wrote:
>
> Jon, Locke, Hobbes, Roussel and John Rawls assumed way to much in
> their social contract theory but you are assuming a bit to much as
> well. From the first you assume to much on the social contract
between
> a parent and child, while a child may owe its parents a spritual
> ethical duty ( I know I do mine), it is a poor standard for legal
or
> political ethics, it was the parents choice to have sex and carry
the
> child to term, they are the only ones that should be legally
obligated
> until the child can make it on his own, if a child will not live by
the
> parents rules, the parent should not have to live with the child
but
> as the parent is still obligated to support them until they become
old
> enough to make it on their on to a reasonable extent. The parent on
the
> other hand is not obligated to die for the child or risk their
lives
> for the child to a great
> extent.
> the word society can be extended to much, its better to
break it
> down to the individuals and their dealings with other individuals,
yes
> there are networks of individuals but a certain or wholestic
network
> must not be assumed. It is far from to much to ask for the evidence
of
> a connection and why that implies a duty other than a duty not to
> intatiate force. It is not to much to ask for adults to truly
discuss
> and negotiate and come to a real agreement if they really want a
> contract or an ad hock agreement for that matter. Of course a few
things are just a custom of an area that you
> can not avoid without hurting yourself or others such as which side
of
> the road to drive on but that is just basic good sense and common
>
sense.
If a group of people accuse an individual of something of
course they should have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt before
they act not so much for the sake of the accused because if he is
guilty he knows it but so that others will not take action against
them to defend against their violent acts. This does not mean a
person has a legal or political ethical duty to serve on a jury or to
defend others outside a reasonable defense of his children but it is
in his interest to serve on the jury in a public court and it is in
his interest to either serve and train with a miltia or serve and
train with a group decicated to non violent tactics but individual
interest are not a political ethical duty, you are not required to
serve your interest or any otrher person's interest. --- In
[email protected], Jon Roland <jon.roland@>
> wrote:
> >
> > See "Social Contract and Constitutional Republics"
> > http://www.constitution.org/soclcont.htm
> >
> > -- Jon
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757
> > 512/374-9585 www.constitution.org jon.roland@
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
SPONSORED LINKS
| Libertarian | English language | Political parties |
| Online dictionary | American politics |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
