Have You Signed The Social Contract?

The Truth about The Social Contract

We live within a contract driven socioeconomic-political system that exploits and even extorts your choice at Age of Majority, instead of contracting with you. At the least it’s cradle to grave fraud.

How many people do we have to reach? The magic number needed to enact significant social change is 10% according to social psychology research. That means we have a short window to head off any further centralization of power worldwide.

Types of Government, Explained

Transcript

The social contract is a concept that liberals and conservatives

interpret as very different things. Those who consider themselves liberals tend to use

the term in a positive sense,

to encompass ideals of social responsibility and social justice,

both of which are loaded terms in their own right. Conservative tend to interpret

the social contract as an extension of collectivism, therefore viewed as an

invalid training construct.

Most of the time this debate doesn’t go far beyond these two multiple choice options,

that’s unfortunate because this is a false dichotomy, there are more than two ways

of looking at this.

Like it or not, the way we can see the social contract or the lack thereof

has a massive influence on the way society is organized. So it’s in our best

interest to reexamine our assumptions on the topic.

So, what is a social contract, short answer is that the social contract is a set of

expectations established by a group and forced on it’s members.

The term was first popularized by the French philosopher jean-jacques Rousseau,

during the Enlightenment period Rizzo’s concept of the social contract was

unapologetically collectivism by force. People claim that individuals should

merge their rights and there will, to society at large, for the greater good and that those who do not bend to

the will of the majority, should be forced to submit.

Rarely are modern proponents of the social contract as honest as this,

but in practice nothing’s really has changed. In modern times a majority,

or more accurately, the elected officials a majority, wish to establish public

programs and need to fund those programs, it is generally understood

that this will be made possible through taxation.

Of course people who buy into this line of thinking promote the idea that people

should happily pay taxes, after all it is our duty, there’s that social contract that we’re all a

part of but the unspoken reality here is, that those who aren’t enthusiastic

volunteers, will be forced to pay. If you refuse to you’ll have your property confiscated

and/or be drawn into a cage for a decade or two, no big deal right.

Now the current way that most people frame this debate is a false dichotomy,

because though, the political right does not acknowledge it, the fact of the matter is that

they have their own versions of the social contract and philosophically it’s identical at its core.

The majority in the political right, supports forced taxation, they just have a different concept

of where the stolen money should be spent. They also support collectivism by force in the

form of the legislative executive and judicial systems, so they don’t generally see it as such.

The problem here is that people are not being honest about the implications

of their politics. The social contract as it is right now is a set of rules imposed by force

upon people were given no choice to opt out.

Those rules change constantly, because new laws are being written all the time.

It is assumed that if you’re born within a specific country, the government ruling

that geographical region has the right to impose requirements restrictions on

your life.

We’re talking about force taxation, compulsory schooling, registering for

military draft, mandatory vaccinations,

the underlining issues are still the same, the method serves to refer to the Constitution as

the point of reference for the assumption that this changes the dynamic,

it really doesn’t, the constitution is often referred to as a document designed to

restrict government.

What most people overlook, is the fact that the constitution, was first and foremost

used to create government with the understanding that this government would

have power over the citizens.

But did the people who wrote the Constitution

have the right to give the government that power? In order for the contract to be

valid, those who it claims to bind, must agree to it in full awareness of the terms.

In other words, there must be informed consent, any contract that fails to meet these

conditions is invalid and  therefore has no real or legitimate powers, even if that contract is

well written, and noble in it’s intentions.

 group of men two hundred years ago, sitting down and writing doc,

can not hand power to the government today, cease your property by force or put you in

jail for smoking a joint,

regulate how you build your house, obviously these kinds of laws were not

the original intention of the founders,

the federal government itself owes it’s existence to the Constitution.

In fact this was the explicit reason why the Constitution was created

your replace the Articles of Confederation, which was much more decentralized in

nature.

So even though the federal government is clearly abusing its power, it’s claims of

legitimacy of rooted in the Constitution.

So it is extremely important to question whether that claim is valid.

Some use vague notions of democracy to try to get around this issue, but this really

doesn’t hold up.

If eleven people are in a room and 10 people vote to take the eleventh persons wallet and

distribute it’s contents is this valid ? If not then why would be valid on a larger

scale?

Even if 100 percent of the population view the electoral process as legitimate

participating, which is clearly not the case, still wouldn’t change the

underlying morality theft is theft,  regardless of how popular it is.

Now on the other side to this, all societies gravitate towards rules.

Humans tend to want structure, they want violent crime to be dealt with consistently

and justly, they want certain activities like child slavery

and child pornography to be prohibited.

Most people don’t want their neighbor to be dumping poisons into the ground seeping

into the water.

This tendency to want to establish societal norms will manifest

whether you like it or not and regardless of whether you see deep

philosophical problems with it or not.

Be honest there are philosophical Problems here but in practical terms we have

to deal with people as they are,

and not as we wish they would be, there for the question is really how this tendency

will manifest in how we deal with it.

In the current paradigm, both the political left and the political

right endorse collectivism by force without informed consent.

So what would be the alternative how can we address this tendency towards societal

rules with out degrading back into what we have now?

Say a group of people establish a club, and with it

a set rules and they open up membership to the public if the rules are clear and

membership is voluntary,

then this would be a valid arrangement, as long as the members can choose to walk away at any

time.

If we were to talk about this on a societal level membership would be

citizenship.

Of course this implies a citizenship and the duties and/or protections that may

come with it

cannot be imposed upon a child and then assumed to be valid to that person’s adulthood.

Citizenship must be conscious choice made in full awareness of the terms.

Parents can not make that decision for their children, at least not for their whole lives,

nor would it be a legitimate from this perspective, to have a gavel of so-called

lawmakers writing new laws willy nilly, writing new laws changes the terms of the

contract.

Changing the terms of the contract inherently invalidate that contract,

unless people voluntarily sign on to the new terms. Now this is a

radically different way of looking at human societies and it is not something

that could just be superimposed over current system.

In fact fully coming to terms with it’s implications will inherently break the

current system.

Because with it comes the realization, that the government is operating on a invalid

contact, and their so called authority is little more than a self-serving fantasy.

Once you see that, why would you obey them. In the early stages you may give in to fear

their enforces,  but when the enforcers begin to wake up,  it’s over.

This whole topic may seem to you to be like a

pointless philosophical exercise, but consider for a moment where we’re headed

as a society today.

All empires fall and the United States is on its deathbed

the entire planet is going to be destabilizing when this comes down,

many nations will crash’

How are we going to rebuild,

are we going to blindly recreate the current system from the same flawed paradigm

or worse, do it on a global scale, or will we learn from our mistakes.

if you care about the world we are passing on to our children, its worth thinking deeply

about this right now.

StormCloudsGathering” width=”48″ height=”48″ />

StormCloudsGathering

Advertisements