Ideolgues and their hatred of the societal ramparts we call interactions.
I've had this written up for some time, but have never found the proper place to post it until now. [: Thank you Steemit.
Simple Social Structuring.
Every individual, regardless of background, all agree to the social contracts within a given society. These contracts are what make up the day to day interactions between individuals on a personable level. They are what I would consider to be the foundation of “peace” between each person/persons, and range in varying degrees on every conscious level. Some of the more basic social contracts consist of things like “I’ll leave you alone if you do the same”, or “I’m not going to harm you as long as you do the same”, and tend to increase in both length and complexity depending on whatever circumstance we’re dissecting. As I said before, I would consider these to be the foundation of peace on a personable level, however there are individuals or groups that have the desire to break apart the metaphorical “strings” of these social contracts in order to gain ideological grounds.
On initial analysis of these individuals or groups, I have observed a phenomena I would call “social subversion”; [that is] the purpose and intent to undermine the fundamentals of social interactions within any given society [so as to shift power to the seemingly “under privileged” (e.g. post-modernist theory, critical theory, Marxist theory, etc…) or to a lesser extent a perceived absolute authority (fascist states, socialist states, totalitarian/authoritarian practices and implementations)]. It would seem that the intent is to create a system that would benefit all “appropriate social classes” equally. This sentiment is one that has held an expression all throughout history, and tends to be the driving force of individuals or groups whose focus is mainly towards a destabilization of socio-economic aspects of a society. It is especially so within the leading world countries today with a hyper focused lens on capitalism; and any relatively parallel system of economy.
This sentiment always confuses me. It shows the individuals or groups expressing it, as never expressing anything other than their desires for a better system suited for equality. Instead however, the expression of the sentiment becomes the goal. The actions towards achieving the outcomes for or towards equality get swept under the bus and forgotten. This leads me to conclude a few things about their motives: that they don’t care about whatever they’re actually expressing, they want power [either social, economic, or political], and possibly more that I’ve yet to uncover.
The Effects of Undermining.
I don't have to tell most people here how intensely history has shown us how fast-moving groups lay ruin to most societies. But I don't think most individuals are aware of how fast moving most of these ideological frameworks of said groups really are. Take for instance the current politisphere in here in the United States. When we had the progressive liberals start pushing and pushing; remember the phrase "give an inch give a mile", their ideology into every facet of media and politics, we saw a massive shift in the social paradigm. This brought with it the large miasma of post-modern academic works from the "social sciences" that supposedly highlighted the systemic problems within our society. The effects we see from that are people not only disagreeing on fundamental levels, but now they have no other way to express it other than complete censorship, and if necessary they will resort to violence for said censorship.
I'm no psychologist (no doubt), but I can see that the ideological landscape has lead to a battleground for the perceived "correct" route for society. And it is the goals of these ideologically driven zealots to undermine the already functional social atmosphere of whatever society they wish to infest. This definitely goes for any and all subscribers of any [specific] ideological framework.
A proposition
This will lead into my next post. I have a proposition about how to not only combat this mentality within ourselves, but to help create a method forward and try to work with others. This proposition is to reconstruct your own ideological framework, with an emphasis on not subscribing to other ideological frameworks but instead using them as a tool for understanding.
Now I know that what I’ve stated seems like it is baseline assertions to be used against any and all oppositions, especially those that I don’t like or care for. However I would argue for anyone to reconsider this, as my goal is to (hopefully) start a dialogue about the events unfolding within current societies, with an emphasis on analyzing ideological frameworks and the language used by subscribers of those frameworks. But for now I want to continue on with the discussions and dialogues, whilst scrutinizing all ideology to some better end.
Part 2 will come soon. But as always I thank you for reading. [:
I somewhat agree. The way I understand it is that contracts that are unwritten and unspoken are no contracts at all, but expectations of an individual. What is referred to as 'social contract' is simply the demonstrable individual natural rights that we respect in others, so as to have ours respected, 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. If there is not mutual respect, self defense comes into play. Of course, a basic understanding of the function of nature must be achieved to reach a level of competence, to act as a responsible adult in interactions with other adults. This is the understanding of competence in the natural lawful sense. In order to respect the rights of others, we must understand what rights are, and how they function as part of the dynamic of nature. These are negative rights, where a contract would be positive rights.
Especially so:
The whole basis for this post is that:
Agreeing to something that is not written cannot be a contract, it's just a mutual understanding, or like you said, an expectation.
So the whole "social contracts" is a convolution of common sense. It would read:
*Every individual, regardless of background, all agree to mutual respect" And therefore it makes even less sense, because not only is that not observable, as background gives rise to the level of mutual respect:
https://www.treehugger.com/cars/study-reveals-obvious-rich-are-different-you-and-me-especially-behind-wheel.html
But then there is no point to argue that some "groups" are undermining this fantasy of "unsigned, unwritten contracts that everyone, regardless of background, all agree to". The foundation that he goes to expound on is not peace, as conflict occurs in spite of social contracts and outside his "social subversion" but the justification of the state even though he had not uttered that once.
Humans are social creatures, to say that they enter into social contractual agreements is as convoluted as you get, and the reason for creating this confusion isn't to express why "peace" is in a society when there's little if any evidence of said peace, but to justify the current social structure, and only that. Social contract is a term coined to legitimize the coercive power of the state. Social contract theory says that (individuals) some rights are handed over, with or without informed consent, in order for the state to defend the remaining (individual) rights. And why and how doesn't enter into that theory ever. There is no legitimate verifiable why should the people relinquish their rights so that a group or individual will secure their remaining rights, regardless of the fact that on the surface this is the MO of blackmail, extortion and coercion, not of anything legitimate (you don't compromise that which you value, ever). The usual motive/reason give for it is that people will abuse each other without it, and chaos will ensue, but clearly for over 2000 years that has not been the case for the millions upon millions that live in Zomia in complete anarchy, the motive that people will have unlimited rights and therefore lead to murder, rape and whatnot is not backed up by anything, not even logic, lest historical precedence. The method for securing the rights by giving up some rights is also not addressed by the theory, not even marginally. By giving up your rights you have effectively compromised them, and to expect that the remaining ones will not be compromised in the same manner is absurd, there is no guarantee of that and the numerous revolutions are evidence of this erosion happening.
I was greatly relieved to discover that unalienable rights, by definition, are non-transferable, and non-surrenderable. As a result, social contract cannot be achieved legitimately. It is impossible without explicit, spoken or written contract, otherwise there is no demonstration of knowledge, and, without which, there can be no consent. The social 'contract' is a protection racket, and is, at it's core, purest fraud. If it could be done without the individual's knowledge, it could be done entirely in secret, and no one would know which rights they've given up and which rights are being protected, if they knew there was anything to be aware of at all.. It would then be in the interest of the fraudster to deprive the unknowing 'contractee' of all rights.
Speaking of the protection racket being done without the individual's knowledge, that is exactly how the constitution was written and agreed to, entirely in secret and treasonous to the established articles of the confederacy at the time. It purported unalienable rights as their card to triumph and champion but it was not explicit on what rights, but offered plenty of powers for the state. Of course many will say that taxes are what provides everyone with roads, but it was the colonies that fought their independence war with the loan from the king himself, which the colonies were fighting against, the debt that still needed to be paid which prompted the taxes on whiskey decades later, on top of the war debt incurred form the French Indian wars.
I find that the writings of Lysander Spooner make the most sense to me. These are the most reasoned according to natural law. I still use the language of the constitution to communicate with those who are not able to conceive of genuine liberty. Sometimes I feel it to be a deceit, but I don't know another way to help pull some people up, out of the mire of slavery. Starting with Spooner and natural law is like speaking an alien language to many. It has occurred to me the possibility that over 90% of humanity may not even be able to comprehend natural law. I do hope this is not the fact.
As far as taxes go, I have never seen a case where the taxes were actually used to benefit the people. The whiskey tax, I believe, led to suppression of The Whiskey Rebellion, which was a particularly telling demonstration of government tyranny in a supposed 'land of liberty'.
It might very well be, the vast majority of people resort to "who will built the roads" and "who will decide property lines" so I think 90% might be close, if not even an underestimate, for example I was watching a Rob Hustle interview a couple years ago, and the host was Anarchast, and you will notice, someone who sees the injustice and posits it in such a hard hitting way with his music video Call The Cops, hasn't really considered himself an anarchist.
For semantralist, which uses a very overused cop term, "semantics", which gets uttered when you establish your standing for possession vs ownership or their duty over investigating crimes vs suspecting, he has in the past sought to argue that I have no moral integrity because I didn't drop the issue of the inception/creation of the police force which he argued was to protect liberty which couldn't be farther from the truth as I kept pointing out that they were formed directly from slave catching patrols, and if you follow his comments to where that began you will notice how and why he is writing these things (I've had many long arguments with an-caps and libertarians to the extent of frustration, as most of them parrot the same talking point over and over without any justifiable and qualitative means.), and why I addressed that issue of social contract and dismissed his whole post.
https://steemit.com/news/@stephenkendal/noam-chomsky-the-general-population-doesn-t-know-what-s-happening-and-it-doesn-t-even-know-that-it-doesn-t-know#@baah/re-semantralist-re-baah-re-semantralist-re-baah-re-semantralist-re-baah-re-semantralist-re-stephenkendal-noam-chomsky-the-general-population-doesn-t-know-what-s-happening-and-it-doesn-t-even-know-that-it-doesn-t-know-20170419t184245869z
https://steemit.com/police/@dullhawk/police-is-not-a-race-it-s-a-gang#@baah/re-semantralist-re-markush-re-semantralist-re-baah-re-semantralist-re-dullhawk-police-is-not-a-race-it-s-a-gang-20170408t022733871z
90% was me being kind. I do think there are intelligent people out there who have simply been indoctrinated their entire lives and are struggling to get free. I find that I am still often in this category, when I am not paying close attention.
Possession vs ownership is clearly not semantics. That's why there is a difference made between 'to have' and 'to hold'. Police can not have any legitimate existence or authority. It is an impossibility, because it is a logical contradiction of natural rights and individual liberty. Despite the purported 'good intentions' behind the creation of police to 'protect' life and liberty, the result of the dynamics of imbuing a subset of the people with rights The People, at large, do not have, is well established, if not well known, and leads to corruption, if not outright despotism, every time it has been tried.
I think that 'protection of liberty' may not have any logical existence, only 'defense of liberty'. semantralist doesn't want to be correct, he wants to be right. I left him a poignant pun. Someone flagged that particular comment of yours with two dummy accounts with lots of SP (23,000 apiece) and no substance. I guess some people would rather despise the truth, than be freed by it.
I often find that arguing with an-caps and libertarians is almost as pointless as arguing with leftists, it's just a different degree of authoritarianism.
Thank you. I learn much more having conversation than faux debate with people who only desire to be right.
Don't mistake a sense of aggression or frustration with wanting to be "right". Being right or wrong is arbitrary when it comes to philosophical talking points such as politics or ideology. It's all opinions through rigorous thinking and scrutiny....just some times people rub you the wrong way and you have to cut communication before things end up at the point of "well fuck you" back and forth.
This couldn't be farther from the truth. You have no moral integrity because you compare a system that has long since passed to a system that is in place now. It would be the same proposition as me saying "I enjoy dating black men and women" and someone saying "Well slave owners like to fuck their slaves". The level of intellectual integrity you have is....by impair the same as those egregious progressive liberals.
I ended the conversation on the first post because I knew exactly how it would end, in a completely contrary stance for each of us, but you kept up the drama. You really are disingenuous.
I have no moral integrity after the nth time I argued the same thing.. The first time you abandoned/forgot about the conversation, where as now you claim prophetic vision for your "ending the conversation", making you a liar as you either forgotten, or you ended it because of your prophetic vision. Right there I have no reason to continue but for the posterity of truth, regardless of your blatant lies, because who is to say if you forgot, if you ended it because of your prophetic vision or simply didn't have any evidence to back up the claim that you made repeatedly without one ounce of evidence for it, a claim which your whole argument pretty much hinged on, and that was after I exposed that you omitted and proceed to distort the OPs initial statements, two times.
I provided ample evidence to the contrary that the system that has passed is actually the tree from which the current system fruited out of, so there is every reason to point out the similarity and I have provided evidence of that as well, so then to insist by implying yet again that one system has nothing to do with the other because one has passed and the other is in place is disingenuous and farthest from the truth, one system has passed and out of it's very foundations and members it morphed into the current system. To say that the police and it's predecessors, the slave catching patrols are two different things you must distinguish why and how they are different and you have not, instead you sought to marginalize and minimize their semblance by claiming that the slave catching patrols were on par with bounty hunters when it was an established and state ran function, not private, just like the police which evolved directly from that system.
You ended the conversation, I think you are being nice on yourself, you abandoned it, and you still haven't provided any evidence that the police were established to maintain liberty, instead you dodged and skirted that request numerous times, regardless of your prophetic vision, and right now you are a liar, uttering the word disingenuous is laughable.
I restate my claim that you argued that I have no moral integrity because I wouldn't drop the issue of the inception/creation of the police.
And this is why:
In the previous arguments you first abandoned the issue or outright disregarded it because of your prophetic vision or because you had nothing to substantiate your claim that the police maintain liberty. After that you then proceed to claim that your argument wasn't necessarily a great claim and requiring great proof, when I brought back the issue to point out that if you hold such values of great claims require great proof, by making such claims and not offering any proof you are a hypocrite, to which you didn't argue that I have no moral integrity, but only that it wasn't that great of a claim, making the proof of it not that great but you didn't provide anything yet again to substantiate that small claim But then when I wouldn't still drop it you argued moral integrity as the last time, that time by claiming that the slave catching patrols were on par with bounty hunters, another lie, as they were established by the state ran by the state, just like the police. That is why and how you resorted to saying I have no moral integrity, because I wouldn't drop the issue. Previously you sought to claim that because only anarchist disagree with the claim that police are established to maintain liberty and so it's not that great of a claim, yet you cannot substantiate that small claim, so you are a hypocrite by extension of your principles.
The rub is to claim that they are established to maintain liberty and law. That is ridiculous in it of itself, as the police are tasked with imprisoning and upholding mandates/laws, and not with maintaining any liberty what so ever, coupled with the fact that their "bounty hunter" predecessors were tasked with EXACTLY the same duty, to uphold mandates and imprison, which is why they are on par and equivalent to their fathers. You are a liar, a hypocrite, have resorted to omitting pertinent statements and arguments and effectively sought to distort the original message, claim magical prophetic vision and in the end you cannot even substantiate your marginal claim which your entire argument hinged on, which was that police are not a gang because they were established to maintain liberty and law, regardless of the fact that they have the characteristics of a gang, and if it looks like a gang, acts like a gang and quacks like a gang, it's the police.
To tie it into the "social contract", I didn't agree to their actions, and don't respect their actions, millions have done the same, "not just anarchists" and the history of the police follows: slave catching patrols>kkk supporters and ties>targeting and attacking minorities>subverting "privileges"/rights> and all thorough out it they were tasked with investigating crimes and they have failed epic at that since their inception.
Former Decorated Cop Says Abolish All Police
Maintaining liberty LOL!
Maintaining law LOL! (everything the SS did was legal, so much for morality when your linchpin is to defend immorality)
I don't agree with this sentiment. I tolerate people I don't respect at all because it's beneficial for me not to infringe on them. That has nothing to do with respect, and everything to do with being able to function on my own apart from others, without having to be infringed upon by any other individual. This is what I would call the basis of the "social contract" persay; I would almost just call it a social interaction pact just like most libertarians and an-caps refer to it in the sense of the NAP (non-aggression pact) or ZAP (zero aggression principle). However it differs from those two in the sense that beneficiality takes precedence over aggression being taken out of the equation.
I don't adhere to any natural laws, only natural rights in that each individual has the rights to themselves and the measures that they require to maintain themselves. Anything beyond that aspect will require societal measures to answer what then comes beyond maintaining a persons self.
Anything taken to a negative is not a right. Unless you're talking about unspoken agreements being "rights".
Feel free to disagree with the facts of reality all you want, but please do not mistake a fact for a sentiment. It is nothing of the kind. It is the same with your characterization of an unconscious, unspoken, and unwritten agreement as a contract, it is not, and can not be. A contract is an explicit agreement, entered into with knowledge and consent, or it doesn't and cannot exist.
It is clear from your interactions that you may want to learn what words mean before continuing to use them. Positive and negative rights is a clear and established dichotomy of concepts. Please inform yourself.
The problem is that it's not a "fact", it is very much so a sentiment. Just as my perspective is full of a multitude of different sentiments.
Philosophical positions are nothing more than subjective interpretations of reality. The term social contract is simply used to explain ths type of multi-conscious agreements we partake in (multi-conscious referring to conscious, subconscious, and unconscious).
As for negative and positive rights, I did not know they meant action and inaction when referred to rights. I don't use negative and positive in those regards, but I can understand the implications.
What is referred to as 'social contract' is simply the demonstrable individual natural rights that we respect in others, so as to have ours respected, 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. This remains a demonstrable fact, and calling it a sentiment does not make it so.
Creating a word salad out of several forms of the word 'conscious' does not make an unspoken and unwritten agreement a contract. It never has and never will, because it can not. It is an impossibility, as a contract requires knowledge and consent.
Positive and negative is the terminology. Communication requires use of common terminology.
"The beginning of wisdom is the defining of terms." Socrates
The point of that statement is individual natural rights, it's not about Tolerance or Respect outside that point.
Actually you couldn't function on your own, demonstrably and theoretically, and it goes counter with society, to function on your own, each interaction is based in mutual respect of these rights and not in respecting the person, or tolerating the person, but in the mutual respect of their rights and not in a Pact, as that is also a device used to explicit consent, not to imply it. And the P in NAP is not a PACT, it's a PRINCIPLE.
Aggression is implied in all interaction of the state and the oxymoron term social contract that is used to rationalize and defend the state aggression.
Thanks for sharing
Have a great weekend
Much appreciated for stopping by. [:
I'm interested in reading your next post.
Glad to have generated some interest. :D I'm usually very critical of what I write to begin with, so posting things always makes me feel really weird and anxious for awhile.
I've got a few sociology degrees under my belt so I think I understand what you're getting at. I'm a bit of a Marxist and see why people want to undermine the system in place to have complete equality, especially those groups who are disadvantaged. I see a lot of the battles for equality being fought also being harmful in ways because it creates a lot of discontent and anger and fighting. It's weird that groups wanting a peaceful-equal society cause chaos because they are breaking up normal day to day functions of society. It's a big issue to discuss so I'll see what your next posts discuss cover to learn more about your perspective.
according to @baah;
i will say it's a societal ideology that has supporting and opposing individuals.