Still an honest social contract for every adult is very very limited. several Smart honest individuals expand to varying degrees on social contract theory more than is necessary for a civil society. THe most basic social contract is just an understanding do't mess with me and I will not mess with you, extending it much beyond that is not and has not been wise. The Social contract and constitutions that individuals did not really agree to is so often used by the political ruling class elite to keep people under their power hungry thumbs. It is mostly myths or grand assumptions of networking tactic consent pushed on us because they don't want us to make real agreements and cut their rent seeking political class butts out of the agrrements. If you have enough real natural leaders in a society the society can be defended very good and only a minority needs to fund and do the defedending, if you get a majority then that is a bonus.--- In [email protected], Jon Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Terry L Parker wrote: > > >Jon, there are a few of your statements I'd like to talk with you > >about when more time allows; but, for now, I'll contend the valididty > >of this DRAFT advocated by you below: > > > > > > > >>The social contract is the key ingredient, and it is not just a > >>non-aggression compact, but a mutual defense compact, carrying a > >>duty not just not to harm others, but to actively defend them > >>against attacks by others. > >> > >> > > > >You WANT other people to have a 'duty' to defend you; and ironically > >assert validity for this 'draft' of their life, liberty and property > >based on PNDG (people are no damn good) You seem to want to violate > >people in order to save them :) > > > >Not only do I disagree with your ad hoministic PNDG; but, if PNDG was > >indeed the case, don't you see a practical problem with > >implementation of this coercive 'social engineering' approach? > > > > > I don't think "people are no damn good". The fact of human nature is > that most of them, once they come to feel themselves part of a society > of people who defend one another, will tend to be mostly good most of > the time. To to that, however, almost everyone has to have grown up in > such a society, beginning with their families. Most will even > internalize the social contract so that they protect others even if no > one sees them doing it, and feel real bonds of affection. Others will > harm others if they think they can get away with it. > The problem arises, however, when one confronts people who don't > consider us part of their society, their "tribe". We see, especially in > war, occupation, prison guards with their prisoners, and other such > situations, that people will often behave atrociously to those they > think of as "them", or even reduce to a sub-human status ("gooks"). We > Americans tend to think of all of humanity as "us", at least when we > aren't at war with some of them, but we often fail to realize that much > of humanity doesn't think that way. To them, Americans are "others", and > not part of their "tribe", entitled to have their rights respected. Many > of those people were not even fully civilized by the way they were > brought up. I have visited places filled with uncivilized people, > essentially sociopaths, most of whom did not have good, nurturing > situations in their formative years. If a person is not civilized in his > first few years he may never become civilized. And if in those early > years he is taught not to trust anyone outside his immediate family (and > perhaps not even them), he may grow up to be a person who considers > morality to restrain only his behavior with family members. > There have been a lot of studies of how seemingly good people could do > the terrible things done in places like Nazi concentration camps or > Japanese camps for American POWs. They would never have done those > things to what they considered their own, but had no compunction doing > horrible things to those outside their societies. > We also have that problem with elites within our own country, who too > often regard the general population as "others". We see it with cops as > they come to regard private citizens, treating all of them as > "suspects", and reacting violently to any questioning of their "authority". > Constitutional government is possible for a society of virtuous, > educated people. But as we have too often seen, if the civic culture is > not sufficiently developed, or declines, we get a "failed state", > alternating with rule by brutal strongmen who rule by fear and killing > all those who resist them. Try spending some time in a third-world > country where corruption is rife and civic virtue limited to a few rare > individuals. Mexico is close enough to experience that first-hand. > Travel broadens the mind and travel to low-civic-virtue countries can > lead to dismal insights into human nature under certain circumstances. > > -- Jon > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 > 512/299-5001 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
