User Tag List

First 4121314151624 Last

Results 131 to 140 of 414

  1. #131
    Senior Member Mr Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    What do you mean by that?
    At it's root, government is always consensual.
    I did not agree to have money deducted from my monthly paycheck at work.
    I did not agree to be forced to go to school by punishment of imprisonment.
    I did not agree to have my right to free will and judgment suspended until I am 18/21.

    The list goes on (obviously coming from a more adolescent point of view, but adults have their problems with the system too).
    But sir, your opinion is wrong.
    TANSTAAFL!

  2. #132
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Galt View Post
    I missed the "agree" part. However, we did not agree to the current system that is in place, so that detail is immaterial.
    Not immaterial to the example I provided.

    You consent to the system by being a working citizen in this country. It is called a social contract, which is implicit, not explicit like regular contracts. You therefore have three choices. You can leave the country, you can change the contract through the legal processes available in the contract, and you can revolt and try to overthrow the powers that be. Since those options are available to you, as long you live here and work in this country, you are consenting to the current system.

    As far as being an anarchist...that's a good question. I, myself, am not entirely sure about it. One could argue that the world will always be anarchistic. However, I view government as a necessary evil that should be miniscule and weak except for the purposes of law to keep people from killing one another.
    Ah, so you are a market anarchist after all. The Fi is passion for individuality, and the ideology and values born from it will see it as the only good. Therefore it is pointless to argue much further on the topic without treading into value judgments.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  3. #133
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Galt View Post
    I did not agree to have money deducted from my monthly paycheck at work.
    I did not agree to be forced to go to school by punishment of imprisonment.
    I did not agree to have my right to free will and judgment suspended until I am 18/21.

    The list goes on (obviously coming from a more adolescent point of view, but adults have their problems with the system too).

    Bad faith.

    You are agreeing to these things everyday. You are not resisting them.
    You are not defeating them.
    Maybe you disagree with it but simply find that you can't get enough support to form a revolution against it. But why do you think that is?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  4. #134
    Senior Member Mr Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Not immaterial to the example I provided.

    You consent to the system by being a working citizen in this country. It is called a social contract, which is implicit, not explicit like regular contracts. You therefore have three choices. You can leave the country, you can change the contract through the legal processes available in the contract, and you can revolt and try to overthrow the powers that be. Since those options are available to you, as long you live here and work in this country, you are consenting to the current system.
    I recognize no social contract. The entire concept of such a thing is laughable at best. I believe that no contract should EVER affect me until I have had the opportunity to change it, not the other way around.

    Ah, so you are a market anarchist after all. The Fi is passion for individuality, and the ideology and values born from it will see it as the only good. Therefore it is pointless to argue much further on the topic without treading into value judgments.
    I realized this some time ago during my debates with a friend of mine who is on the other end of the political spectrum from me (communist). It really comes down to values and ethics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Bad faith.

    You are agreeing to these things everyday. You are not resisting them.
    You are not defeating them.
    Maybe you disagree with it but simply find that you can't get enough support to form a revolution against it. But why do you think that is?
    How do you know I am not resisting them?
    I have no qualms with breaking laws I do not agree with; when faced with a situation in which that is a possible choice, I will not hesitate to make it. Also, fear of force being taken against one's self is not agreement. That would mean that if I were to sign a contract with a gun pointed to my head, it would be entirely valid.

    edit: Furthermore, it is not at all possible for me to CHANGE these laws without breaking more serious laws (revolution) because of my age. Not only am I not old enough to be a member of a legislative body, but I am also not old enough to decide on a person to represent me in one.
    But sir, your opinion is wrong.
    TANSTAAFL!

  5. #135
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    My point is that government is effectively consensual.
    It remains as it does because the masses are comfortable with it.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  6. #136
    Senior Member Mr Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    My point is that government is effectively consensual.
    It remains as it does because the masses are comfortable with it.
    Consent is not a majority-based concept. Consent exists on an individual level.
    But sir, your opinion is wrong.
    TANSTAAFL!

  7. #137
    Senior Member Mr Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    294

    Default

    More on your social contract (lifted from Wikipedia).

    The theory of an implicit social contract holds that by remaining in the territory controlled by some government, people give consent to be governed. This consent is what gives legitimacy to the government. Philosopher Roderick Long argues that this is a case of question begging, because the argument has to presuppose its conclusion:

    "I think that the person who makes this argument is already assuming that the government has some legitimate jurisdiction over this territory. And then they say, well, now, anyone who is in the territory is therefore agreeing to the prevailing rules. But they’re assuming the very thing they're trying to prove – namely that this jurisdiction over the territory is legitimate. If it's not, then the government is just one more group of people living in this broad general geographical territory. But I've got my property, and exactly what their arrangements are I don't know, but here I am in my property and they don't own it – at least they haven't given me any argument that they do – and so, the fact that I am living in "this country" means I am living in a certain geographical region that they have certain pretensions over – but the question is whether those pretensions are legitimate. You can’t assume it as a means to proving it."
    According to the will theory of contract, which was dominant in the 19th century and still exerts a strong influence, a contract is not presumed valid unless all parties agree to it voluntarily, either tacitly or explicitly, without coercion. Lysander Spooner, a 19th century lawyer and staunch supporter of a right of contract between individuals, in his essay No Treason, argues that a supposed social contract (of the Rousseauean sort) cannot be used to justify governmental actions such as taxation, because government will initiate force against anyone who does not wish to enter into such a contract. As a result, he maintains that such an agreement is not voluntary and therefore cannot be considered a legitimate contract at all. However, the philosophical concept of social contract does not address the same issues as present-day juridical contract theory, making the name "social contract" potentially misleading. For this reason some thinkers, such as James Madison, preferred the term social compact. The key notion of social contract or compact is that the individual consents by entering or remaining on the dominion of an existing society, which is usually a geographic territory, in much the same way one does when entering or remaining in someone's household or private property. People are normally brought up from childhood to respect the boundaries of societies, including families, and the rules made by them for their territorial spaces. That is part of the socialization development process.

    As legal scholar Randy Barnett has argued,[6] however, while presence in the territory of a society is necessary for consent, it is not consent to any rules the society might make, and a second condition of consent is that the rules be consistent with underlying principles of justice and the protection of natural and social rights, and have procedures for effective protection of those rights (or liberties). This has also been discussed by O.A. Brownson,[7] who argued that there are, in a sense, three "constitutions" involved: The first the constitution of nature that includes all of what the Founders called "natural law". The second would be the constitution of society, an unwritten and commonly understood set of rules for the society formed by a social contract before it establishes a government, by which it does establish the third, a constitution of government. To consent, a necessary condition is that the rules be constitutional in that sense.

    Modern Anglo-American law, like European civil law, is based on a will theory of contract, according to which all terms of a contract are binding on the parties because they chose those terms for themselves. This was less true when Hobbes wrote Leviathan; then, more importance was attached to consideration, meaning a mutual exchange of benefits necessary to the formation of a valid contract, and most contracts had implicit terms that arose from the nature of the contractual relationship rather than from the choices made by the parties. Accordingly, it has been argued that social contract theory is more consistent with the contract law of the time of Hobbes and Locke than with the contract law of our time, and that features in the social contract which seem anomalous to us, such as the belief that we are bound by a contract formulated by our distant ancestors, would not have seemed as strange to Hobbes' contemporaries as they do to us.
    But sir, your opinion is wrong.
    TANSTAAFL!

  8. #138
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Galt View Post
    I recognize no social contract. The entire concept of such a thing is laughable at best. I believe that no contract should EVER affect me until I have had the opportunity to change it, not the other way around.
    Of course you don't recognize a social contract. And in turn I don't recognize your individual rights. Therefore I can come over to your house, take your stuff, and kill you and your family.

    What you don't seem to understand is social contracts exists to protect your individual rights. In its simplest form, it is an implicit agreement that I will respect your individual rights and in turn you will respect mine. If such agreements did not exist, then we would fall into chaos. Your rejection of the concept does not change the reality that it exists.

    I realized this some time ago during my debates with a friend of mine who is on the other end of the political spectrum from me (communist). It really comes down to values and ethics.
    People who only value their self interest cannot conceive that people would just as passionately value the interests and needs of others. Your rejection of altruism and the common good is what ultimately leads to the downfall of your ideology. As long as there are people who seek to connect and cooperate, anarchy cannot exist in any form for very long. Ultimately, somebody will take control either through the consent of others to their leadership, or by military force.

    I part with you the same advice I leave every anarchist. If your disgust for the government is so great, and your belief that its minimalization is essential, then there are 3rd world African countries where such limited government is a reality. Please go to one of those countries and demonstrate the superiority of your beliefs. I suggest you bring plenty of weapons and ammo to fight the warlords who emerge to take control, but clearly that shouldn't be a problem in your vision.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  9. #139
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Galt View Post
    Consent is not a majority-based concept. Consent exists on an individual level.

    Society is just the cohesion of individual opinions.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  10. #140
    Senior Member Mr Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    Of course you don't recognize a social contract. And in turn I don't recognize your individual rights. Therefore I can come over to your house, take your stuff, and kill you and your family.
    You could. However, you would face repercussions based on your "social contract" that you have agreed to (or so you say). The contents of a social contract, if one is to exist, should not include infringing upon an individual's rights, which they do.

    What you don't seem to understand is social contracts exists to protect your individual rights. In its simplest form, it is an implicit agreement that I will respect your individual rights and in turn you will respect mine. If such agreements did not exist, then we would fall into chaos. Your rejection of the concept does not change the reality that it exists.
    They violate my individual rights just fine. They COULD be used to protect them, but they are not.

    People who only value their self interest cannot conceive that people would just as passionately value the interests and needs of others. Your rejection of altruism and the common good is what ultimately leads to the downfall of your ideology. As long as there are people who seek to connect and cooperate, anarchy cannot exist in any form for very long. Ultimately, somebody will take control either through the consent of others to their leadership, or by military force.
    The world exists as anarchy even with order. Order is just a result of uneven distribution of power. Why is selfishness the downfall of selfishness? Why can selfishness not coexist with altruism and selflessness? Surely the altruists and communal people can have their collectives while the individualists come and go as they please. Recognizing the inevitability of a governing body is what leads me to minarchy. I want that governing body to be as small as possible, large enough only to protect my rights as an individual.

    I part with you the same advice I leave every anarchist. If your disgust for the government is so great, and your belief that its minimalization is essential, then there are 3rd world African countries where such limited government is a reality. Please go to one of those countries and demonstrate the superiority of your beliefs. I suggest you bring plenty of weapons and ammo to fight the warlords who emerge to take control, but clearly that shouldn't be a problem in your vision.
    Again, I am not an anarchist. I know under what pretenses anarchy would need to exist, and they are unattainable. I am not so irrational as to believe I can make all people logical or at least intelligent. The United States was founded as a country with limited government and political isolationism. It has since changed for the worse. Africa is an example of what happens with anarchy, and is one of my biggest arguments against it. Do not change what I have said or take it to an extreme. Puts you on the same level as Rand.
    But sir, your opinion is wrong.
    TANSTAAFL!

Similar Threads

  1. [Fe] How can I use Fe instead of Fi?
    By Myths Of Zephyr in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 11-04-2016, 12:18 AM
  2. esfp/isfp: se versus fi; who is leading the race?
    By wolfy in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-17-2015, 06:22 PM
  3. [Fi] Fe in an Fi household (Welp.)
    By Ling in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-25-2012, 07:59 PM
  4. What's the difference between hurt Fe and hurt Fi?
    By Thalassa in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 07-25-2010, 01:32 AM
  5. [NF] Living Fe from an Fi perspective
    By sculpting in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-09-2009, 07:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO