Re: Declaration of self-ownership CHALLENGE

[Sepero1]

"I was talking social contract. Voluntary surrender of certain freedoms to gain a bigger benefit."

If it were voluntary, then it wouldn't be a social contract. By definition, a social contract is not agreed to, thus involuntary.

I personally reject all involuntary contracts from individuals or imaginary entities.

[sorienor]

It can be voluntary, even if not always so. What you don't realize is that you are living under such a contract right now even if you reject it. Specialization is the tangible result of the social contract.

I also reject the classical definitions of social contract because they were before the theory of evolution that explains how the contract came about and continues to work.

[Sepero1]

"What you don't realize..."

No, I fully realize it, and reject it. These are not exclusive options.

I understand that a social contract can be agreed to be some, but I do not believe that makes it justifiably applicable to all. Doing so is an argument for 'might makes right'.

Taking the argument of 'might makes right' can equally be used to justify the Nazi's.

I believe that every person must be allowed to find their own voluntary place in society.

[sorienor]

I agree that society should be voluntary, but most people volunteer without realizing it. Any time you gain a benefit from specialization or collective effort, you have volunteered.

To sit there and reject the contract society while reaping the benefits you receive from it it just not a defensible position.

[Sepero1]

I proceed to provide 'security service' for you, then point a gun at you, and extract funds from you, and say "this is protection money you owe me"- that cannot justifiably considered a voluntary interaction.

[sorienor]

You're right, it is not a voluntary interaction but then again it is a really bad simile to what goes on in a contract society and thus is completely meaningless.

Oh, and nice avoiding the statements I posted.

[Sepero1]

My pleasure conversing with you. Please feel free to contact me anytime you wish.

[sorienor]

I am working on a video (series) in defense of Social Contract, probably due out after the holidays.

[Person009]

Tool.

[Amiduffer]

Not too bad, a reasoned rebuttal to childish selfish statements.

[KilluminatiDL]

you have more chins that a chinese phonebook.

[kookooo1]

i thnk ure a sad old man thAT WANTS 2 BE LOVED AND U MIGHT KILL YOURSELF

am i close?

[Dan420forU]

not a bad argument,...I would say its not any one thing that leads to a breakdown of society, but perhaps too much specialization leads to abuse of power, where is the big picture. When government gets too corrupt, too wasteful , people stop buying in and things break down.

[NoDeity]

So, you accept state-ownership of the individual. (That's not a question.)

[sorienor]

No. I accept that the state is absolutely required for the survival of the species, so ownership or non-ownership is a completely meaningless question.

[Kbiomech]

Then, given the above, you believe the thirteenth amendment to be invalid? (even though it was contrived by a state?)

[Nasikabatrachus]

Plus, I think you make a mistake in equating society with government. Yet governments are not created by societies: they are forced upon them. If I hear someone talk about how people who don't want to be coerced are just selfish, I'm gonna puke.

[Nasikabatrachus]

Your argument is a non-sequiter. The fact that we depend on each other to exist, that in isolation we would not survive, does not lead directly to the idea that we must start coercing each other. If anything, it leads to the idea that all exchanges must be voluntary, so that all parties can work to their mutual advantage, something precludes the State.

[sorienor]

Why can't the state be an intermediary in the working for mutual advantage..ie currency and guarantee of contracts? Why does a state have to go counter to mutual advantage?

Coercion? I was talking social contract. Voluntary surrender of certain freedoms to gain a bigger benefit.

[Nasikabatrachus]

The State precludes mutual advantage because it is based on theft and domination.

Also, can you point me to an example where the 'social contract' was voluntarily agreed to?

[Kbiomech]

The Non Aggression Principle IS the social contract. If people are inherently good, in large, then you do not need a government. If they are inherently evil, then you cannot afford one.

Or, as Frederic Bastiat said, socialists conflate the idea that when we say a thing ought not to be done by the state, we mean it ought not to be done.

[dtobas]

Speak for yourself. You are 2% away from throwing your crap on people.

[Nielsio]

Thanks for the response.

Could you maybe post your complete text in the context box of this video? It makes it easier to respond.

[greves1]

If you use violence to force me to do something, you are immoral. If anyone uses violence to force anyone to do anything, then they are immoral. The state is just people.