King Arthur
Well-Known Member
According to the social contract theory we all consent just by being here.
Would you support universal basic income if it meant eliminating all other social safety net progs?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Hobbs or Locke?
King Arthur
Well-Known Member
Hobbes was all about Leviathin right? I always get the two confused, I have a list somewhere round here but I mighta thrown it out. Whichever one was about Leviathin was all about controlling the people so I would go with that one.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Tacit consent is demonstrably false as it relies on a flawed assumption rather than actual consent. There is no such thing as a "social contract" , contracts to be valid require bi-lateral consent not a uni-lateral assumption.
This is an interesting excerpt from a story I read that might help define this...
Contracts should have explicit terms and signatories. For what reasons are governments to be thought of as established by a tacit rather than an explicit consent of those governed? For what reasons are governments to be thought of as arising from a non-explicit social contract, whatever that is? There are no justifiable reasons that I can think of. Locke endorses consent of the governed, but then he completely buries it under the ideas of implicit tacit consent to an implicit social contract.
If someone should say, as they have said in criticism of libertarian thinking, that “representative government is a legitimate authority”, my response is simple. If that government is legitimate, then let that government have a referendum on its existence. Let people who are claimed to be tacitly consenting have the opportunity to dissociate themselves from or associate themselves with this government. What possible objection could there be to such a procedure if government really is supposed to be via consent of the governed? But since governments do not do this and use force to suppress breakaway movements and secessions, and since they use force to gather their taxes and impose their laws that extend far beyond the suppression of criminal activities and violations of property rights, often themselves violating property rights, I can only conclude that they are afraid that many of their citizens would reject their legitimacy if asked. So that by their own deeds and failures to obtain consent, so-called representative governments provide strong evidence that they are not the legitimate authorities they claim to be.
From a citizen’s point of view, if he is forced to pay taxes and obey unjust laws of a government he rejects, such a government is no different than a criminal enterprise that extorts money from those under its control. For such a citizen who does not consent to that government, taxes are robbery. Hence, if some critic of libertarian thought says, as they have, “The fact that taxation is a legitimate function of representative government is indisputable,” I would argue that taxation cannot be a legitimate function of a representative government if that government is not legitimate, and for those of its citizens that do not consent to that government, it is indeed not legitimate. If governments wanted to represent people legitimately, they could seek subscribers who would pay fees in lieu of taxes. That they do not do this but instead throw people in jail or steal their property if they fail to pay taxes shows again that governments are not the legitimate authorities they claim to be.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No, things that are not consensual aren't consensual. Consent wouldn't be required.
Things that are consensual, are consensual. Consent of all parties would be required.
In either case, you've done a great job conflating our discussions and a horrible job buttressing your very weak arguments. You should learn how to wipe your buttress.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
You are right. Hobbs was all about the people giving everything over to the ruling class to disperse in an equitable manner. Hobbs gives no value to the individual and complete sovereign to authority.
Locke was more of a lass-a-fiarre , leave me alone I'll leave you alone, keep the 3rd party out of things as much as possible type.
Rousseau is kinda middling between the two.
All three relied on the state, Hobbs gave absolute power to the state, Locke gave the people the power.
Social contract theory is a pretty cool topic. It's a very philosophical debate and we seem to struggle with those here at RIU without going off on tangents.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
@King Arthur That's why I asked Hobbs or Locke.
It helps to know which side a person is coming from in a philosophical debate.
It's a what's best for the collective is what's best for the individual vs what's best for the individual is what's best for the collective.
I'm against one sized fits all policy but I'm willing to listen as to why you think otherwise.
It helps to know which side a person is coming from in a philosophical debate.
It's a what's best for the collective is what's best for the individual vs what's best for the individual is what's best for the collective.
I'm against one sized fits all policy but I'm willing to listen as to why you think otherwise.
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
Hazydat made the statement about a robotic workforce. I asked him who would build the robots. It was at that point that you came in with your spittle flying everywhere about stupid this and stupid that. You got lost somewhere in your hatred. Try to relax and maybe start from the beginning. I'll sit here and wait for you to catch up.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Do we get a pony too? I really want a pony with a long silky mane. And free veterinary care too. And I get to keep my veterinarian if I like her,right? She should have long silky hair too; to match my pony.
King Arthur
Well-Known Member
King Arthur
Well-Known Member
I used to live in an area with many people begging for food, beer and joints. I mean tons of beggars, people sleeping in tents and all kinds of shit.
Lets say that we gave this people $1800 bucks a month
I would never once feel guilty about someone who gets enough money to cover a months expenses. Very selfish of me but at the same time it helps these people, wether they want heroine or food they can get it with that check.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now on to myself, I feel like if I had the money I would be able to do so much more with my free time. Like working towards my passions of growing as well as helping the community. With an extra $1800 a month I could save that up for a year and lease out a community center and do all kinds of fun shit.
There is also the fact that I wouldn't stress about working and going to school at the same time while also doing a full time garden.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now on to employment, how many people are working in a job or career that they wouldn't work at all if they didn't need the money. Leaving the door open for people to experiment and try new things while also giving people that are inventors a check to cover their ass while they are coming out with the next water purifier or solar panel.
People generally work harder when they are in the position that they want to be in, there is more passion in a worker who wants to be working with you rather than some employee who calls in sick all the time or comes in late because he or she would rather be playing with their dildos than being in a shitty job.
=-----=---===--------------------=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-
Why do I feel this way? Because we are constantly getting shit on by corporations, by giving everyone a check every month no one would be forced to work at walmart or 711, students could pay for community college on 1800 bucks a month too. I don't necessarily believe that one size fits all BUT I do truly believe that it would help out everyone. Money is so fake it doesn't really matter anymore if we continue to print it. Why not just save the resources of printing money and throw it on a green dot card and say have a good time.
It would boost the economy again, people can't consume when they are poor as shit. Those trucks and suvs that have been sitting on the lots might actually get sold. Would be hard to say you can't pay your credit card bill when you are getting a check every month too. Less debt, less work hours, more creativity... who knows. It can't be that much worse than the direction this country is headed right now.
King Arthur
Well-Known Member
It is very complex stuff, considering these dudes wrote it when the english language was a lot more complex
. Thanks for clearing that one up for me.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
tell us again about your belief that small children can consent to being paid for sex, sicko.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Red1966
Well-Known Member
No, you're demanding a handout.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
No, it's not "your" money. You're a self-rightous theif.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
What about the fact that there will be few, if any teachers still working?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
*righteous
*thief
King Arthur
Well-Known Member
You really think teachers work JUST to collect a paycheck? After 20 years fuckin eh right they are workin to make that retirement fat. But most teachers don't go into it for the money.
Don't go full retard on us bro.