What is it, to be governed?

Post Reply New Topic

Yes and no. They used some of the officers for a time (and only when Trotski became Commissar to the Army), after they had already thrown so much out of the window they had to recreate it from scratch when they noticed it worked in the first place: authority, grades, decorations, etc. A good number of army officials fled to the Whites anyway.


On this, here is great inspiration to be found in Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, which is most likely on Wikisource, though on different issues, and for different reasons.

I think an important fact in modern democracy is that violent mass response to inappropriate governmental decisions is not something that is considered. There are no revolts, which were often the other side to government power in the Ancient Régime.

In 1789, 1848 or 1917, if there was a mass of people gathered on the streets to protest, everyone was affraid, there was real tension: Would the police or army shoot? charge? Will the people attack government buildings? loot the streets? even start massacres? Will they try to overthrow the government? (cf. Syrial and the Arab world) Now, a protest is worth at best a few cameramen, and its biggest consequence will be a traffic jam and random vandalism disapproved by the protest's leaders.

The press, too, has changed. Printing a paper against government was dangerous, political opinions showed courage. Freedom of press really was dangerous; now, it reduces the pressure, lets down steam (proper expression? y/n). Also, what most read was not that "Journalism is neutral and does not take sides" nonsense. I think all that courage created more appealing leaders to the masses; they might still be convinced today, but for change to happen, they need to be aroused and inspired.

I don't say all this is for the worst, however; but as a student of history, I find it very, very, very boring.

As you know Yes, Minister!, I will quote Sir Humphrey: "We lead a civilized, aristocratic government, tempered by occasionnal general elections."

ruveyn, for example.


hahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Why do people still use this tired old "social contract" argument?





Did you even read your own source? It states "In the common law of the United States and other anglosphere countries, there is no general duty to come to the rescue of another".
It cites only two cases in which you are legally obligated to help the person - If you are the person that put them in danger, or if you have a special relationship with the person (e.g. you are their parent or caregiver).

Ignoring the legal aspect and focusing on the moral aspect, let's say helping the drowning person involves risk to yourself.
Let's say the risk is a 50% chance that you will drown along with the person you are trying to save. Is it morally correct to help them in this situation?

How about a 75% chance? Or a 25% chance? At what point is it my moral responsibility to help the person?


Edit: ^ Thanks for screwing up the page layout.

You also didn't sign a contract with your parents when you were born, and yet you probably had to obey a few
rules and occasionally do the dishes while you lived under their roof. After you moved out, you still lived in and
used the infrastructure and accomplishments of a developed society. By doing that, you accepted the rules and
conventions that the majority of this society happens to agree upon.

This would even be the case if there was no government and no law. People would simply chase you out of town
if they were bothered by your behavior. It is impossible to live as part of a group without respecting some ground
rules and trying not to offend the sensibilities of others. Groups also expect their members to contribute and do
your share of the group's workload. It doesn't matter if the group is a house share or a nation, the principle
remains the same.



I guess you didn't read on after that paragraph. Further down, it says:

In the United States, as of 2009 ten states had laws on the books requiring that people at least notify law
enforcement of and/or seek aid for strangers in peril under certain conditions: California,[10][11] Florida,[10][12][13]
Hawaii,[10][14] Massachusetts,[10][15] Minnesota,[10][16] Ohio,[10][17] Rhode Island,[10][18] Vermont,[10][19]
Washington,[10][20][21] and Wisconsin.[10][22] These laws are also referred to as Good Samaritan laws, despite
their difference from laws of the same name that protect individuals that try to help another person.[1]



I wouldn't expect you to run into a burning house or otherwise put your own life at risk, but I think you can be expected
to do something other than ignoring the dying person. Pick up your phone and dial 911. Run off and call for help.
Anything other than just standing there and watching someone die. Only a sociopath would do that, imho.

Bad analogy. The government is not my mother. I am not being raised and cared for by the government.


I can understand your point when applied to a tribe, or perhaps even a village, but when applied to a nation
made up of hundreds of millions of people it simply becomes nonsensical. I do not know 99.9999% of the people within
my nation, so why am I in a "social contract" that I never signed that states I must work for their benefit?


Did you consciously remove the last part of that paragraph that states "These laws are rarely applied, and are generally ignored by citizens and lawmakers"?

Not that it really matters anyway. Legality is not the same as morality. If that were the case then using marijuana would be immoral.


I would certainly help the person, indeed I would probably risk my life for them. But how about if there
was a 0.000001% risk that I will drown, is it my moral responsibility then? The point I am trying to imply
is why are you in any authoritative position to tell me when I have to help others? Why do you have the
right to make that decision for me, since it is my time, my risk, and my effort that is being used?

You are still a member of a community though. You use public roads and sidewalks. There are public
schools and libraries, police forces and courts of law, fire departments and emergency hospitals.
You benefit from property rights, work safety laws, food safety regulations, tort law, and laws that
protect your rights as a customer.

In short, you benefit from civilization. It comes with a price. Civilization requires all of us to act civilized
and consider the well-being of others.



Because ever since humans have become sedentary agriculturalists, we have formed increasingly
larger states and nations. Would you rather go back to the days of city-states? You would still be
governed by societal rules. Unless you live alone in the woods or on a mountaintop, there will
always be rules and laws, as well as the expectation to cooperate with others.



Non-discrimination provisions are also rarely applied or enforced, but they still exist for a reason.
In this case, I guess that people rarely ever sue those who drive by without stopping as they're
being beaten up or lay bleeding on the side of the road.

[/quote]

Why would you have the right to completely ignore a person in peril? And how would you live with
yourself knowing that you could have done something to save a person who died partially as the result
of your failure to act? Like I said, nobody expects you to be a hero and put your own life at risk, but
you should at least pick up a phone and call for help. Does that really take so much time and effort in
the cell phone age?

The law existed before the state, as did, obviously, civilization.

The problem with this 'social contract' canard is that it isn't anything like a contract. A contract is a voluntary agreement. Nobody calls being a child a 'family contract'. You can call certain things family *obligations*, but that's something else entirely than a CONTRACT. The reason socialists call the crap they force on others a 'contract' is to make it sound like we somehow agreed to this BS.

So please, stop with this social contract silliness. Call something an obligation, THEN try to justify it.

I do not know if your anarchist or libertarian, however, I think the whole social contract is more of an argument against libertarians, as opposed to anarchists. I've never noticed quite the same arguments between anarchists and others. Usually just arguments for development and civilization or new vs old in that case.

It is doubtful you would see many of these same contractual arguments if not for the libertarians. The reason for this is because of the whole property arguments. While I myself disagree with anarchists in the greater scope of things, they at least are consistent in that property cannot be considered an afforded right. If you are to live in a survivalist like state of mind, that comes with consequences.

Libertarians on the other hand, want mostly what anarchists want, but with a few additional provisions, such as a social contract that property is accepted as real. Um....no. It doesn't work like that. If libertarians are not going to accept the standard 'social contract' of everyone being afforded life and protection in ALL regards, superceding even monetary concerns, than many of us have no reason to accept their contractual belief of property. I'm not an anarchist, but I don't believe in property. Suddenly, however, there are those like me, who exist, that should somehow accept their ruling of property rights, while not accepting any burden in return? Not acceptable. NEVER.

This goes back to what Crazy Catlord says, about living in a civilized society. It is the libertarian position that forces the argument for social contract. If I am going to accept the burden of property, than you damn well are going to accept the burdens others place upon you in return.

Again, there is no 'social contract'. I have no idea what you're talking about.

If I recognize someone else's property, that isn't a contract. If I steal his hammer, that doesn't violate a contract. A contract is an agreement.

Contracts are a purely civil matter, not criminal.

I'll never understand why some people still beat the tired old drum that unless you legislate morality, people will degenerate into sociopathic savages. Virtue enforced is virtue corrupted.

The truth is that selfish jerks are always going to find ways to be selfish jerks regardless of what "the law" says. The best way of dealing with them is for society to ostracize and ridicule such individuals.

You clearly did not read what I wrote.

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN PROPERTY!! ! Must I state it again. I am not an anarchist, but I do not believe in property. "Social Contract" Is an argument against libertarians who want something similar to anarchy, but with afforded protections for "property."

Property is a man-made concept. It has no significance to reality. Therefore, in order for me, or anyone else to accept that property is a function that WE(aka to which more than one person) agrees, there must be something given back in return. Call it "social law", "social contract", "social necessity", "social code", whatever you wish.

In other words...we either agree to live in a society with laws/contracts/etc. or we agree to live in space with nearby residences with no absolutes. If the latter is the case, than if someone comes to take from me, I must fight them off and manage things myself. Likewise, if I want something that is currently in the whereabouts of someone else's vicinity, than if they desire to keep said item, they must fight me off. If I win the fight...I get the item, until someone else strong enough to take it comes, or the individual gets clever enough to reacquire the item and return it to their vicinity.

Of course, you could still be civil in this scenario, but there are no guarantees. It is essentially the primitive doctrine of might makes right.

Now, as you can see...that doesn't seem like a pleasant experience. So if we wish to extend ourselves beyond this point, we must have agreements.

If you are a libertarian...property and possession are tantamount to your position. However, these are not tantamount to my position, as I don't believe in property, and only accept the idea in modern day society because it maintains the efficiency of society when you add in all potential "agreements/obligations/laws/contracts/etc. Keyword being ALL.

Therefore, you only get your right to property if you give something back in return. If you fail to do so, than property does not exist, because under this scenario, if I want something...and since we did not see eye to eye...I will simply wage war with you, if the item in question is currently under your temporary utilization, in order to acquire it. Likewise, if I desire your abilities in some regard, since you would not agree to said social meanderings, you will receive no quarter, and I shall subjugate you.

Are you starting to see where the "social contract" as it has been named(irregardless if you agree with the name as a fitting title), comes into play?

Either you agree to live in society, which means helping others regardless if you care for them personally or not, and accepting certain conventions...or you agree to primitive doctrines where there are no protections and you may do as you please(which means I may also do as I please). This includes subjugating, liberating, conquering, and amassing at your/my/his/her leisure.

You think it's all or nothing, and you have a morally absent view of social relations.

I also don't care if you don't believe in property, or don't believe the earth is round for that matter. I'm merely stating what property is and where it comes from. It doesn't come from any contract, and it doesn't come from a basket of socialist BS.

Furthermore, property is not a mere figment of my imagination, and humans are as dependent to the concept as they are to cooked food. How do you kill a Mastodon without property? How do you trade meat for new stone points and blades? How do you cook food without some agreement who it's for.

Your argument about might makes right is self-defeating, anyway. If one doesn't believe in property, then how can he have any? Property for me but not for thee? If there is no property but only possession there is no theft (or, ultimately, food).

If you think property boils down to authoritarianism (as opposed to morality), you're about as far off the mark as one can be.

For clarification, what kind of "property" are we talking about? Personal? Private? Real? Be more specific.

That reminds me of a theory of anthropologist Richard Wrangham. He suggests that cooked food caused the end of seasonal mating in early hominids, and his theory nicely demonstrates why there is no such thing as property in nature. According to Wrangham, hominids like Homo habilis already cooked tubers and roots. Their ancestors had no reason to compete for food, because picking your own food was a lot easier than stealing from one another.

But the advent of cooking changed everything. Suddenly, preparing a meal required a lot more work. One had to dig out tubers, clean them, carry them back to the fireplace and boil them in hot earth or sand. But was this laboriously prepared food property? Apparently not, because stronger males quickly figured out that they could let others do the dirty work for them. Females were especially likely to have their food stolen by aggressive males. Luckily, the change from seasonal to continuous mating allowed females to pair-bond with male protectors.

So much for morality, assuming that Wrangham's theory is correct. Without strength in numbers, superior weaponry, or an agreement that says "if you don't steal my things, I won't steal yours" (that elusive social contract), there is no property. Property is just stuff that others don't dare to take from you for fear of retribution. It's not something that people automatically respect simply because you own it.

The agreement that says "if you don't steal my things, I won't steal yours" is a reciprocal, moral one.

Without trade there is no basis for society, but that doesn't mean that society created trade. It makes trade a pre-cursor to society just as morality is a pre-cursor to both.

The example of slavery also shows that property is an elusive and malleable concept. In the past -- probably for tens of thousands of years -- people thought that they could own other people. We later agreed to change our definition of property to exclude human beings, but that was a very novel idea (as were human rights in general). The idea of property is not set in stone.