Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

The purpose of the state and the social contract


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> The purpose of the state and the social contract Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The purpose of the state and the social contract - 3/25/2007 5:30:40 PM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline 		As I see it, the state is a useful means of organising ourselves for mutual protection and advantage. A healthy state is one in which the citizen holds a social contract with all the others, whereby in return for his contribution, he receives that protection and advantage from the others. Whereby the citizens agree a set of standards for acceptable behaviour in respect of one another, and thereby also deem what is unacceptable, in the furtherance of their mutual protection and advantage. Whereby, should the citizens deem it beneficial, each citizen has certain rights, freedoms and privileges judged to be necessary for the furtherance of their common wealth, and as a benefit of belonging to that state and meeting his obligations to his fellows under the social contract he holds with them.

But, as I see it, the states we are now living in are far from this scenario. There is no social contract between citizens, no obligation towards one’s fellows and no need is felt to contribute anything, whilst at the same time we expect others to keep their obligations towards us even while we are doing our selfish best to acquire wealth, status and power over and above the others, breaching at will any and all morals and values which might pertain to a civilised society to do so, and allowing that injustice is only a crime if there is a specific law and that breach is only breach when proven in court.

What has happened to us? The idyllic scenario I described surely has at its core that a common culture must exist in the minds of the citizenry for such a state to exist; where a society shares the necessary common values and morals it is natural for it to function in such a way as I described – without administrative interventions to make it happen. There are always criminal elements and malcontents of course, but given that the state functions properly to provide for and protect its citizens as described, they are in such a minority as to comprise mainly socio-pathological individuals.

What I feel is that the citizenry have lost that common culture that formerly informed their society and state. There has been an enormous influx of people of other cultures into our societies, and an enormous influx of new ideas too, over the past century or so. These influxes are not bad things in themselves, bringing as they have correspondingly enormous steps forward in social and cultural evolution – but they have I believe, caused our societies to become of so many minds, that no common culture now exists whereby a coherent state can exist, with the inevitable result that the healthy functioning of the state in the terms I described has been disrupted, encouraging and even forcing each to do as he will for personal, selfish advantage, rather than to act for the common wealth according to a social contract.

Given this then, and the modern experience of the inability of administrative interventions to bring about a coherent society and state that functions according to what I see as the ideal, there is only one way to regain the enjoyment of a healthy state – and that is by way of the coalescing of the many new cultures and ideas that have been brought into our societies with what is good from the old, such that we can attain once more a shared system of values and morals and form a new social contract from them.

Comments? Can the process of coalescing be engineered or must it be a natural process? What sort of shared values and morals do we need, given that its felt we need them? What kind of social contract should we have, assuming that having one is felt to be advantageous? Or, are we now all too far from believing in such things to think it worthwhile?

E


_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract - 3/25/2007 5:34:40 PM   
farglebargle


Posts: 10715
Joined: 6/15/2005
From: Albany, NY
Status: offline 		Contracts have parties which have obligations and duties which are mutually enforceable.

The "Social Contract" is a misnomer, and the "Contract" isn't a "Contract", as it is unenforceable.

That said, *I* signed no such contract, and if someone alleges otherwise, I demand they produce the original containing my signature.



< Message edited by farglebargle -- 3/25/2007 5:35:29 PM >

_____________________________

It's not every generation that gets to watch a civilization fall. Looks like we're in for a hell of a show.

ברוך אתה, אדוני אלוקינו, ריבון העולמים, מי יוצר צמחים ריחניים

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract - 3/25/2007 5:50:00 PM   
ferryman777


Posts: 198
Joined: 2/23/2007
Status: offline 		contract.....pay or die.

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract - 3/25/2007 6:15:49 PM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline 		The social contract has been silently nullified.

The corporation is king, the state its subject and its citizens mere consumers.

We've effectively disenfranchised ourselves, people would rather go shopping than go to the ballot box.

At some point, people will wake up and begin to understand we're more than simply consumers (in a similar vein to the early 20th century when people began to understand that the invisible hand of the market leaves too many people behind to be relied upon as a form of government). In the meantime, the majority will amble along to high street conformity like robots.

I'm afraid to say it's going to get worse before it gets better. It's going to take more invasions, more death and increased inequality for people to understand that market democracy does not serve human need.





_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to ferryman777)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract - 3/25/2007 8:51:54 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

As I see it, the state is a useful means of organising ourselves for mutual protection and advantage. A healthy state is one in which the citizen holds a social contract with all the others, whereby in return for his contribution, he receives that protection and advantage from the others. Whereby the citizens agree a set of standards for acceptable behaviour in respect of one another, and thereby also deem what is unacceptable, in the furtherance of their mutual protection and advantage. Whereby, should the citizens deem it beneficial, each citizen has certain rights, freedoms and privileges judged to be necessary for the furtherance of their common wealth, and as a benefit of belonging to that state and meeting his obligations to his fellows under the social contract he holds with them.

But, as I see it, the states we are now living in are far from this scenario. There is no social contract between citizens, no obligation towards one’s fellows and no need is felt to contribute anything, whilst at the same time we expect others to keep their obligations towards us even while we are doing our selfish best to acquire wealth, status and power over and above the others, breaching at will any and all morals and values which might pertain to a civilised society to do so, and allowing that injustice is only a crime if there is a specific law and that breach is only breach when proven in court.

What has happened to us? The idyllic scenario I described surely has at its core that a common culture must exist in the minds of the citizenry for such a state to exist; where a society shares the necessary common values and morals it is natural for it to function in such a way as I described – without administrative interventions to make it happen. There are always criminal elements and malcontents of course, but given that the state functions properly to provide for and protect its citizens as described, they are in such a minority as to comprise mainly socio-pathological individuals.

What I feel is that the citizenry have lost that common culture that formerly informed their society and state. There has been an enormous influx of people of other cultures into our societies, and an enormous influx of new ideas too, over the past century or so. These influxes are not bad things in themselves, bringing as they have correspondingly enormous steps forward in social and cultural evolution – but they have I believe, caused our societies to become of so many minds, that no common culture now exists whereby a coherent state can exist, with the inevitable result that the healthy functioning of the state in the terms I described has been disrupted, encouraging and even forcing each to do as he will for personal, selfish advantage, rather than to act for the common wealth according to a social contract.

Given this then, and the modern experience of the inability of administrative interventions to bring about a coherent society and state that functions according to what I see as the ideal, there is only one way to regain the enjoyment of a healthy state – and that is by way of the coalescing of the many new cultures and ideas that have been brought into our societies with what is good from the old, such that we can attain once more a shared system of values and morals and form a new social contract from them.

Comments? Can the process of coalescing be engineered or must it be a natural process? What sort of shared values and morals do we need, given that its felt we need them? What kind of social contract should we have, assuming that having one is felt to be advantageous? Or, are we now all too far from believing in such things to think it worthwhile?

E



E,

I disagree with your basic definition of what a "state" is, if you are meaning that a "state' is a "government".

If you mean a "state" as a "society", we might have fewer points of disagreement.

Assuming you equate "state" with "government":

Your definition seems to imply that a government is the source of rights and benefits.  I could not more strongly disagree.

A state is a wild creature - a rapturously hungry carnivore - that will eat it's young, your young and shit all over the house if it is not caged and controlled.  Simple inattention on the part of the "inhabitants" of the state will automatically result in the loss of freedoms and rights to the "state".

The purpose of the state is to do a very few things that associations of free individuals can not do, and to serve as a method of adjudicating the methods and socially acceptable ways of allocating resources and punishments.

IF you mean the "state" as civil society:

All societies are formed and maintained around certain common cultural assumptions and agreements.  When those agreements are generally recognized as valid, then the society generally functions.  When those common cultural assumptions are denied, or changed, then the society reaches a new equilibrium, or it fails.

In the West, the biggest cultural agreements have been based on Christianity, and all of it's inherent philosophies and beliefs.  Currently, especially in Europe, Christianity and those cultural artifacts that arise from that common philosophy are in a state of decline and flux.

It remains to be seen what the new equilibrium will be, or if no equilibrium will be reached and the society fails.

I think that a new state of equilibrum can be engineered, but most of the engineering today is designed to kill or mute any reference to earlier Christian ideals, and seems to be actively encouraging the death of a Christian-based society, and the institution of a society based on unproven - and historically doubtful - percepts.

Unless and until that momentum changes, then I have serious doubts that any other type of engineering will be successful.

In other words, at some point, there will be an  epiphany and a return to some sort of society based on earlier concepts, or the current change will eventually collapse and fail.  I'm not sure what the point of "no return" is, exactly, in which no efforts to reinstitute earlier concepts of society will be effective, but based on the momentum of the current cultural destruction, I suspect it will not too far in the future.

FirmKY

< Message edited by FirmhandKY -- 3/25/2007 9:00:21 PM >

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract - 3/25/2007 9:39:19 PM   
petdave


Posts: 2479
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
I think that a new state of equilibrum can be engineered, but most of the engineering today is designed to kill or mute any reference to earlier Christian ideals, and seems to be actively encouraging the death of a Christian-based society, and the institution of a society based on unproven - and historically doubtful - percepts.


Such as?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lady Ellen
But, as I see it, the states we are now living in are far from this scenario. There is no social contract between citizens, no obligation towards one’s fellows and no need is felt to contribute anything, whilst at the same time we expect others to keep their obligations towards us even while we are doing our selfish best to acquire wealth, status and power over and above the others, breaching at will any and all morals and values which might pertain to a civilised society to do so, and allowing that injustice is only a crime if there is a specific law and that breach is only breach when proven in court.


Most of the West has created systems- well-intentioned though they may be- whereby "everyone else" is either a burden or a chump. Equality of opportunity encourages one to treat fairly with his neighbors, because he will be judged and treated in kind. Equality of result? Well, why work hard when the .gov will take most of my earnings and do something stupid with them? Why work at all, when the .gov will pay me enough to survive in return for enjoying my days as i please? You could even go with the social Darwinist perspective. The U.S. welfare system, at least, encourages the least productive members of society to breed, while more and more, the most productive members of society find themselves to preoccupied with "success" to reproduce. After a few generations, what do you expect we'd end up with? "You get what you pay for", indeed.

...dave

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract - 3/25/2007 10:31:19 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: petdave

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
I think that a new state of equilibrum can be engineered, but most of the engineering today is designed to kill or mute any reference to earlier Christian ideals, and seems to be actively encouraging the death of a Christian-based society, and the institution of a society based on unproven - and historically doubtful - percepts.


Such as?


Clarify your question, please.

FirmKY


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to petdave)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract - 3/25/2007 10:47:36 PM   
petdave


Posts: 2479
Status: offline 		What are the precepts in question, upon which this revolutionary society is based?

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract - 3/25/2007 10:57:39 PM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline 		Off the top of my head:

1.  That a successful morality can be based on non-religious doctrine of human secularism.

2.  That social liberalism will work on a large scale, for a long time frame (rather than in something like a "hydraulic empire") and maintain a sense of dignity and human rights for the majority of the population.

3. That a society can successfully survive and thrive without a component of spirituality.

FirmKY


_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to petdave)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract - 3/26/2007 2:02:53 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

In the West, the biggest cultural agreements have been based on Christianity, and all of it's inherent philosophies and beliefs.  Currently, especially in Europe, Christianity and those cultural artifacts that arise from that common philosophy are in a state of decline and flux.

It remains to be seen what the new equilibrium will be, or if no equilibrium will be reached and the society fails.

I think that a new state of equilibrum can be engineered, but most of the engineering today is designed to kill or mute any reference to earlier Christian ideals, and seems to be actively encouraging the death of a Christian-based society, and the institution of a society based on unproven - and historically doubtful - percepts.

Unless and until that momentum changes, then I have serious doubts that any other type of engineering will be successful.



Europe is fundamental to your point of view.

You appear to be equating Christian ideals with success and failure in Europe. In your book, what constitutes success? Military strength? Imperialism? The wealth created by a nation? The quality of life for the inhabitants of the nation?

If the assumption is that we measure success in terms of the quality of life for the majority of the population, then, in Britain at least, our most successful period co-incided with the move towards secularism i.e. enfranchisement, universal health and education, widespread sanitation, the demolition of slum dwellings and replacement with modern housing etc. 1920-1950.

Another point worth considering, Britain and Europe are in a state of transition after centuries of imperialism. We're talking about changing the course of tradition across an entire continent. There was always going to be upheaval. I don't believe the facts support the opinion that this upheaval can be placed at the door of moving away from Christian ideals, and that only a return to those ideals will resolve any problems.

Also, in today's Britain, Christian ideals are very much in evidence in political life. Our Prime Minister is from a very Catholic background. He believes he is a visionary taking liberal market democracy (tied in with Christianity) around the world. The problem is that he's dealing in absolutes (as a result of his background). He has an opinion that market democracy is surperior to other ways of nation building, who's to say he is right? Isn't this the Christian way - imposing ideals throughout the world.





_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract - 3/26/2007 2:10:38 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline 		well that is about what we have here now. 

great prison to put yourself in fpr the crime of living.

now we are subject to someone elses idea of "everything"

what do we need?  dont step on my toes i wont step on yours, everything else is negotiable


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract - 3/26/2007 2:16:07 AM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline 		I don't really agree with the definition of a healthy state given.

I'd say a healthy state is one that contains the minimal set of laws, government positions, government wealth, in place in order to maintain a reasonably peaceful environment.  If it steps outside that narrow role, then it is shit in my book.

Examples, that are needed to maintian a reasonably peaceful environment.

1. Military large enough to protect oneself from invasion.
2. Common laws regarding public interaction (driving, physical confrontations,etc.).
3. Support of children in order to provide them a chance of success.
4. Attempt to maintain a economy robust enough to allow those wanting to work, the opporunity to work.

Examples, of things the government does that has no bearing on creating a relatively peaceful (which almost universally leads to opportunity), environment.

1. Stupid laws that have absolutely nothing to do with society, but only have to do with personal decisions, of acceptance of risk. (seat belt laws, relatively harmless drug bans, mandatory insurance laws, building rules on owns private personal (non-public, non-commerical, non-industrial) property,

2. Policies, of arbitrary wealth distribuation(to "poor" and to "rich"),
3. Seemingly random enforcement of laws such as immigration.
4. Policy based on global or foreign interests, over that of domestic concerns.(N. Korea, Iran, Iraq). N. Korea would be a Japanese, China, etc.. issue. Iran, Iraq, would be more of a Middle East/Europe issue.
5.  Laws based on race (hate crime legislation), makes an act punishable to a greater extent based on race/religion etc.... In my view all laws and punishments should be non-specific to the individuals racial status. It is irrelevant, and doesn't make the crime worse. It  doesn't breed harmony, but division, which is the oppositie of my view of the goals of an "Ideal" state would be. If it was animal farm these laws would read, if a cow harms a cow, punishment is x. If a cow harms a chicken, punishment is y. But cow and chicken are equal. Logical fallacy present.
6. Allowing near monopolies in the most important areas of society, namely the Mass Media.
7. Allowing insane monetary policy to the obvious detriment of the citizentry (Bank lending policy, SEC policies, The Fed).
8.Insane trademark/copyright/patent protection that extends well beyond common sense
9. Unneeded and unjustified monitoring of citizens and blatant abuse of power against their supposed masters "citizens" Waco for example.


None of those things help those that want to work to improve their lot in life and live peacefully, they merely make the barriers a little harder to overcome or create division.

Can go on and on.

The government(state from my interpretation of your meaning), is not working in the interest of the average honest, hard working american, but rather working to suppress the middle class, support the "lazy" poor(not all poor are lazy but a large share),  and support the mega rich.  All of this leads to creating an environment of division.

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract - 3/26/2007 2:18:49 AM   
seeksfemslave


Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline 		Just as a point of fact the period 1920 to 1950 in the UK was characterised by....
Poverty squalor and deprivation as a result of WW1 and the unfair burdens imposed on the majority as the rulers tried to reinvigorate the economy.
eg on, then after a capital flight, off the Gold standard. Reduced wages for miners.

1930's Further misery as the effects of the depression, emanating from the USA, set in.
Then recovery as preparations were made for WW2.

If there was a golden period it was 1945 to 50 when Churchill got the boot and the basic groundwork for the Welfare State was laid.
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly the Welfare State has risen to become an avaricious (sp) monster currently consuming nearly 25% of a projected 589 billion pound budget.

With particular regard to the UK now, some method of access and influence in Parliament, from all sectors of society is desperately required. It will NOT be given.
The aphorism is that
governments govern best when they govern least.

< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 3/26/2007 2:28:23 AM >

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract - 3/26/2007 2:38:21 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

There is no social contract between citizens, no obligation towards one’s fellows and no need is felt to contribute anything, whilst at the same time we expect others to keep their obligations towards us even while we are doing our selfish best to acquire wealth, status and power over and above the others, breaching at will any and all morals and values which might pertain to a civilised society to do so, and allowing that injustice is only a crime if there is a specific law and that breach is only breach when proven in court.



Agreed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

What has happened to us?



When weren't we doing our selfish best to acquire wealth and status?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Given this then, and the modern experience of the inability of administrative interventions to bring about a coherent society and state that functions according to what I see as the ideal, there is only one way to regain the enjoyment of a healthy state – and that is by way of the coalescing of the many new cultures and ideas that have been brought into our societies with what is good from the old, such that we can attain once more a shared system of values and morals and form a new social contract from them.



I very much hope we realise we can learn from Islam. We can learn that the invisible hand of the market can be inhumane. Why not use quality of life as a common goal rather than wealth creation? It goes without saying that they can learn from us too. I agree that a meeting of minds is desirable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Comments? Can the process of coalescing be engineered or must it be a natural process? What sort of shared values and morals do we need, given that its felt we need them? What kind of social contract should we have, assuming that having one is felt to be advantageous? Or, are we now all too far from believing in such things to think it worthwhile?

E



Shared values and morals:

1) Enterprise.
2) Respect for one another.
3) Justice.
4) Equality of opportunity.
5) Governments and corporations are the subjects of the people/society.
6) Respect the ideas of foreign nations.

< Message edited by NorthernGent -- 3/26/2007 2:41:19 AM >

_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract - 3/26/2007 3:31:21 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

In the West, the biggest cultural agreements have been based on Christianity, and all of it's inherent philosophies and beliefs.  Currently, especially in Europe, Christianity and those cultural artifacts that arise from that common philosophy are in a state of decline and flux.

It remains to be seen what the new equilibrium will be, or if no equilibrium will be reached and the society fails.

I think that a new state of equilibrum can be engineered, but most of the engineering today is designed to kill or mute any reference to earlier Christian ideals, and seems to be actively encouraging the death of a Christian-based society, and the institution of a society based on unproven - and historically doubtful - percepts.

Unless and until that momentum changes, then I have serious doubts that any other type of engineering will be successful.



Europe is fundamental to your point of view.


I do not understand your point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

You appear to be equating Christian ideals with success and failure in Europe. In your book, what constitutes success? Military strength? Imperialism? The wealth created by a nation? The quality of life for the inhabitants of the nation?


I'm equating Christianity as a guide for social order and a framework for the place of man in that social order, the duties and responsibilities of man in the civil and spiritual hierarchy of life.

Success is a functioning society (notice - not government) that that integrates the drives and needs of it's inhabitants and provides a social place that respects boundaries of government, groups, and individuals.  It protects itself from cultural, military and social incursions destructive to the social and political order.

That is the minimum required for "success".

It may or may not provide individual freedom, wealth, health care and a guaranteed wage and an education. 

An "ideal" society just might, though.


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

If the assumption is that we measure success in terms of the quality of life for the majority of the population, then, in Britain at least, our most successful period co-incided with the move towards secularism i.e. enfranchisement, universal health and education, widespread sanitation, the demolition of slum dwellings and replacement with modern housing etc. 1920-1950.


Social liberalism has yet to show the ability to survive long term i.e. hundreds of years.  National economic "success", combined with a fair measure of "individual freedom" seems to be counter-productive to the survival of modern Western societies i.e. non-replenishment of births over deaths, absent immigration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Another point worth considering, Britain and Europe are in a state of transition after centuries of imperialism. We're talking about changing the course of tradition across an entire continent. There was always going to be upheaval. I don't believe the facts support the opinion that this upheaval can be placed at the door of moving away from Christian ideals, and that only a return to those ideals will resolve any problems.


I don't think Christianity is the only method.  I think it is the most likely method, and one that most closely matches the historical roots of the West, and therefore the most compatible with a wide variety of current philosophies and social constructs.

I believe that the West is under stress for various reasons, and attempting to "go past" Christian thoughts, it just remains to be seen if it can do so without fracturing and destructing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Also, in today's Britain, Christian ideals are very much in evidence in political life. Our Prime Minister is from a very Catholic background. He believes he is a visionary taking liberal market democracy (tied in with Christianity) around the world. The problem is that he's dealing in absolutes (as a result of his background). He has an opinion that market democracy is surperior to other ways of nation building, who's to say he is right? Isn't this the Christian way - imposing ideals throughout the world.


Your very comments of what you think the Christian "way" is, is a perfect example of the anti-Christian forces at work within the West today.

This isn't a pejorative comment, just a factual observation.  However, such thinking is common in large segments of the West's population, and one of the reasons I'm pessimistic about many of Western nation's societies coming to terms with their Christian heritage and philosophies, and embracing any part of it in their newly evolving social contract.

FirmKY

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract - 3/26/2007 4:01:33 AM   
FirmhandKY


Posts: 8948
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

There is no social contract between citizens, no obligation towards one’s fellows and no need is felt to contribute anything, whilst at the same time we expect others to keep their obligations towards us even while we are doing our selfish best to acquire wealth, status and power over and above the others, breaching at will any and all morals and values which might pertain to a civilised society to do so, and allowing that injustice is only a crime if there is a specific law and that breach is only breach when proven in court.



Agreed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

What has happened to us?


When weren't we doing our selfish best to acquire wealth and status?

Then ... what has been the basis of the social contract previously, and what is the basis of the social contract now?  And what do you wish to be the basis of the social contract in the future?

You seem to be condemning "doing our selfish best to acquire wealth, status and power" yet you (if memory serves me correctly) advocate a government which takes resources from others, and redistributes it in accordance with what you envision as a "socially just" formula of some kind.

Doesn't "taking" from one person, and "giving" it to another violate the very principles that you seem to espouse (items 1-4, Enterprise, Respect, Justice and Equality of opportunity)? 

Doesn't it just transfer the source of "wealth, status and power" from individuals, or associations of people to a central societal structure that becomes, in and of itself, the new focus for "wealth, status and power" for the people who will seek it anyway?


quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Given this then, and the modern experience of the inability of administrative interventions to bring about a coherent society and state that functions according to what I see as the ideal, there is only one way to regain the enjoyment of a healthy state – and that is by way of the coalescing of the many new cultures and ideas that have been brought into our societies with what is good from the old, such that we can attain once more a shared system of values and morals and form a new social contract from them.


I very much hope we realise we can learn from Islam. We can learn that the invisible hand of the market can be inhumane. Why not use quality of life as a common goal rather than wealth creation? It goes without saying that they can learn from us too. I agree that a meeting of minds is desirable.


What specific social constructs is it that you wish to "learn" from Islam?  I'd be very, very interested in your concrete examples of this.

What makes the "invisible hand of the market" inhumane?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Comments? Can the process of coalescing be engineered or must it be a natural process? What sort of shared values and morals do we need, given that its felt we need them? What kind of social contract should we have, assuming that having one is felt to be advantageous? Or, are we now all too far from believing in such things to think it worthwhile?


Shared values and morals:

1) Enterprise.
2) Respect for one another.
3) Justice.
4) Equality of opportunity.
5) Governments and corporations are the subjects of the people/society.
6) Respect the ideas of foreign nations.


1) Enterprise. 

What motivates people to "enterprise"?  Is this part of the Christian legacy?

2) Respect for one another.

What motivates "respect for one another"? Is this part of the Christian legacy?

3) Justice.

What is "just"? Which societies on earth are "just"? Or, are "more just" and why?

4) Equality of opportunity.

How do you ensure equality of opportunity?  What of people who do not have the ability to compete equally in society?  Or who do not wish to compete?  Would you force them?

5) Governments and corporations are the subjects of the people/society.

How would you accomplish this?  What societies best accomplish this today?

6) Respect the ideas of foreign nations.

Is respect or simply toleration acceptable?  Is there ever a point in which either would not be required, or expected?

FirmKY

< Message edited by FirmhandKY -- 3/26/2007 4:02:50 AM >

_____________________________

Some people are just idiots.

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract - 3/26/2007 4:26:05 AM   
Vendaval


Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Comments?

Interesting post, Lady Ellen.
 
My comments will be based on US rather than UK society.


Can the process of coalescing be engineered or must it be a natural process?

I believe the process will be both deliberate and natural.


What sort of shared values and morals do we need, given that its felt we need them?

We have the US Constitution as the foundation of our society.
 

What kind of social contract should we have, assuming that having one is felt to be advantageous?

Same as the above answer.

Or, are we now all too far from believing in such things to think it worthwhile?

E

I think what you are asking, and correct me if wrong, is -
How can we adapt to the changing world environment to
achieve a cohesive society?
 
Pressures for change in a society come from both inside forces
within a culture and outside forces from the rest of the world.
 
Population pressures in the form of wars, famine, immigration
are outside forces for the US and UK.  The inside forces are
the materialism and lack of inter-relatedness, community
and cohesiveness.   A sense of community and inter-relatedness
is much easier in a smaller rather than a larger group.  That is
a major reason I choose to live in a smaller city, rather than
a huge metro area. 
 
Living in the Information Age and the technology to communicate
in minutes or seconds with people anywhere in the world has
changed society beyond measure.  The question is will the
technology improve or lessen the quality of life for all of us. 
 


_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE


http://KinkMeet.co.uk

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract - 3/26/2007 4:29:46 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline 		A couple of clarifications

"State" in the context I intended it, means the nation as state, not the administrative apparatus pertaining to the running of a state. By state I am describing an entity with borders, within which it is found. That a nation is not necessarily a state is evident from the example of the Kurds, and a that a state is not a single nation from the example of most western societies which comprise a multitude of nations.

"Social contract" in the context I intended it, means the tacit agreement of the people within a state to cooperate with one another on quid pro quo basis with the aim of producing a common wealth - not only financial, but in terms also of bringing about a fair and just society where there is responsibility and obligation in return for the advantages of living therein.

In terms of government and the administrative apparatus of the state, clearly these are impotent when it comes to bringing about a healthy functioning state and also when it comes to encouraging the social contract. In both respects, the state functions properly only when the citizenry develop these concepts for themselves - the government and the administrative apparatus is unable to do so externally, reliant as it is in such endeavour on forcing the issue - which force flies directly in the face of the very nature of the state and the social contract.

In a healthy state, the government and administrative apparatus is there at the behest of the state as its citizenry, and serves the purposes of the state as its citizenry, except that in our current situation, this scenario is very much reversed and our existence seems to be to serve the government and apparatus - something which has occurred specifically because of the lack of unity and thus power, in the citizenry.

On the point about the past and the Christian state - certainly this is true. At times, when a consensus of the citizenry, or at least when a large majority of the citizenry were of one opinion about life, a healthy state could have been said to have been achieved, deriving its common values from Christianity. However, we should not forget that albeit a nominally successful state, this model also featured many problems which also derived from those Christian ideas - misogyny being perhaps the most notable, but also racism, homophobia and a list of other social ills that had more to do with a person's existence than his or her ability to contribute to or right to benefit from the society. This is why we should not return to such a situation, even if we could, but rather form a new state and social contract which is inclusive, in order that we not lose the social advances made.

A thought from when I was in bed - its often remarked that the best of times in the UK were during WWII, when the people did come together and produce a state akin to the ideal I described. Is it then necessary for such a state to come about, that there be some sort of threat, whether real or perceived, to all of its citizens? Examples from the past for the UK would be not only the Axis of the 1930s and 40s, but going further back, the French, the Spanish, the Catholic Church, the dangers of sin etc.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to FirmhandKY)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract - 3/26/2007 4:44:22 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Our president takes an oath to protect, preserve and defend our constitiution, then immediately sets out to destroy it 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: The purpose of the state and the social contract - 3/26/2007 4:48:03 AM   
Vendaval


Posts: 10297
Joined: 1/15/2005
Status: offline 		This same dynamic is described in psychology and sociology.
The outside threat can either destroy the group cohesiveness
or meld it together.
 
The same truism is often told about the post WWII years
of the 1950's in the States.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Is it then necessary for such a state to come about, that there be some sort of threat, whether real or perceived, to all of its citizens?

E


_____________________________

"Beware, the woods at night, beware the lunar light.
So in this gray haze we'll be meating again, and on that
great day, I will tease you all the same."
"WOLF MOON", OCTOBER RUST, TYPE O NEGATIVE


http://KinkMeet.co.uk

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> The purpose of the state and the social contract Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094