicely by treating others the same, nobody will be nice to you
HOW
FUCKING
HARD
IS
THAT
TO
UNDERSTAND

[Anonymous No.3829010]

>>3828801
voting in the soviet union was encouraged in much the same way that your body encourages you to breathe, and there is only one person on the ballot.

i remember a 99.98% voter turnout where somebody actually got executed.

tyrrany is the norm, not the exception

[Anonymous No.3829017]

>>3828920
dude, off topic, but on Nat Geo, it showed three tribesman of the Kalahari doing just that; they walked up to a feeding pride of adult lions, the lions ran away, they carved off a haunch and sauntered out of there

completely badass

[Anonymous No.3829022]

Liberty, do people have a right to their property?

[Anonymous No.3829023]

>>3829008
it's as hard as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

[Anonymous No.3829027]

>>3828970
>By what Society?
Most of the time it will be the society you live in. It's not an absolute constant, but most existing society impose this rule: a minimal respect of the Right to Live of the other.

This rule of helping the other when he is in a live endangering situation will generally appear in most society constituted of more than one person. Unless, apparently, one of the two is you, but in that case and if the other one is me, don't start complaining if I somehow miraculously manage to survive and come to beat the shit out of you, you had it coming.

[Anonymous No.3829029]

>>3829022
if they do not, then it could be argued that they have no rights at all

[Anonymous No.3829035]

>>3829008

Not necessarily. You want to know how many marriage proposals Ted Bundy got in prison?

[Anonymous No.3829037]

>>3829029

He denied the existence of rights altogether earlier on.

[Anonymous No.3829047]

>>3829037
then he is mistaken; the united states was founded on the premise that men had inalienable rights granted to them by their creator, and that they were not handed out by other men, even men in government

it's a pretty basic part of what makes the US different

[Anonymous No.3829055]

>>3829047

No i was wondering how that fitted in with his ideology. He denies being a libertarian. Maybe he's just a market anarchist.

[Anonymous No.3829064]

>>3828920
>sigh

>> you are responsible
>> why
>> because you are
>> why
>> because you are
>> why
>> because you are

>Yeah, nah

If you are seriously wondering how come there exist such a rule, go see >>3828997
and you'll learn how it came to be.

As for the why, but I have the feeling it will not be a good enough reason for you, this rule exist because, most people want to live in a society where they can at least know tat if the situation become really horrible for them, at least they know other will try to help them back a bit and at least try to save your live.

Most people want to live knowing there is at least this.

[Anonymous No.3829067]

>>3829047

In Soviet Russia there is no "Creator".

[Anonymous No.3829071]

>>3829055
it's hard to argue that the free market is not the best way to resolve social conflicts; "might makes right" doesn't stick; the people oppressed finally rise up in arms united.

also, the free market is quicker to react to changes, even fundamental changes, and to the extent that it can be left alone to operate efficiently, it should be left alone to operate efficiently.

as contrasted by bureaucracy, which is designed to not work efficiently, and therefore change less

[Anonymous No.3829076]

>>3829035
how many?
(also was he ever nice to anybody?)

[Anonymous No.3829079]

>>3829076

Only when he was trying to get them in his van

[Anonymous No.3829082]

>>3829067
in most countries where the leader attempts to elevate himself to godhood, there is no room for God

it's as if there is a fixed space that must contain both a country's submission to God and submission to their rulers, and the tyrannical rulers by definition must exclude God completely.

your notion of God determines your notion for how big government should be; a bigger God requires a smaller government, and a smaller God requires a larger government

[Anonymous No.3829084]

>>3829079
hmm...
people are strange

[Anonymous No.3829086]

>>3829076
night stalker is actually married to a woman after he was convicted of being a serial killer

apparently some women like to know where their husband is at all times

[Anonymous No.3829089]

>>3828970
>>Because as soon as you interact with someone else, to improve your comfort of live, it means that you recognize the other and his right to live.

>> to improve your comfort of live

>False Dilemma
>What if i dont want to improve that and instead i just want to interact?

-Step one: You interact with others
-Step two: Someone is dying, you can save him but don't feel like it. He die.
-step three: No one want to interact with you anymore. You are left alone, unable to figure out why the fuck everyone are isolating you. Strange people.

[Anonymous No.3829092]

>>3828997

Hey, anon, why didn't you save this kid?

Did you feel like you weren't obliged to, even though you could have done it with little cost to yourself?

[Anonymous No.3829093]

>>3829089
you asian bro?

[Anonymous No.3829095]

>>3829092
most people would say that child starving in Africa is not their responsibility, and they would be right.

other people would move to Africa to help them feed their children, and they would be right.

unfortunately, we are designed to care more about our own hangnail than a child starving to death on the other side of the world.

[Anonymous No.3829099]

>>3829082
seems a rash supposition
What of theocracies?

wouldn't "natural order" vs "imposed order" work better?

[Anonymous No.3829117]

>>3829092
I donate 10% of my income to charity and keep whats left over from paying my bills for emergencies, if nothing comes up new years is being a good samaritan day

[Anonymous No.3829120]

>>3829093

Nah just extremely Autistic.

[Anonymous No.3829127]

>>it means that you recognize the other and his right to live.

>So when a killer interacts with his victim, he recognizes his entitlement to live?
Did you mean "killing"? I think it's the appropriate verb to use in such a situation. Most of the time "interact", while technically correct, is not the appropriate word to use in a murder situation, just like saying "there is some Chinese men in China" is technically a correct statement but can lead to confusion if used.

Using "killing" is much more appropriate than "interact" in the situation you are describing. If we can't agree with each other to the way we use the word, other misunderstanding might arise, and this will render the interacting we are doing with each other less performant.

And no, in the situation you are describing, the killer does not acknowledge his entitlement to live. Quite of the other hand, he impose to the other his vision of the way things should be. A rather loosy and poor way of interacting, if you ask me.

[Anonymous No.3829129]

>>3829089

See.

>>3829035

[Anonymous No.3829132]

>>3829099
interesting

a true theocracy, ruled by God Himself, would be all God and all government, as He would be able to do errything

a true theocracy run by men, like Moses, would be a big God, and a small government, namely, a spokesman, Moses.

a false theocracy, run by men in the name of a god, would be in reality no god at all, and all government, such as saudi arabia.

[Anonymous No.3829134]

>>3829067

you do understand that the Soviet Union is gone, right?

[Anonymous No.3829140]

>>3829120
so this is your window to the world, so to speak?

[Anonymous No.3829148]

>>3829127

Exactly.
Which is why this statement:

>Because as soon as you interact with someone else, to improve your comfort of live, it means that you recognize the other and his right to live.

Is ridiculously incorrect.

[Anonymous No.3829149]

>>3829134
well, i don't see it that way, no

i see the old soviet union as a football, and the collapse of the old soviet union as the deflating of that football

it's still there; you just have to pump a lot of air (money) into it, and it will be right back where it was

hell, putin pulled some shit just last week basicaly making himself president for life

[Anonymous No.3829155]

The "Social Contract" makes us have to answer to some law and not be able to harm other individuals, alright.

But how does the Social Contract justify an entity monopolizing the services of protection and enforcement of the law? Why do people think it's impossible for society to be run in a voluntary base and law be enforced through private contract?

>http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

[Anonymous No.3829178]

>>3829155
for the same reason as you claim private contract to be an improvement on the status qua
what reason is there to believe that?

[Anonymous No.3829192]

>>3829178
>status quo
yeah I surrender already

[Anonymous No.3829202]

>>3829149
trust me, its dead
tis' another beast

[Anonymous No.3829227]

>>3829148
it still holds though
if by interaction with people you cause harm you will be rejected for it as simple as that,
and not doing good enough counts as harmful behavior,
just like paying 9/10 of an agreed upon price is still dept

[Anonymous No.3829244]

Arguing against the Federal Government.

On the Internet.
On the Internet.

THE INTERNET.

[Anonymous No.3829247]

>>3829092
The key word here is "Can I save him". I sent a bit of money. I don't even know if it will rzeach him or actually help him.

I looked for an organizations that taught sexual education in Somalia to donate a bit too, but couldn't find one.

So I gave to UNICEF to because they specialize in schooling and education.

That's all I can really do.

[Anonymous No.3829261]

>>3829178

There would be no forceful monopoly on the provision of this service and citizens would actually have choices.

The incentives and calculational problems that plague the State do not plague voluntary and private institutions.

In the historical examples of private law existing ( Yes there are such examples: Lex Mercantile, medieval Ireland and Iceland, etc), the private-contract law societies had more humane laws and conditions that the surrounding kingdoms of their time, and even lasted longer as civilizations (Medieval Iceland lasted for 300 years before Norway invaded it, Medieval Ireland lasted for a millenia before England came, Lex Mercantile in the French Champagne Fairs was short lived - King Philip IV was quick to crush it - but it made trade much greater and cultural change in France accelerate a lot, the Renaissance would have happened a lot earlier had it not been supressed).

Read the "Chaos Theory" book, it's a short yet great read.

[Anonymous No.3829283]

>>3829129
So you are saying that you are rather looking for interaction with people with morbid inclination?

Also, I don't think those people constitute the majority, nor the kind of people with which you can have a nice and intelligent chat.

[Anonymous No.3829287]

>>3829244

>The Internet was created by a Governmental agency
>Therefore, it could not have been created in another way, only the Government could have given us the Internet

[Anonymous No.3829341]

>>3829148
And by "exactly", you mean "I completely missed the point". The post you quoted is saying that to the meaning of "interact" was ridiculously stretched to allow the sentence "So when a killer interacts with his victim, he recognizes his entitlement to live?" to make sens, to the point you had made lost the initial meaning of the word "interact".

In "Because as soon as you interact with someone else, to improve your comfort of live, it means that you recognize the other and his right to live.", "interact" covered the meaning (non-exhaustive list): talking, exchanging idea, teaching, learning, selling, buying, making deal, competing, marrying, divorcing, educating,... and excluded the meaning (non-exhaustive list): killing torturing, backstabing, betraying,...

While, looking like that, a rather arbitrary choice of what "interact" might cover and not cover, and militating, indeed, the full extend the word is technically covering, most people reading "Because as soon as you interact with someone else, to improve your comfort of live, it means that you recognize the other and his right to live." would immediately understand what actions are covered by "interact" in the present context. And this is why that sentence is not "ridiculously incorrect."

Context, here is the key word and you will see that often, context limit the meaning that a word can initially have.

Most people get this, but somehow you don't. I hope that this present post helped you contextualize the sentence and have a better understanding of it.

To recap it: interacting is not what a killer do, what a killer do is killing. Therefore the question "So when a killer interacts with his victim, he recognizes his entitlement to live?" is based on a false premise and is silly. And it is indeed a silly question that only an obnoxious person taking literally every meaning of a word without accounting conceptualization would ask.

[Anonymous No.3829348]

>>3828348
>asperger's syndrome general

[Anonymous No.3829359]

>>3828348
>>3828348
>asperger's syndrome

If you don't understand the social contract, you are probably an autistic, or a sociopath.

Hence forth, all libertarian threads will be re-titled

autism general

[Anonymous No.3829524]

>>3829155
You might see this as a cheating trick, but if we define a state as something holding the servicing of protection and enforcement of the law, then, by tautology, you can't dissociate the two.

What I mean is, let's say a private is getting pay to serve protection and enforce the law, then it become a state of its own and has no reason anymore to respond to any higher authority. in other word, you can separate the law enforcement from a state because whoever detain the lawn enforcement prerogative de-facto become a state.

Sound stupid? Yet that's how things are. Think of the old monarchies. The king owned this right he was the legitimate owner, because his ancestor had conquered his soil an given the legacy to him. He own the army, can hire more mercenaries and decide how the law is to be enforced. This allow him to impose his will to those who can afford it. And it's rarely executed in the interest of the people, only of the King, because he is the one owning it.

A privately owned servicing of protection and enforcement of the law, mean you can impose it to those who can't afford it. Is that against the rules? Who is going to tell that to the King that and rectify the situation?

[Anonymous No.3829527]

>>3829524
(continued)
Now what if the people actually organize to offer themselves those services and say Fuck You to the king? His that a private owned service, then? No! It become a state-city. Something that has actually existed, a fair example of this was Venice. Once again, you can't separate those services from the concept of state itself. This system held for a while, but it almost inevitably failed, as each state-city either formed alliances with other state-city, or where conquered or absorbed by bigger entity than them, up until countries were defined (with on his head, for example, a King). Only few State-cities have survived, nowadays, such as Monaco, Andorra or St Marin. While looking independent at first glance, they are actually very Dependant of the big State surrounding them and only because they silently agree to not do thing that would go against those big state interest (which is not not really a problem anyway, as most of those things would intrinsically also go against the interest of the state-cities too).

An now there is the current system, you can see a head of state of a country as actually being a private company, whose each citizens would be an equal share-holder of it. therefore they are the one who a point its CEO and have a word to say of how things should be run. This situation was reach because that's what most people agreed on after many fights where fought and great loss of blood happened. Those where harsh negotiations...

[Anonymous No.3829564]

>>3829524
Second line of the second paragraph, you must read "can't' instead of "can". Sorry for the mess up.