A Discussion About The “Social Contract”

This is a transcript of a discussion from my Discord server.
https://discord.gg/3rhghRX

The forward ( > ) symbol indicates “responded to”.
Example: Freddy > Jason (Freddy responded to Jason)

Max The Dragon
If something poses a danger to the general public, we as a society come together and through our democratic process deliberate on how best to deal with this risk. In the case of driving, society has determined that the risk posed by the activity is significant enough such that it is preferable to require that people prove their competency before partaking in that activity. When you live in a society, there are certain things you have a right to expect from society, but there are also things society can expect from you as a citizen. This is the social contract.

bbblackwell > Max The Dragon
Sounds so reasonable, doesn’t it? I used to believe this very thing. And like anyone who has passed from an intermediate to an advanced level in a subject, I can discern with absolute clarity that this perspective is not simply misguided, but raw, green, unripened.

Words/phrases/concepts that the above author uses recklessly, having not thoroughly contemplated their meaning in this context:

-society
-come together
-democratic process
-deliberate
-deal with
-determined
-significant enough
-require
-prove competency
-right
-expect
-citizen
-contract

There are infinite topics which I am not suited to have an opinion about. I make no assertions—nor barely speak at all—about such topics. This is not one of those topics.

Those words above are not sufficiently understood, and their use is unmerited. Yes, I am saying that a person must earn their right to speak in an assertive manner, particularly on matters of such import. The above comment is literally a wrong-doing.

No shame in it, if one recognizes, admits, and seeks to redress the oversight. The shame comes from digging in one’s heels and allowing ego to bar the doors and nail closed the shutters, thus doubling-down on the error.

If Max reads this and is not exceedingly curious to know why I’m saying all this, he is not fit to even enter into the conversation broached by his above comment.

Philosopossum > bbblackwell
Wow, deep stuff man. I’m curious to know why you think he is using those terms improperly.

bbblackwell > Philosopossum
The claim is that the listed terms are being used recklessly, either because they’re being used incorrectly (according to their most rational definition), or are incapable of being defined in a way that would support usage in the given context, or their implied application is unproven.

Society is undefined. If it’s meant to indicate the whole of the people affected within a given territory, the claim that they came together for any purpose is unproven. If it is meant to indicate a select group that “came together” for the stated purpose (by voting, for example), the implication that that their decision is justifiably applicable to others outside that group is unfounded. In this case, there would effectually be at least 2 “societies”, participants and non-participants in the “coming together”, but no such distinction is indicated or explained.

There is no description of the “democratic process” or evidence that it is, in fact, democratic, or that this feature lends it some justification. Supposing he means voting, there is nothing to indicate any “deliberation” took place, either communally or individually. Voting may be done thoughtlessly, or based upon concerns irrelevant to the context of driving privileges.

“Deal with” presumably means “address”, but again, there’s nothing indicating that voters are voting with the intent to address this particular issue, and there’s no evidence connecting the proposed solution to an effective mitigation of the problem.

A particular candidate winning an election does not indicate that “society” determined anything regarding this issue (e.g. that the risk was “significant enough” to take action).

“Requiring” that drivers “prove competency” in the implied endeavor of driving safely is simply not what’s happening in this case. If anything, they are required to prove competency in a single instance of examination, not ongoing competency in safe driving.

“Right” is left completely undefined, thus “right to expect” is unproven. “Citizen” is a label thrust upon an individual without adequately demonstrated justification, and “contract” implies mutual agreement, of which none has been demonstrated.

ⒶMP3083
Society is undefined. If it’s meant to indicate the whole of the people affected within a given territory, the claim that they came together for any purpose is unproven. If it is meant to indicate a select group that “came together” for the stated purpose (by voting, for example), the implication that that their decision is justifiably applicable to others outside that group is unfounded. In this case, there would effectually be at least 2 “societies”, participants and non-participants in the “coming together”, but no such distinction is indicated or explained.

— Lysander Spooner

I see you quoting him. 😉

bbblackwell > ⒶMP3083
Man, that guy just nails it. No wonder why I heard no mention of his name for the first 40 years of my life.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > Max The Dragon
Max is clearly discussing the prevailing political philosophy of police power which operates at the State level in the US. That is the context in which he uses the “phrases/concepts”. I wouldn’t necessarily say he is being assertive. One can disagree with said philosophy but, overcoming its influence/power is no easy task. It certainly cannot be addressed by the legal system. I don’t think moral arguments are the way – they’ve been made for centuries. The whole political system has to be dismantled and that has only been achieved, in human history, by the use of a ballot or a bullet. Perhaps there is some new fangled 21st century way that escapes my observations.

ⒶMP3083 > bbblackwell
I too focus on certain keywords ppl use. His comment is likely an “invitation” to discuss matters that has no solid basis. It would be like starting a book in the middle and after a couple of pages we have a discussion about the story. Clearly we won’t get the full story unless we start in from the beginning.

bbblackwell > ⒶMP3083
Which of these conversations ever starts at the beginning?! That’s the exact problem. Honestly, people are just venting. They vent frustration, self-loathing, the desire for meaningful discourse, the desire for meaningful change…

But it’s like getting high—you vent it today and you gotta do it again tomorrow. It’s not really getting to the bottom of the issue that’s creating the need.

Having the full conversation helps—we’ve done that here at times, when we have people willing to go all the way—but even that isn’t getting to the very bottom.

Why do we feel the need to figure it out or voice our findings? Why the desire for meaningful conversation? We feel lack. There’s something we’re trying to connect to. Everything we do is about that. When we figure that piece out, and if we really want to heal it, so much of these conversations will fall away like molted scales.

ⒶMP3083 > bbblackwell
“but even that isn’t getting to the very bottom.”

I think ultimately the real issues one has to deal with – to get to the very bottom – is the one inside of him or herself, and it’s hard to tell what that could be.

bbblackwell > ⒶMP3083
Yeah, like you said, we’re way premature on most of this stuff—especially the question of how should we organize society. That’s why no one is fit to make broad decisions that get imposed on everyone else.

Little babies who don’t even understand themselves are talking about what “we” need to do on a massive scale, instead of focusing on what they need to do to even be fit to interact with others at all.

ⒶMP3083 > bbblackwell
The problem of “need” is in the language. ‘We need’ versus ‘I need’. The latter is more appropriate to be investigated. Saying “we need” is like speaking for everyone in society, and I think it’s an inappropriate place to begin an investigation. Every individual should know what they need, and if they don’t then it’s their responsibility to explore that area. Additionally, it is also important to know what needs actually are. Some people confuse needs with things like requests. I think if you explore it deep enough, an individual need comes down to what many people also need, and I’m talking mostly about the basic needs of a human. In discussions, I would say not to speak of “we need” unless the speaker knows his own needs first and make it known to everyone else.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > ⒶMP3083
“We need” comes from a collectivism mindset as opposed to one of individualism, imo.

holeymoley > Max The Dragon
“we as a society come together and through our democratic process deliberate on how best to deal with this risk”

That’s funny…..I don’t recall ever seeing a vote on lockdowns….

ⒶMP3083 > holeymley
Right off the bat, the problem is in the first 4 words.

bbblackwell > ⒶMP3083
And right off the bat they sound like fucking Abraham Lincoln, using weird euphemistic political talk, because they’re parroting, not actually thinking and speaking for themselves.

”Four scores and seven implied consents ago, our four fathers gave birth to a social contract…”

They don’t know wtf they’re talking about.

Abdul
Statist collectivism babble:
“Society has determined x, society has determined y, we should do what society thinks is best, you are obligated to do as society says…”

Correction:
“My cult master has determined x, my cult master has determined y, we should do what my cult master thinks is best, you are obligated to do as my cult master says…”

Statists are essentially religious fundamentalists propagating the wishes of their (false) gods. If their cult was so great, the system would be amazing, everyone would be happy, abundant and living joyful lives (which clearly is not the case for the majority of people).

If people want to practice religions full of lies and worship false gods, that’s their business, so long as it is not imposed on others. Yet, that is exactly what statists do.

bbblackwell > Abdul
Well, I’m sure they’d love to practice their religion without imposing, but it’s kind of tough since imposition IS their religion!

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > bbblackwell
I think they would rationalize that they are NOT imposing since they are also subject to the imposition. Don’t most, if not all, religions imposed some rules of behavior?

ⒶMP3083 > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
That might be true, but where it fails is in their inconsistency.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > ⒶMP3083
But that would not be a persuasive argument for them. They wouldn’t and don’t admit to any inconsistency. Unfortunately, to day the trend is MORE impositions. More than ever before in my lifetime. People view their community with the same sanctity as their home.

ⒶMP3083 > Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass
I agree that they would be in denial of an inconsistency. Idk what argument would persuade them. They prob just don’t care since their mind is too busy wanting others to submit to their will.

Juan Galt Legal Bad Ass > ⒶMP3083
Yes, submit to benefit them, ie: equality and now the new buzzword equity.

Join our Discord server!
https://discord.gg/3rhghRX
Let’s have a LIVE chat!

Find me at:
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3083/
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3783/
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/amp3883/
http://www.facebook.com/ampthirtyeightythree
https://odysee.com/@AMP3083:4

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s