/lit/ - Literature

>>19458740
lol

>>19458740

This is an obvious banality noted in all freshmen books.

>>19458740
but you remember getting the vaccine

>>19458740
It's time for you to read Lysander Spooner, anon.

>>19458787
Maybe we need to work through the implications of the obvious aporia upon which his superstructure sits, rather than pretending that it doesn't exist? Legal fictions which made sense to one generation, hundreds of years ago, don't necessarily make sense now; oft times, they're accepted merely from laziness and habit - dogmatic slumbers, if you will.

Should voluntary outlawing be introduced? (i.e. you are afoul of the law voluntarily, you have no protections and also no restrictions: you gain no benefits, but also, no legal consequences)

>>19459534
Well put

>>19460207
>Just let people be criminals

>>19460207
You need a rule that let's you live without rules?

>>19460225
You'd still be able to restrain them, beat them, kill them if you so chose: you'd have no repurcussions for doing so, as they are outlaws.

>>19460207
Wasn't that Australia?

>>19460207
That already exists. You're doing it right now, actually.

>>19460207
Why no consequences? Just let state power befall upon them in pure might, without the polish of legitimate authority. Let them cry in the courts: "I don't recognize this tribunal." And let the judges say in turn: "Very well, we judge you not as a citizen, but as a mere subject of power. The sentence will be carried out in the same fashion, because the state imposes so".

>>19458740
Your parents did it for you, when they decided to carry that pregnancy to term.

>>19458787
>This is an obvious banality noted in all freshmen books.

And still not refuted.

>>19458740
Based free rider.

>>19460231
How would you tell who is an outlaw and who isn’t?

>>19462022
Use their skin color as a proxy

>Piece of paper therefore wrong
Why are statists like this?

it is immoral and tyrannical that the statist arrangement is imposed upon individuals who do not consent to join it. we are being violated by the us government and its totalitarian statism.

>>19458740
Of course not, your class background prevents meaningful association and autonomy.

>>19460498
That would not be different from being kidnapped by mexican gangs

>>19462596
And your point is?

>>19460238
It still is, I think

>>19460498
Would be more honest than the current arrangements, but I don’t see why they would given that the veil of morality is a powerful tool in keeping a populace on your side.

>>19462638
I, on the other hand, can't see why someone would choose to leave the social contract while Leviathan is still out there. I still can challenge the state in court as citizen and I am protected by a general statute of rights by my constitution.
That the authority of the state is what you people would call a "spook" was something Étienne de la Boétie figured out even before Locke or even Hobbes came up with contractualism. The state certainly benefits from that and wouldn't give it away - that's one reason, of course, for your rights to be inalienable. But in this hypothetical situation were one would be able to leave the social contract - whilst remaining on that state territory - I could see the state leaving that mantle behind and dealing in pure might (against bare life, some might say).

>>19458740
You actually do every time you consciously interact with society in which you acknowledge certain bonds, systems, and protocols will be enacted. Every time you give a dollar to a clerk with the expectation a declared soda will now be your property, you are enacting a metaphorical contract which you just signed with your actions.

There can be an argument made that you can only sign the contract once you reach a certain level of conscious thought in which you recognize a systemization as a contractual relationship.

>>19462605
>>19462638

>>19458740
This is Locke, isn't it? I haven't read him. What are his bullet points?

>>19462703
The majority of people care very little for ideas unless they conform to their already present emotional bias. The state alienates me insofar as it is a sacred authority higher than me, and if I do not recognize this authority I will be made a criminal. So I perceive the state as my enemy. I fight it and consume it so long as it gets in my way.
>But in this hypothetical situation were one would be able to leave the social contract - whilst remaining on that state territory - I could see the state leaving that mantle behind and dealing in pure might (against bare life, some might say).
I doubt anyone would do this externally. You have a far better chance at winning if you play the moral citizen’s role instead of going against the state without subterfuge.

>>19462751
Heh. Little do you know the soda was merely a diversion from the $30 worth of chocolate bars stashed in my lederhosen. Better luck next time, statists.

>>19458740
>I don't remember signing a social contract
That's the point lol. For otherwise you'd recognize the state's authority over you as illegitimate

>>19462796
Ah, I see. Were are not talking about the same thing, for I am defending the state.

>>19462797
Doesnt matter if I am a statist or not, and you might very well do that, you still intentionally signed a contract, just one that you intended to break.

You didn't refute the contracts existence, you simply broke it.

>>19462848
A contract is just a piece of paper to someone that doesn’t recognize its authority. Don’t really understand your point here.

>>19462848
I do not step shyly back from your contract, but look upon it always as a means to my ends. If you thought I'd put an imaginary signature ahead of my real interests, then you're a naive fool.

>>19462925
Yes, but you recognize its utility, that is enough. You recognize that others may enact their own will more agressively to you that you broke it. you dont have to keep the contract holy or even follow it to recognize its existence.
>>19462945
And that is completely fine. The social contract is not a moral absolute, rather it is a general systemization of agreement. agreements can be broken, agreements can be used as means to an ends. I am not saying you must stand by your word, simply that you are engaging in a system that utilizes it as a basis for complex operations. Your breaking a rule of that system for your interests is entirely possible and up to your disgressioin. THe social contract is not god, it is a means. a means that can be fiddled with by those who dain to do so.

I think you two think I am making a moral point, which I am not.

>>19462988
People make agreements, sure. I think the word “contract” is a bit of a stretch in that it usually implies some holy legal authority, but if that is not what you mean then I will agree.

>>19458787
You mean an obvious TRUTH ignored by fart-huffing academics

>>19463024
>I think the word “contract” is a bit of a stretch in that it usually implies some holy legal authority
Locke came from the tradition of Hobbes, and Hobbes had no delusion that the law was holy, rather a form of utility. Locke is a good deal more religiously idealistic, but his social contract is not a moral ideal. In fact, he somewhat bemoans the necessity for it (believing men had true freedom in their natural none/minimal societal state).

Its a contract, because its not necessarily two equal sides as is somewhat implied in agreement. Its the gestalt system by which people perfunctorily generally subscribe too by custom and force. Like, you might not WANT to sign a contract, but you do it anyways or else the irs takes your coach. Its a little more odd to say you agreed the IRS can take your coach.

Contract does not mean holy, but a consciously acknowledged relation and system multiple parties agreed too or else consequence x y and z may occur.

>>19463117
So it’s essentially just describing power relations. I don’t see anything wrong with it from an egoist perspective as long as people don’t start to see it as a moral absolute.

>>19463186
of course not, but the thing is that they are not mutually exclusive fields in practice, and people tend not to delineate between the two sharply. Since mores are influenced by morality and morality can be influenced by mores/force.

There is a quote by pascal about this (Being religious he believes there is a true right, but he acknowledges our incapability of finding it)
>298. Justice is subject to dispute; might is easily recognised and is not disputed. So we cannot give might to justice, because might has gainsaid justice, and has declared that it is she herself who is just. And thus being unable to make what is just strong, we have made what is strong just.

I thing Hume gave a good understanding of human conflation of impressions and ideas. we inevitably create abstractions like morality from impressions like power.