The Death Penalty and the Social Contract

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

You said, and I quote::
“The only difference between the modern state and primitive societies is that in one the social contract is clearly defined and enforced, and in the other it is loosely defined and enforced.”

I’m asking you that would a primitive society have the knowledge to create a society that produces such advancements such as the internet. Do you believe something such as the internet would exist if society did not urbanize at all?

Jesus Christ.

I’m just pointing out the huge elephant in the room. I don’t believe a primitive society would be as effective in enforcing natural rights. Do people on this thread really want the law of the jungle to rule society?

[The East Marches II]

You can leave.

No matter where you go, you will always be subject to some social contract, so there is no way to totally withdraw consent. Moreover, you actually have to pay the government money to withdraw your citizenship. A system that you have no choice in entering, and which can only be left for another system just like it, is not based on consent.

You can take up arms. After all, the contract is predicated on violence and if you have the most violence, you become the system. That's the only real consent in your context.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

You said and I quote:
“Perhaps without society was the wrong way to put it, but it is possible to live without the modern state, certainly. As bands of hunter-gatherers. But such people would still be subject to the social contract of the state, even though they have their own social contract.”

This is a big difference from we as a society are consuming too much shit.

I don't see how that's backtracking, it's two statements that are completely independent of each other.

Ah, but you said, and I quote:
“Maybe you shouldn't assume what I mean. I don't think the modern economy, with its extreme amounts of consumption, is able to survive indefinitely. That is all.”

“That is all.” Well, you said that you want a Monarchy, and guess what. We yanks died to be independent from the Crown.

[Conserative Morality]

You can form your own mafia :^)))))))))))))))))

Though the last time that happened it didn't go so good.

>> trying to take on the biggest, baddest gang on the streets

They should have had smaller dreams, like Cuba.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I don't see how that's backtracking, it's two statements that are completely independent of each other.

Ah, but you said, and I quote:
“Maybe you shouldn't assume what I mean. I don't think the modern economy, with its extreme amounts of consumption, is able to survive indefinitely. That is all.”

“That is all.” Well, you said that you want a Monarchy, and guess what. We yanks died to be independent from the Crown.

What I want is independent of what I think will happen. You're reading more into these posts than is really there.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

Ah, but you said, and I quote:
“Maybe you shouldn't assume what I mean. I don't think the modern economy, with its extreme amounts of consumption, is able to survive indefinitely. That is all.”

“That is all.” Well, you said that you want a Monarchy, and guess what. We yanks died to be independent from the Crown.

What I want is independent of what I think will happen. You're reading more into these posts than is really there.

Yeah, I’m going to put your prediction in the delusional and far-fetched category.

[United Muscovite Nations]

What I want is independent of what I think will happen. You're reading more into these posts than is really there.

Yeah, I’m going to put your prediction in the delusional and far-fetched category.

Do with it whatever you want.

[The Parkus Empire]

But you see, sometimes we don't want so many benefits.

Which is why you are free to walk away from them.

And a nightclub owner is free to walk away if he refuses to pay for protection, but it's disingenuous to call that consensual

[Arlenton]

The death penalty is the right thing to do in some cases. Not having the death penalty guarantees justice will not be served in some of these cases.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

The death penalty is the right thing to do in some cases. Not having the death penalty guarantees justice will not be served in some of these cases.

What cases, besides murder, and possibly treason do you believe that the death penalty is justified? Wouldn’t the rest of someone’s life in a cell be more just. Some people that commit the crimes you believe deserve the death penalty do not fear death.

[Pope Joan]

Stanford Social Innovation Review

In the most recent issue of this fine journal there are a series of articles discussing the nature and meaning of "civil society", which is often thought of as the organized working of citizens outside the realm of government. Clearly these thoughts should impinge upon our discussion of the social contract.

Here then is an excerpt from an especially cogent article from that issue:

y Yuval Levin Jun. 14, 2018

Civil Society for the 21st Century

This article series, presented in partnership with Independent Sector, explores important issues of civil society in the 21st century: its origins and evolution, its boundaries and blind spots, its values and variety, its obstacles and opportunities.
Civil society is a distinctly American preoccupation. That is not, of course, because voluntarism, mediating social institutions, or a robust charitable sector are somehow unique to our country. All of those exist in different forms throughout the world. But in no society are they as intricately tied up with national identity as they are for us.

The reasons for that are more complicated than they seem. We like to believe that we care so much about civil society because it is our great strength. Communitarians of various stripes are fond of quoting Alexis de Tocqueville to each other and reveling in the amazing multiplicity of ways in which Americans work together from the bottom up. I do this myself all the time. And there is good cause to do it: de Tocqueville was deeply perceptive about us, and the scope of our independent sector is astounding.

But that is only one side of the coin. Americans are also distinctly obsessed with civil society because although the civil sector has always had a central place in our national life, its place has also always been contested in ways that cut to the core of our politics, and because the very idea of civil society points to deep tensions in our understanding of what our society is and how it works.

For one thing, it points to the great distance between theory and practice in American life. The dominant social and political theories we have had about ourselves have always been stark, liberal stories: highly individualistic, rooted in rights, inclined to extreme abstraction, and focused on government. The actual practice of American life has not resembled these theories all that much. It has tended, instead, to be very communitarian, rooted in commitments and mutual obligations, pragmatic and practical, and focused on culture. This has often meant that our theories do not explain either our virtues or our vices very well, and that we lack a conceptual vocabulary adequate to how we live.

This chasm between theory and practice does a particularly great disservice to our understanding of the role of civil society, because there is really no way to describe our civic sector in the terms our various political ideologies usually demand. This often leads, in particular, to assorted misimpressions about the relationship between civil society and government in America, with distinctly different valences on different sides of our politics.

In the conservative and libertarian imagination, civil society is often forced into theories of classical-liberal individualism that view the voluntary sector as fundamentally a counterforce to government, and therefore as a means of enabling individual independence and holding off encroachments of federal power. It is in the civic sector that liberal theories of legitimacy—as arising from direct consent, and leaving fully intact the rights and freedoms of the individual—are said to be best put into practice, so that it is in civil society that legitimate social organization is said to really happen. The implicit goals of this approach to civil society involve a transfer of responsibility from government to civil society, especially in welfare, education, and social insurance.

In the progressive imagination, meanwhile, civil society is often understood in the context of intense suspicion of non-democratic power centers, which are implicitly taken to enable prejudice and backwardness that oppress minority groups and undermine the larger society’s commitment to equality. This has led to an inclination to submit the work of civil society to the legitimating mechanisms of democratic politics—and especially national politics. In practice, this means allowing the federal government to set the ends of social action and then seeing civil-society organizations as among the available means to those ends, valued for their practical effectiveness and local flavor, but restrained from oppressing the individual citizen or effectively governing him without his consent. The implicit goals of this approach to civil society involve a transfer of decision-making responsibility from civil society to the government, which can then use the organs of civil society as mere administrators of public programs—especially in welfare, health care, and education.

Both of these visions of civil society express a view of American social life that consists, in essence, of individuals and a national state. The dispute between left and right in this regard is about whether individuals need to be liberated from the grasp of the national state or need be liberated by that state from would-be oppressors among their fellow citizens. Civil society is seen as a tool for doing one or the other. Such visions, in other words, tend to ignore the vast social space between the individual and the national state—which is after all the space in which civil society actually exists.

This is, of course, a highly distorted way to think and fight about the political life of our country, since most of the governing in America is done by states and localities. And it is also a distorted way to think about our social lives, which are mostly lived in the institutions that fill the space between individuals and the federal government.

A politics shaped by such multilayered distortions easily devolves into crude, abstract debates between radical individualism and intense centralization. And these, in turn, devolve into accusations of socialism and social Darwinism, libertinism and puritanism.

But centralization and atomism are not actually opposite ends of the political spectrum. They are closely related tendencies, and they often coexist and reinforce one another—each making the other possible. The centralization and nationalization of social services crowds out mediating institutions; the resulting breakdown of communal wholes into atomized individuals leaves people less capable of helping themselves and one another, which leaves them looking to the national government for help; and the cycle then repeats. It is when we pursue both of these extremes together, as we frequently do in contemporary America, that we most exacerbate the dark sides of our fracturing and dissolution.

There is an alternative to this perilous mix of over-centralization and hyper-individualism. It can be found in the intricate structure of our complex social topography, and in the institutions and relationships that stand between the isolated individual and the national state. By seeing civil society as the core of America’s social life, we can see our way toward a politics that might overcome some of the dysfunctions of our day—a politics that can lower the temperature, focus us on practical problems, remind us of the sources of our freedoms, and replenish social capital. In the context of this American moment, such a politics could hardly be more valuable.

It is a good thing, therefore, that we Americans are distinctly preoccupied with civil society. Although we disagree about its place and function, the fact that we take it to be essential to who we are suggests we know that our theories are inadequate, and that understanding ourselves through the character and work of our civil society could help us better know our country and better live out its ideals.

In this respect, American life offers a rich and constructive context for thinking about civil society, and civil society offers a rich and constructive context for thinking about American life

.

Blah blah blah, the intermediary relationships you talk about only have lasting strength if they are backed up with coercion, or the government doesn't promise a safety net that can replace them. Communitarian is feckless stance unless you are saying communities should have more power to coerce, or that government organizations bigger than community should be very limited in what social services they can offer.

I give you a journal article from Stanford University and you counter with "blah blah blah"? Come on, now!

[The Parkus Empire]

Blah blah blah, the intermediary relationships you talk about only have lasting strength if they are backed up with coercion, or the government doesn't promise a safety net that can replace them. Communitarian is feckless stance unless you are saying communities should have more power to coerce, or that government organizations bigger than community should be very limited in what social services they can offer.

I give you a journal article from Stanford University and you counter with "blah blah blah"? Come on, now!

An article trying to make believe that Louis de Bonald didn't exist, an article turning a total blind eye to all the right-wing communitarian research which stemmed from him, including Robert Nisbet. It's a bunch of platitudes which try to offer an alternative to big government without giving that alternative any of the authority big government stole from it.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

I give you a journal article from Stanford University and you counter with "blah blah blah"? Come on, now!

An article trying to make believe that Louis de Bonald didn't exist, an article turning a total blind eye to all the right-wing communitarian research which stemmed from him, including Robert Nisbet. It's a bunch of platitudes which try to offer an alternative to big government without giving that alternative any of the authority big government stole from it.

So, you only pay attention and accept sources that prove your own bias. Understood.

[The Parkus Empire]

An article trying to make believe that Louis de Bonald didn't exist, an article turning a total blind eye to all the right-wing communitarian research which stemmed from him, including Robert Nisbet. It's a bunch of platitudes which try to offer an alternative to big government without giving that alternative any of the authority big government stole from it.

So, you only pay attention and accept sources that prove your own bias. Understood.

I pay attention to other opinions, but I'm going to fucking laugh at any which suggests that government functions can be outsoursed to the community without giving the community the authority of the government, or without taking away major government subsidies for anti-communitarian society. It's foolish to believe, for example, that the housewife can see a revival while divorce is available without good motive, while single moms get considerable subsidies, and while working moms get credits for daycare and have education paid for, whereas moms who stay at home get no daycare credits, let alone homeschool credits. There is no coercion hold the family together (I mean laws making divorce limited), and there are a ton of incentives offered by the state for families to break up. Even being cared for in age is no longer something done by one's kids or community, but by big government.

Trying to pretend communities can lift themselves by the bootstraps while being crushed by a state so oppressive it outlaws their praying in their own schools, is ludicrous.

Communitarianism could only work with drastic political changes.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

So, you only pay attention and accept sources that prove your own bias. Understood.

I pay attention to other opinions, but I'm going to fucking laugh at any which suggests that government functions can be outsoursed to the community without giving the community the authority of the government, or without taking away major government subsidies for anti-communitarian society. It's foolish to believe, for example, that the housewife can see a revival while divorce is available without good motive, while single moms get considerable subsidies, and while working moms get credits for daycare and have education paid for, whereas moms who stay at home get no daycare credits, let alone homeschool credits. There is no coercion hold the family together (I mean laws making divorce limited), and there are a ton of incentives offered by the state for families to break up. Even being cared for in age is no longer something done by one's kids or community, but by big government.

Trying to pretend communities can lift themselves by the bootstraps while being crushed by a state so oppressive it outlaws their praying in their own schools, is ludicrous.

Communitarianism could only work with drastic political changes.

Your idea of a traditional family is not necessary for strong families. I don’t believe the state should give subsidies to people just because they have children. Why should we make it tougher for people to get divorce, excluding your religious based objections to it? Why should someone stay in an abusive relationship? Why should the state have any say in marriage?

By the way, when I was in High School, which was a state run school, I was allowed to pray, with other students without any trouble from staff. In the United States, groups of students can pray on their own time, the school can’t lead the prayer because NOT EVEYONE FOLLOWS YOUR PARTICULAR RELIGION!!

[The Parkus Empire]

I pay attention to other opinions, but I'm going to fucking laugh at any which suggests that government functions can be outsoursed to the community without giving the community the authority of the government, or without taking away major government subsidies for anti-communitarian society. It's foolish to believe, for example, that the housewife can see a revival while divorce is available without good motive, while single moms get considerable subsidies, and while working moms get credits for daycare and have education paid for, whereas moms who stay at home get no daycare credits, let alone homeschool credits. There is no coercion hold the family together (I mean laws making divorce limited), and there are a ton of incentives offered by the state for families to break up. Even being cared for in age is no longer something done by one's kids or community, but by big government.

Trying to pretend communities can lift themselves by the bootstraps while being crushed by a state so oppressive it outlaws their praying in their own schools, is ludicrous.

Communitarianism could only work with drastic political changes.

Your idea of a traditional family is not necessary for strong families. I don’t believe the state should give subsidies to people just because they have children. Why should we make it tougher for people to get divorce, excluding your religious based objections to it? Why should someone stay in an abusive relationship? Why should the state have any say in marriage?

By the way, when I was in High School, which was a state run school, I was allowed to pray, with other students without any trouble from staff. In the United States, groups of students can pray on their own time, the school can’t lead the prayer because NOT EVEYONE FOLLOWS YOUR PARTICULAR RELIGION!!

I never said you should get subsidies just for having children


Your all caps illustrates my point. The individual is allowed to require the community to erase its religious identity here. That's legally mandated anti communitarian indivudualism, whereas Pope "the pinko" Joan was precisely saying communitarianism means a backseat for individualism.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

Your idea of a traditional family is not necessary for strong families. I don’t believe the state should give subsidies to people just because they have children. Why should we make it tougher for people to get divorce, excluding your religious based objections to it? Why should someone stay in an abusive relationship? Why should the state have any say in marriage?

By the way, when I was in High School, which was a state run school, I was allowed to pray, with other students without any trouble from staff. In the United States, groups of students can pray on their own time, the school can’t lead the prayer because NOT EVEYONE FOLLOWS YOUR PARTICULAR RELIGION!!

I never said you should get subsidies just for having children


Your all caps illustrates my point. The individual is allowed to require the community to erase its religious identity here. That's legally mandated anti communitarian indivudualism, whereas Pope "the pinko" Joan was precisely saying communitarianism means a backseat for individualism.

No, dude. See, in my community, you know who would lead a school prayer if schools lead prayer and did it according to the majority of people in the community? It sure as hell would not be an Orthodox prayer. It would be a prayer, a prayer most likely by a LGBT friendly Lutheran pastor, since THE ECLA has the most members of my community going to their churches.

Just asking, have you received any type of education from a secular institution?

[Infected Mushroom]

There is no such thing as a social contract (except as a form of propaganda).

The government has power over the citizenry because it possesses overwhelming force. Nothing more, nothing less. Its entirely artificial to say that we have any sort of "contract" with the government that allows them to rule.

The government does have the right to execute its citizenry, if it grants itself such a right. All rights are granted (and changed or taken away) by the government.

This is all a matter of mechanics really.

[Purpelia]

There is no such thing as a social contract (except as a form of propaganda).

The government has power over the citizenry because it possesses overwhelming force. Nothing more, nothing less. Its entirely artificial to say that we have any sort of "contract" with the government that allows them to rule.

The government does have the right to execute its citizenry, if it grants itself such a right. All rights are granted (and changed or taken away) by the government.

This is all a matter of mechanics really.

That's a very bleak view of governments. And one that might even be true if you are living in places like North Korea. But in the democratic world the government is, or at least largely is subservient to the people. And in our civilized societies there does indeed exist such a thing as a social contract, an agreement on our part that we shall not violate societies rules and shall only seek to effect government through legitimate means and in exchange the government won't screw us over.

Seriously, some times I think you people all live in some sort of dystopian nightmare realm where the TV's can only be dimmed, newer turned off and Uncle Kim is always watching.

[Jelmatt]

No matter how you dress it up, pretty it up, play it down - it is still state sponsored murder

No more than taxes are state-sponsored theft.

Daily reminder that property, unlike life, is a creation of the law/a legal construct.

Anyway, yeah, social contract theory isn't useful beyond as a nice thought experiment. Parkus, I'm assuming you're familiar with Rawls' variation on the social contract--what's your thoughts on that version?

[The Parkus Empire]

No, dude. See, in my community, you know who would lead a school prayer if schools lead prayer and did it according to the majority of people in the community? It sure as hell would not be an Orthodox prayer. It would be a prayer, a prayer most likely by a LGBT friendly Lutheran pastor, since THE ECLA has the most members of my community going to their churches.

So?

Just asking, have you received any type of education from a secular institution?

Sure, I wasn't raised Orthodox, you know. I was baptized last August.

[The Parkus Empire]

Daily reminder that property, unlike life, is a creation of the law/a legal construct.

Materialist presumption. Property is, as Richard M. Weaver put it, "the last metaphysical right".

Anyway, yeah, social contract theory isn't useful beyond as a nice thought experiment. Parkus, I'm assuming you're familiar with Rawls' variation on the social contract--what's your thoughts on that version?

Newspeak

[Jelmatt]

Daily reminder that property, unlike life, is a creation of the law/a legal construct.

Materialist presumption. Property is, as Richard M. Weaver put it, "the last metaphysical right".

Anyway, yeah, social contract theory isn't useful beyond as a nice thought experiment. Parkus, I'm assuming you're familiar with Rawls' variation on the social contract--what's your thoughts on that version?

Newspeak

...could you elaborate on either of these points?

[The Parkus Empire]

Materialist presumption. Property is, as Richard M. Weaver put it, "the last metaphysical right".



Newspeak

...could you elaborate on either of these points?

Property is a right beyond mere legality, or else stealing land from the Indians couldn't be called stealing or wrong.

Newspeak is deliberately perverting the meaning of a word in order to support your doctrine. E.g., the Department of War being changed to the "Department of Defense" (or, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, the "Department of Peace"). Rawls does this with the term "justice".

[The Parkus Empire]

See from the OP my issue with Rawls' perversion of the term "justice"

And as the state becomes morally impotent, society ceases to grasp justice, it becomes redefined in the impotent way: instead of one's behavior toward society defining one as just or unjust, the determination is society's treatment of oneself: "privilege" becomes the concern rather than sin, and responsibility is abolished.