The Death Penalty and the Social Contract

[The Parkus Empire]

Also, regarding divorce and abuse: I didn't say divorce should be illegal under all circumstances, there could be exceptions. And abuse would be one of them. By abuse of course I obviously don't mean one spouse slapping another and then their making up, but if there is habitual smacking or something more serious, that's grounds to fear for one's life. Similarly if one abuses his children, they should be taken away. But that's a far cry from how easy divorce is right now.

[Jelmatt]

...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".

I'd argue that's more a matter of national sovereignty than private property.

And no, that's not what Newspeak is. "Justice" is one of those concepts which has been endlessly debated since the start of time, and Rawls' theory wasn't meant to be a theory of how people can live just lives anyway. You're trying to broaden the theory far beyond how it was meant to be applied.

Anyway, I was asking specifically about how Rawls conceives of the social contract, nothing else in his theory.

[The Parkus Empire]

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".

I'd argue that's more a matter of national sovereignty than private property.

And no, that's not what Newspeak is. "Justice" is one of those concepts which has been endlessly debated since the start of time, and Rawls' theory wasn't meant to be a theory of how people can live just lives anyway. You're trying to broaden the theory far beyond how it was meant to be applied.

Anyway, I was asking specifically about how Rawls conceives of the social contract, nothing else in his theory.

Sovereignty and property are different expressions of the same right

Rawls' theory of social contract is BTFO by Schmitt's Concept of the Political. Also to an extent by Donoso Cortes. What Rawls suggests is like asking an American admiral in WWII to command in a way that would make him just as happy if he were a Japanese admiral

[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.

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.

That’s what they want you to think. But the truth is, if the right people in US government got together and decided to oppress the people, they could. And if the CIA or any number of other organization wanted you to disappear, it’s too easy.

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

Also, regarding divorce and abuse: I didn't say divorce should be illegal under all circumstances, there could be exceptions. And abuse would be one of them. By abuse of course I obviously don't mean one spouse slapping another and then their making up, but if there is habitual smacking or something more serious, that's grounds to fear for one's life. Similarly if one abuses his children, they should be taken away. But that's a far cry from how easy divorce is right now.

It’s is not any business of the state if a couple decides to get a divorce.

[Conserative Morality]

Also, regarding divorce and abuse: I didn't say divorce should be illegal under all circumstances, there could be exceptions. And abuse would be one of them. By abuse of course I obviously don't mean one spouse slapping another and then their making up, but if there is habitual smacking or something more serious, that's grounds to fear for one's life. Similarly if one abuses his children, they should be taken away. But that's a far cry from how easy divorce is right now.

Yeah, a little violence is okay, it keeps the woman in her place. =^)

Jesus Christ.

[Terra Novae Libero]

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.

No one pays their parking tickets because the nice policeman told them to. They pay because they'll be arrested if they don't.

An arrest is just a kidnapping by the state.

An execution is just a murder by the state.

A fine is just extortion by the state.

Forfeiture is just theft by the state.

That doesn't mean that state actions aren't necessary, at times. But it'd be best if their inherent nature is recognized. The state isn't some benevolent union of mankind endowed with the power to determine right and wrong. It's a massive gang we tolerate because it is partially under our control and keeps the worse gangs at bay.

[Minzerland II]

Also, regarding divorce and abuse: I didn't say divorce should be illegal under all circumstances, there could be exceptions. And abuse would be one of them. By abuse of course I obviously don't mean one spouse slapping another and then their making up, but if there is habitual smacking or something more serious, that's grounds to fear for one's life. Similarly if one abuses his children, they should be taken away. But that's a far cry from how easy divorce is right now.

Yeah, a little violence is okay, it keeps the woman in her place. =^)

Jesus Christ.

lol

I can just imagine all the families you'd separate because Timmy was mildly disciplined with a spank on the bottom.

[Conserative Morality]

lol

I can just imagine all the families you'd separate because Timmy was mildly disciplined with a spank on the bottom.

Sorry that I think one spouse hitting the other is absolutely unacceptable, and I'm very sorry that you don't think so. I feel extremely sorry for whatever poor soul you end up with.

[Infected Mushroom]

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.

No one pays their parking tickets because the nice policeman told them to. They pay because they'll be arrested if they don't.

An arrest is just a kidnapping by the state.

An execution is just a murder by the state.

A fine is just extortion by the state.

Forfeiture is just theft by the state.

That doesn't mean that state actions aren't necessary, at times. But it'd be best if their inherent nature is recognized. The state isn't some benevolent union of mankind endowed with the power to determine right and wrong. It's a massive gang we tolerate because it is partially under our control and keeps the worse gangs at bay.

This is correct

[Rashidi Jabal Shammar]

Yeah, a little violence is okay, it keeps the woman in her place. =^)

Jesus Christ.

Allah intended this, it's a sign of respect, tbh.

[Conserative Morality]

Yeah, a little violence is okay, it keeps the woman in her place. =^)

Jesus Christ.

Allah intended this, it's a sign of respect, tbh.

Nothing says respect quite like slapping your spouse around a little.

[Rashidi Jabal Shammar]

Nothing says respect quite like slapping your spouse around a little.

I'm glad you understand.

Follow the wife-beating etiquette as laid out by some Sunni clerics, and it's just an exercise in love.

[Minzerland II]

lol

I can just imagine all the families you'd separate because Timmy was mildly disciplined with a spank on the bottom.

Sorry that I think one spouse hitting the other is absolutely unacceptable, and I'm very sorry that you don't think so. I feel extremely sorry for whatever poor soul you end up with.

It is unacceptable, but I hardly consider the odd slapping between spouses during a marriage cause for divorce, especially if the couple make-up. Relationships get heated and sometimes violent (for siblings, for example). It is not the end of the world, you can continue to have a relatively happy marriage. Like Parkus said, habitual smacking or something more serious is much more worrisome.

What is next, CM, castrating a spouse for shouting at their significant other? No, of course not; because it is unnecessarily extreme and ridiculous.

[Conserative Morality]

It is unacceptable,

Goo-

but I hardly consider the odd slapping between spouses during a marriage cause for divorce, especially if the couple make-up.

...

Relationships get heated and sometimes violent (for siblings, for example). It is not the end of the world, you can continue to have a relatively happy marriage. Like Parkus said, habitual smacking or something more serious is much more worrisome.

Yeah, I can honestly fucking say that no relationship of mine has turned violent in that sense because I wasn't raised as a fucking psychopath.

What is next, CM, castrating a spouse for shouting at their significant other? No, of course not; because it is unnecessarily extreme and ridiculous.

Yes, saying that violence is unaccepable in a relationship and a reason for divorce is the same as demanding castration for shouting. What an enlightened viewpoint you have. Jesus Christ.

[Minzerland II]

It is unacceptable,

Goo-

but I hardly consider the odd slapping between spouses during a marriage cause for divorce, especially if the couple make-up.

...

Yeah, man. Some people can find violence between spouses unacceptable and also understand that violence in the form of an odd slap may occur, and that it isn't cause for divorce.

Some people would rather fix their relationships!

Relationships get heated and sometimes violent (for siblings, for example). It is not the end of the world, you can continue to have a relatively happy marriage. Like Parkus said, habitual smacking or something more serious is much more worrisome.

Yeah, I can honestly fucking say that no relationship of mine has turned violent in that sense because I wasn't raised as a fucking psychopath.

You know what happens in normal people's lives, CM? Spouse fights spouse, brother fights brother, sister fights sister, so on and so on. If it is simply a slap, or a punch (in the case of brothers), or a wrestling-match (also in the case of brothers), and they make-up, then there is no reason to divorce or separate. Families occasionally fight each other.

What is next, CM, castrating a spouse for shouting at their significant other? No, of course not; because it is unnecessarily extreme and ridiculous.

Yes, saying that violence is unaccepable in a relationship and a reason for divorce is the same as demanding castration for shouting. What an enlightened viewpoint you have. Jesus Christ.

Nah, it goes saying a slap is reason for divorce, then separating Timmy from family because his father decided to discipline him with a spanking, and then castrating a spouse for shouting. :^)

[Conserative Morality]

Goo-

...

Yeah, man. Some people can find violence between spouses unacceptable and also understand that violence in the form of an odd slap may occur, and that it isn't cause for divorce.

Some people would rather fix their relationships!

Yeah, I can honestly fucking say that no relationship of mine has turned violent in that sense because I wasn't raised as a fucking psychopath.

You know what happens in normal people's lives, CM? Spouse fights spouse, brother fights brother, sister fights sister, so on and so on. If it is simply a slap, or a punch (in the case of brothers), or a wrestling-match (also in the case of brothers), and they make-up, then there is no reason to divorce or separate. Families occasionally fight each other.

Yes, saying that violence is unaccepable in a relationship and a reason for divorce is the same as demanding castration for shouting. What an enlightened viewpoint you have. Jesus Christ.

Nah, it goes saying a slap is reason for divorce, then separating Timmy from family because his father decided to discipline him with a spanking, and then castrating a spouse for shouting. :^)

I'm really sorry that you were raised in such an environment as to think violence between adults is normal.

There's not really much else to be said. This isn't an issue that can be debated. Domestic violence is a serious issue that can't just be swept under the rug by upstanding members of society. Resorting to violence is an ultimate breach of trust of every kind. It's not "Oh, well, if they make up it's fine." It's exactly that kind of attitude that abusers use to justify their own actions, and that the abused use to justify their own situation.

[Minzerland II]

Yeah, man. Some people can find violence between spouses unacceptable and also understand that violence in the form of an odd slap may occur, and that it isn't cause for divorce.

Some people would rather fix their relationships!


You know what happens in normal people's lives, CM? Spouse fights spouse, brother fights brother, sister fights sister, so on and so on. If it is simply a slap, or a punch (in the case of brothers), or a wrestling-match (also in the case of brothers), and they make-up, then there is no reason to divorce or separate. Families occasionally fight each other.

Nah, it goes saying a slap is reason for divorce, then separating Timmy from family because his father decided to discipline him with a spanking, and then castrating a spouse for shouting. :^)

I'm really sorry that you were raised in such an environment as to think violence between adults is normal.

I'm sorry that you are so sheltered as to believe that, if a marriage should have a rough patch in which a husband slaps his wife (or vice versa), then everything must end. Terribly childish and immature, really, running away at the first sign of trouble.

EDIT: Then mend the previous trust you had with each other. Fuck, man. This is not complicated. This is not a case of husband beating wife, or husband giving the missus a black eye.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm sorry that you are so sheltered as to believe that, if a marriage should have a rough patch in which a husband slaps his wife (or vice versa), then everything must end. Terribly childish and immature, really, running away at the first sign of trouble.

I know, terribly childish and immature, to run from someone who has resorted to the kind of thing that gets people arrested under normal circumstances. The kind of thing that's considered unacceptable towards strangers, done towards one of the people supposedly most important in your life. You know the most reliable marker for future incidents of domestic violence? Previous incidents of domestic violence. Have you ever read abusers justifying their own actions? That it was just a slap, that they regretted it, that they didn't mean it? And yet it happens, again, and again, and again. Sometimes it takes years to build to such a cresendo - happy relationships that try to stay together after an incident of domestic violence, assuming it to be a fluke - only to have it ruined by increasing frequency and intensity in a build-up so rapid that they can hardly believe that such a change could be possible.

As Tacitus wrote, it is in man's nature to hate that which he harms. People are excellent at justifying things to themselves, emotionally, logically, whatever. Once a course of action is normalized, there is no going back. The data bears it out.

EDIT: Then mend the previous trust you had with each other. Fuck, man. This is not complicated. This is not a case of husband beating wife, or husband giving the missus a black eye.

"Then mend the previous trust you had with each other"

That's terribly naive. You should do some reading on the matter. I can suggest some resources.

Oh, and as to the 'sheltered' comment, DV is not a foreign concept in my life though I'd rather not go into details, so I'd kindly ask you to use a different term if you're going to denigrate my opinion on the matter. I'll accept 'foolish' over 'sheltered'.

[Minzerland II]

I'm sorry that you are so sheltered as to believe that, if a marriage should have a rough patch in which a husband slaps his wife (or vice versa), then everything must end. Terribly childish and immature, really, running away at the first sign of trouble.

I know, terribly childish and immature, to run from someone who has resorted to the kind of thing that gets people arrested under normal circumstances. The kind of thing that's considered unacceptable towards strangers, done towards one of the people supposedly most important in your life.

According to who? The Law? Nah, m8. Most people would not consider slapping someone unacceptable if for the right reasons or if they were angry enough, even the most 'important person' in their life. And in the latter case, people tend to make amends and reconcile, and ask forgiveness.

You know the most reliable marker for future incidents of domestic violence? Previous incidents of domestic violence. Have you ever read abusers justifying their own actions? That it was just a slap, that they regretted it, that they didn't mean it? And yet it happens, again, and again, and again. Sometimes it takes years to build to such a cresendo - happy relationships that try to stay together after an incident of domestic violence, assuming it to be a fluke - only to have it ruined by increasing frequency and intensity in a build-up so rapid that they can hardly believe that such a change could be possible.

Sounds like they need professional help, tbh, which is what I recommend.

As Tacitus wrote, it is in man's nature to hate that which he harms.

That is bullshit.

]People are excellent at justifying things to themselves, emotionally, logically, whatever. Once a course of action is normalized, there is no going back. The data bears it out.

It will always be there, fighting will always be there, family fighting, along the lines of slapping once or twice in the course of a marriage, will always be a normal occurrence. What we ought to do is mend relationships, not encourage divorce at every incident.

EDIT: Then mend the previous trust you had with each other. Fuck, man. This is not complicated. This is not a case of husband beating wife, or husband giving the missus a black eye.

"Then mend the previous trust you had with each other"

That's terribly naive. You should do some reading on the matter. I can suggest some resources.

Less so than believing in perfect marriages, or that you should leave if things are not perfect. If we did what you want, there would be no relationships between anyone, like, at all. Do you know what relationships are like? Because most if not all, have some heated fighting.

[Conserative Morality]

According to who? The Law? Nah, m8.

Yes, actually, cops take battery very seriously anywhere where the system is halfway competent.

Most people would not consider slapping someone unacceptable if for the right reasons or if they were angry enough, even the most 'important person' in their life.

What I find most frightening about this is the blatant doublethink going on here. First it was unacceptable, now it's okay for the 'right reasons'?

And in the latter case, people tend to make amends and reconcile, and ask forgiveness.

You really don't know anything about abuse, do you?

Sounds like they need professional help, tbh, which is what I recommend.

That's not really relevant to the matter of the relationship itself.

That is bullshit.

It's backed by both historical observations and modern studies. No feels over reals; that's the sort of thing that leads to people defend domestic vio-... oh.

It will always be there, fighting will always be there, family fighting, along the lines of slapping once or twice in the course of a marriage, will always be a normal occurrence. What we ought to do is mend relationships, not encourage divorce at every incident.

That you think violence should always be accepted as a normal occurrence in a marriage is very disturbing.

Less so than believing in perfect marriages, or that you should leave if things are not perfect. If we did what you want, there would be no relationships between anyone, like, at all.

That you think that not standing for violence is as ridiculous and unreasonable as demanding a 'perfect' marriage is very telling.

We're done here.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

That's terribly naive. You should do some reading on the matter. I can suggest some resources.

If you don’t mind, I’d like to read your suggested resources.

[Conserative Morality]

If you don’t mind, I’d like to read your suggested resources.

Would you like articles or books? I have more books I know, but articles are cheaper.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

If you don’t mind, I’d like to read your suggested resources.

Would you like articles or books? I have more books I know, but articles are cheaper.

Articles please, although I wouldn’t mind a suggestion of a book or two.

[Conserative Morality]

Would you like articles or books? I have more books I know, but articles are cheaper.

Articles please, although I wouldn’t mind a suggestion of a book or two.

Short and simple
More in-depth - particularly of note is the cultural factors section regarding attitudes towards domestic violence preceding incidents
Why people don't leave - relevant to questions of 'making up'
On justification

As for books I would recommend "Domestic Violence: Intersectionality and Culturally Competent Practice" and "Domestic Violence Advocacy: Complex Lives/Difficult Choices", the former I found better than the latter.