A friend in need, fallacious implicit social contracts, etc
Actually, there are terms made: they are called “laws”. No one asks you whether you would like to follow the laws of a country, and yet, if you were to take that gun and actually rob your neighbor’s house, you would be punished if you were caught and convicted. If you were to have no laws, you would live in a state of anarchy, which is impossible to maintain (not to mention counterproductive to progress) with a large population. Think of a society without a social contract as social anarchy.
As for the goat argument:
The soverign had no business presuming their subjects wanted these things. And if they did, that doesn’t mean that the soverign was entitled to a monopoly on them.This I agree with, but it doesn’t apply because we are speaking of a democracy, not a dictatorship. Yes, if a dictator tried to stick me with a goat I didn’t ask for, that would be morally wrong. But a democracy works (present state of American Congress notwithstanding) because I, as an individual, have a say in what the government can or cannot give me. When you go vote Republican, you are stating that you want the government to give you fewer things; but just because your vote doesn’t match the majority in that election, doesn’t mean that you have the right to disobey the laws that are passed.
Again, if you don’t like the system, you can work within it to change the laws - to convince public officials that goat A is better than goat B, or that actually, cows have been proven to be far more efficient resources. Or you can GTFO.
The goat argument - just as your initial argument about your “friend” - simplifies a complex, multi-faceted problem into a black-or-white dichotomy. I hate to burst your little privileged bubble, but the real world doesn’t work that way.
Boy, you really butchered that reblog. Sorry if you were preserving some of those extraneous blockquotes and text repeats for a reason. Anyway…
If you were to have no laws, you would live in a state of anarchy
Not necessarily. Laws are nothing but a reflection of morality. Laws against theft and murder exist because theft and murder are morally wrong. Laws simply codify that which most people would automatically go along with anyway, and provide a means of holding people accountable for immoral acts (rather than having us forced to literally defend our rights with our shotguns).
Incidentally, this is why we have such vocal protests any time laws that don’t jive with morality get passed. Nobody complains about a statute proscribing First Degree Murder. Something a little more contentious though, like abortion, and folks go nuts. Why? Because (according to them) the law is no longer in sync with morality.
Think about it: what keeps you from going on a killing spree? The fact that the State has made a law against it or the fact that it’s wrong? Don’t pretend you haven’t thought about it at least once; we all have. The reason we don’t is because we know it’s wrong—and the ones who do it anyway, no law is going to keep them from it (merely hold them accountable).
Point being: folks managed to discipline themselves pre-Hammurabi just fine. And if there were no laws now, society wouldn’t suddenly descend into some wild free-for-all of murder and mayhem.
which is impossible to maintain (not to mention counterproductive to progress) with a large population.
Mm, not really. I mean, yeah, it gets harder—but it’s not impossible. Mutual benefit exchange is a lot more powerful than people realize, and the fundamental building block of society. People didn’t come together because some guy sat down one day, declared himself sovereign, and laid out out a “social contract” for the people to abide by. They were already doing it all on their own.
This I agree with, but it doesn’t apply because we are speaking of a democracy, not a dictatorship.
You know, strangely enough, those two ideas really aren’t as different as you might think. Whether it’s one man or a mob rule laying down edicts, they both result in freedom by permission and on their terms.
But a democracy works (present state of American Congress notwithstanding) because I, as an individual, have a say in what the government can or cannot give me.
You really don’t. You have a say in who your politician is. But he can then turn around and do whatever he wants. And what’s your recourse? Impeach him, hope that the Supreme Court overrules him, or wait until you can vote him out. Either way, you’re still stuck under his thumb.
Which was all fine and dandy when we were still practicing federalism. If we didn’t like what our state officials were doing, we’d head to another state more in tune with our own values. Now that the federal government has amassed so much power, we’re pretty much screwed. Now they’re calling the shots for everybody, and there’s not a damn thing any of us can do about it.
doesn’t mean that you have the right to disobey the laws that are passed.
You know what I’m looking forward to? Seeing how the federal government reacts as more and more people stop paying their taxes. And believe me, the more they push, the more folks are going to start pushing back. Can’t throw them all in federal prison, right? So what are they going to do?
Should be interesting to watch, at the very least.
If you don’t like the system, you can work within it to change the laws
It’s long past the point where one can “work within it” to change the laws. The health care bill is a perfect example of that. Nobody wanted this thing as it was presented. Congress said “Fuck you” and did it anyway. They don’t listen to their constituents anymore—because they don’t have to. And what is anyone going to do about it? Write their Congressman? Stand outside the White House with a sign?
The federal government has reached a point where the citizens no longer matter. They can do whatever they want, and we’re powerless to do anything about it (except maybe assassinate them or something). And, of course, a cursory study of American history will show you that this was the exact goal ever since the New Deal: to extinguish the concept of “power to the people.”
Or you can GTFO.
Or maybe go on that killing spree. Why not, right? “Rule of Law” doesn’t really have much meaning in a world of “Edict of Sovereign.”
simplifies a complex, multi-faceted problem into a black-or-white dichotomy. I hate to burst your little privileged bubble, but the real world doesn’t work that way.
Why would you assume I’m somehow privileged?
There’s no such thing as a “complex, muti-faceted problem.” It’s all a black and white dichotomy once you’ve stripped it down to brass tacks. “Is” or “is not.” That’s all anything ever comes down to.
Think of it like a really knotted up piece of rope. Yeah, it looks like a mess—but take the time to unwind it, methodically, step-by-step… at the end of the day, it’s just a piece of rope.
