NationStates Jolt Archive

Does anyone here actually believe that book Leviathan and the whole social contract theory? If so, then when did you consent to be governed? When did you consent to pay taxes?

I'm living here, arn't I?

the corporate beast has broken the social contract when theyre trying to re-legalize the slave trade and bring back sweatshops with their "free" trade conspiracy against all the worlds people

Does anyone here actually believe that book Leviathan and the whole social contract theory? If so, then when did you consent to be governed? When did you consent to pay taxes?You consent to be governed the moment you decide it's more favorable to live in society than it is to go out into the wilderness and subsist on your own.

:) When you joined Nationstates, you consented to be governed by the rules of this site. :p

:) When you joined Nationstates, you consented to be governed by the rules of this site. :p
That was a purely voluntary thing on all our parts though. By setting up a Nation we agreed to abide by certain rules.

Which is completely different to society, were a great many people are only part of a society due to circumstance of birth, which was not consentual.

Sorry, but if you live here, you abide by the rules.

Of course, you can always try to change the rules.

Except that I don't.

Some rules I break (or more correctly, used to break) with alarming frequency. Nothing major, minor drugs and the occassional downloaded song.

Before a recent decision by the Law Lords, I was technically a traitor. Due to the fact that I had published articles calling for Republic.

I am only in this country because I was born here. And my (unfortunate) ineptitude at foreign languages rules out many countries, which I couldn't move to anyway since I don't have enough money to emigrate.

Sorry, but if you live here, you abide by the rules.

Of course, you can always try to change the rules.


Or go elsewhere to where the rules are more to your liking. :)

That was a purely voluntary thing on all our parts though. By setting up a Nation we agreed to abide by certain rules.

Which is completely different to society, were a great many people are only part of a society due to circumstance of birth, which was not consentual.
There are still many places on earth that are lawless in fact if not in name, and which are sufficiently deserted that if a person or group of people wished to make a go of it without interference from outside laws or society, they could try.

There are still many places on earth that are lawless in fact if not in name, and which are sufficiently deserted that if a person or group of people wished to make a go of it without interference from outside laws or society, they could try.

That costs a lot of money. If you are poor, you can't exactly leave.

Sure you can--all it really takes is determination and time. Feet still work for travel. You might not be able to go in style, but if you're truly committed to getting out of the system, it's possible.

It's not easy, and there won't be any creature comforts along the way or even when you get there. You'll likely be reduced to subsistence levels of farming and/or hunting, and the vast majority of your day--every day--will be based on finding enough food to eat to keep you alive and protecting yourself from predators, human or otherwise.

But one thing I can guarantee you--you will not have a technologically advanced society, not without some sort of government. That's the tradeoff you have to make. If you're willing, then go for it, I say.

Does anyone here actually believe that book Leviathan and the whole social contract theory? If so, then when did you consent to be governed? When did you consent to pay taxes?

Well Leviathan is a bit outdated, but "The Social Contract" (a seperate piece by a different author I might add) does have some useful insight.

I first realized the importance of the social contract when I reached a 4-way stop sign. I stopped. They guy across from me stopped; as did the people to my left and right. We all stopped nearly at the same time. Who goes first? Who deffers to the rest of the group, who goes last?

We are all equals, we all have places to go, things to do. However, I deferred to the fellow on my right, who went first, then the person across from him could go as well. A small hand signal and the whole affair was over.

If such conventions didn't exist, how problematic such daily occurances would be! Suppose there was an accident? How would we solve our problems, if one of us was angered because of it, who would step in to mediate on a busy day? Even aquiring transportation of any kind would be fraught with danger, how would I know it was safe? What would help ensure I wouldn't be gouged for price simply because I needed it badly?

Everything is based of our common knowledge that we all live with one another and we must make sacrafices or changes to do this. The social contract is simply the extension of this. We set up our governments to help smooth the process of daily life along; to help the people live their lives.

I would gladly pay a tax, knowing that it would aid cancer patients, or help build a road to that school I'm taking my (theoretical) kids to. I would pay a tax to help ensure that the food I eat is safe; that the car I drive lives up to certain standards, that the gas I put in it is made cheaper because the US is a big place, and cars help us get from Point A...to point Z.

Believe me, I know its fashionable to be anarcho-communsist, or some such related branch of thought; lord knows I wouldn't try to dissuade you of your beliefs. Some of us in have thought out WHY we live the way we live, and thought all the details are not perfect, its a good system. I like the system of government we use; I agree to the social contract.

:) When you joined Nationstates, you consented to be governed by the rules of this site. :p
in theory

I first realized the importance of the social contract when I reached a 4-way stop sign. I stopped. They guy across from me stopped; as did the people to my left and right. We all stopped nearly at the same time. Who goes first? Who deffers to the rest of the group, who goes last?

We are all equals, we all have places to go, things to do. However, I deferred to the fellow on my right, who went first, then the person across from him could go as well. A small hand signal and the whole affair was over.

Why does that need a government?

If such conventions didn't exist, how problematic such daily occurances would be! Suppose there was an accident? How would we solve our problems, if one of us was angered because of it, who would step in to mediate on a busy day? Even aquiring transportation of any kind would be fraught with danger, how would I know it was safe? What would help ensure I wouldn't be gouged for price simply because I needed it badly?

Abolition of capitalism.

I would gladly pay a tax, knowing that it would aid cancer patients, or help build a road to that school I'm taking my (theoretical) kids to. I would pay a tax to help ensure that the food I eat is safe; that the car I drive lives up to certain standards, that the gas I put in it is made cheaper because the US is a big place, and cars help us get from Point A...to point Z.

Do you know how much tax gets spent on the military?

Did you know that Gundam SEED is censored to the point of being incomprehencible in the US? You can't smoke pot in the privacy of your own home, either.

All right Letila--you suggest we abolish capitalism. Fine--wave your magic legislative wand and it's done. Who enforces the law? And what system of trade and barter arises in its place that doesn't involve some form of capitalism? Do you suggest we return to a form of hunter-gatherer society to provide sustenance for humankind? And if not, then what system do we put in place that allows those who don't hunt or gather because they're working on other things (other societal needs like defense or research for technological advancement) to eat? And assuming we put that sort of system in place, how is measurably different from capitalism?

All right Letila--you suggest we abolish capitalism. Fine--wave your magic legislative wand and it's done. Who enforces the law? And what system of trade and barter arises in its place that doesn't involve some form of capitalism? Do you suggest we return to a form of hunter-gatherer society to provide sustenance for humankind? And if not, then what system do we put in place that allows those who don't hunt or gather because they're working on other things (other societal needs like defense or research for technological advancement) to eat? And assuming we put that sort of system in place, how is measurably different from capitalism?

More importantly who gets access to the previous regimes weapons, ammunitions and food supplies.

Lol you know, you do have a voice. You don't like how taxes are being spent? Wanna joint every so often?

Then voice your opinion.



Please note, however, that the whole system won't change for just you ;)


Capitalism: it's a bitch, but it's our bitch, and it works ;)

geez the social contract is a philosophical concept. if it existed, it would have been signed way before we were born

here we are

and the world works AS IF we had agreed to it.

if you dont agree, you have a few choices.

go somewhere where you like the deal. millions of poor people have come and continue to come to the US. go look up a nice anarchist commune somewhere, sell your computer for the money to get there.

work within the system to get things changed. if you have a hard time convincing a majority of people that you are right maybe you arent right. the contract can be changed and it has been changed.

you will never find a social system that fits you perfectly. i find that i get a pretty good deal here in the US. i have no desire to make huge changes in our system.

people periodically overthrow governments that they dont like. they fight and die in revolutions all over the world. they are working to change the contract to something they agree with, even if its just "my side rules".

I'll agree that capitalism works in the sense that it's a more structured system than anarchy is, but it still leaves a lot to be desired.

The problem at the base of all this is that as a society, we rely on certain things for survival--food, energy, etc--and that means that people who control the supply of those things have an inordinate amount of power over the rest of us. The long term solution to that problem would be--to use a fictional solution--transporter technology from Star Trek, because that essentially makes physical objects valueless, since they can be replicated largely at will and with little in the way of energy cost. Yeah--it's a fictional solution, but the underlying principle is the same--if rich people and poor people can all have pretty much the same level of quality of life, then the energy that people put toward gaining power or riches is channeled toward some other goal.

I should note that this doesn't result in a breakdown in the necessity for governing structures--it simply dismantles the economic part of the spectrum. The one essential service that government provides is the structure within which society is able to advance technologically, and anarchy has to way to replicate that structure, which is why it is always doomed to failure as a societal structure.

You don't seem to understand something.

It's that will to become richer that, in many cases, betters us. I work for an independent pizza company; I know this.

"I want to make money, and there's competition that wants my money. Therefore, I need to either a) make better pizza, or b) sell it for cheaper. Most other places go with b, therefore we shall try a"


Do some suffer because of this? Sheah. But in the end, it's this competition that betters society in many ways.

You don't seem to understand something.

It's that will to become richer that, in many cases, betters us. I work for an independent pizza company; I know this.

"I want to make money, and there's competition that wants my money. Therefore, I need to either a) make better pizza, or b) sell it for cheaper. Most other places go with b, therefore we shall try a"


Do some suffer because of this? Sheah. But in the end, it's this competition that betters society in many ways.
I do understand that--but the competition doesn't have to be for money. Right now much of the competition is for money because of the benefits that large amounts of money provide, and because the use of money is such a necessary part of our existence. If money becomes useless, then that drive is concentrated in some other direction--to the betterment of the person and society as a whole. Getting rid of money won't stop competition--it will just channel it into another pursuit.

Regardless, we're not talking about something that will happen any time soon--probably not in either of our lifetimes--but it doesn't hurt to consider the possibility.

this is why we dont have a true capitalistic society. no one wants to go back to the horrors of the 19th century. those rich people are kept in line by government. could they do more? well yes and perhaps in the future they shall

consider universal health care. without our capitalist system it woudl be worthless because the treatments and advances we take for granted wouldnt exist. oh there would be SOME but nothing like we have today.

without our capitalist system we woudlnt have 99% of the cool stuff we take for granted today. sure, stuff doesnt make you happy but im not too keen on living without.

the poor people in the developed world today are richer than the middle class people of 500 years ago. ( in 14th century france, rich peasants were ones that owned a bed)

its not wrong to look for improvements. we just need to focus on what is possible and what will give the best results, not try for a utopian impossibility

As Howard Dean said on the campaign trail (when talking about health care programs, coincidentally) "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Capitalism isn't perfect as an economic system or as the infection of a governmental system, but it's better than some of the other options, and it can be improved to reduce the disparities between rich and poor.

As Howard Dean said on the campaign trail (when talking about health care programs, coincidentally) "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Capitalism isn't perfect as an economic system or as the infection of a governmental system, but it's better than some of the other options, and it can be improved to reduce the disparities between rich and poor.

The problem is that capitalism is very authoritarian. It isn't just flawed, just as slavery wasn't just flawed. It must go for the sake of humanity.

As for leaving, keep in mind that the US has a great deal of influence elsewhere. It's a global superpower. Leaving isn't going to make it less authoritarian, anyway.

You know what, Letila, until you come up with a better system that answers some of the problems I enumerated above, why don't you lay off the "capitalism is corrupt" bandwagon? You haven't provided one bit of suggestion as to how an anarchic system would work outside a rudimentary hunter-gatherer society--wait, you haven't even shown how anarchy would work in a society that basic. You're as bad as TRA for talking in nonsensical one-liners. Come with something realistic or don't expect to be taken seriously.

You know what, Letila, until you come up with a better system that answers some of the problems I enumerated above, why don't you lay off the "capitalism is corrupt" bandwagon? You haven't provided one bit of suggestion as to how an anarchic system would work outside a rudimentary hunter-gatherer society--wait, you haven't even shown how anarchy would work in a society that basic. You're as bad as TRA for talking in nonsensical one-liners. Come with something realistic or don't expect to be taken seriously.

seconded.

The social contract is a [censored] lie!

No it isn't: it is a mythopoetic metaphor.

No it isn't: it is a mythopoetic metaphor.

I based the title on the thread about God not existing.

Now this is an interesting thread since I am writing a book about the natural rights of man. And I am in the midst of researching the great philosophers.

You consent to be governed the moment you decide it's more favorable to live in society than it is to go out into the wilderness and subsist on your own.
Problem there, is that there is no wilderness to chose. Living in the wilderness is illegal now. THat's why they have it fended off.

:) When you joined Nationstates, you consented to be governed by the rules of this site. :p
Yes, same with the society you live in.
No, you can't just go and live in the wilderness. But you can leave and move to another country.

There are still many places on earth that are lawless in fact if not in name, and which are sufficiently deserted that if a person or group of people wished to make a go of it without interference from outside laws or society, they could try.
Like where?

Does anyone here actually believe that book Leviathan and the whole social contract theory? If so, then when did you consent to be governed? When did you consent to pay taxes?
THe social Contract means you give up some rights in order to preserve other rights.

You'd have to travel very very far to do it, but I'm sure there's an island somewhere. You'd probably have to charter a helicopter to find it and take you there and stuff.

Yes, same with the society you live in.
No, you can't just go and live in the wilderness. But you can leave and move to another country.

you must live in the big city in arizona

i live on the edge of blm land in new mexico and periodically people move out to some spot in the desert and live. not that they are ALLOWED to, its just hard to find them.

same as those people who grow marajuana on national forest land. its not legal but it does happen.

you must live in the big city in arizona

i live on the edge of blm land in new mexico and periodically people move out to some spot in the desert and live. not that they are ALLOWED to, its just hard to find them.

same as those people who grow marajuana on national forest land. its not legal but it does happen.
No. I live on military post in the middle the desert.

Does anyone here actually believe that book Leviathan and the whole social contract theory? If so, then when did you consent to be governed? When did you consent to pay taxes?

The best explanation i ever heard regarding Leviathan was from one of my philosophy professors who is widely regarded as an expert on Hobbes. He said that the best way to understand Leviathan was that Hobbes intended the state of nature to be a hypothetical situation. The social contract itself is also a hypothetical concept as Hobbes never thought it actually occured. You are right to be sceptical of the social contract in terms of taxation and governance but there are numerous times when the concept does make a lot of sense, mostly in collective action situations.

in theory

That "I AGREE" button constitutes a contract. :)
If you are found not to uphold your end of it, you can be removed.
True, or not?