The nature of human societies

I'm not sure how this is necessarily a debatable answer, as history gives a massive number of examples to show states hold power through arms and force, or threat of force. When people bucked the newly formed American government, what did Washington do? He rolled up with an army and used the threat of force to achieve compliance.

The fact of the matter is, you didn't agree and it does not require you to agree. You live within a country thus you abide by the rules. If you don't they come with police and imprison you. This country has the inherent right to do that because it took the inherent right to do it from it's colonial masters and the indigineous people that lived here. The Bill of Rights are just a nicety our government has decided to abide by, it doesn't have too, it can easily change from a democratic entity to a tyranical entity.

So yeah, the government has the right because they took that right and can enforce it with a military. Morality is not a factor in this situation, nor will it ever be. Governments control what they can literally control, and have done so since humans had societal structures.

 

Does it matter? You already agreed to it, after all.

But let's say, hypothetically, that I did. Since you obviously have the choice as to whether or not you wish to comply, it would be fair, wouldn't it?

But in the case of being born into a country, I don't get to choose anything. Everything is chosen for me, and if I move to another country, everything would be chosen there for me too.

Alright, in that case, I'll look up each word, like you suggested before.

It's: A contraction of "it is".
it: used to refer to a thing previously mentioned or easily identified.
is: third person singular present of be.
be: exist.

implicit: implied though not plainly expressed

you: used to refer to any person in general.

agree: consent to do something that has been suggested by another person.

to: identifying the person or thing affected.

by: indicating the means of achieving something.

being: present participle of be.

born: existing as a result of birth.

in: expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else.

said: used in legal language or humorously to refer to someone or something already mentioned or named.

country: a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.


So what you said was: The agreement to abide by social contracts is implied though not plainly expressed, any person in general consents, while it was suggested by the government, to be subject to it by existing, as the result of birth, in the geographical territory of the country already mentioned before.

Again, what?

I'm not asking for lack of understanding; I know what you're saying. I'm asking out of incredulity. It's not a logical statement. One cannot agree, that is to make a choice, by existing. By something they have no control over. It's a contradiction of natures, of meanings. It simply cannot be done, by the definition of the words.

 

Ah, so I didn't agree to it? Because I'm pretty sure you used the word "agree".

What I'm getting at is pretty simple: Governments are really a primitive system. I'm not saying we should do away with them, or that they're not the best system we have, I just think we should talk about it. It's important to question things.

Yes there is a failure: You are bound to them regardless of what you choose.

Now there's an interesting thought. What if, say, you could negotiate with the government how many freedoms you would give up, in return for however much protection you wanted? Maybe you could say: "Well, I don't really want to pay taxes. so I'll give up access to things like infrastructure, roads, schools, etc. in return for not paying taxes on those."

I'm not saying that that's practical, but it's an idea in its birthing stages, so you can't expect too much from it.

 

Agree!

 

Them like everyone else was born with the right to do that. They pulled it off.

 

Personally, my ideal system would be one that interferes in my life only as much as I allow it, which includes taxes and services (for example, social security. It's not a system I want any part of.). I would like one with limited government, particularly such that corporations cannot buy influence (a government that doesn't have the power to give power to corporations). I would like one with a strong military, though I think the one we have now is wasteful, and maybe a little overkill (strong doesn't necessarily mean stronger, or even as strong, as now.) I would either do away with the welfare system, or greatly limit who can benefit from it and for how long. I would add stronger borders, but I would streamline the process to become a citizen, though I might look at reducing quotas for certain demographics (like unskilled labor, or Indian Computer Geeks.), so basically make it easier to become a citizen, but limit how many people can get in.

It would involve nearly laissez faire capitalism (I do recognize some gov. restrictions are necessary, such as anti-monopoly regulations), although on the flip side, it might be good to look into stimulating manufacturing, and limiting imports of manufactured goods. I'd have to do more research on that.

I would do away with the draft.

Reforming the public education system so that students capable of moving ahead in certain areas can (I could probably be done with Math IV by now, and nearly done with AP Statistics, if I were allowed to skip all the useless busywork and just learn the lessons and do the tests.)


And with regards to the point of this thread, perhaps a certain are of land could be set aside for dissenters, people who don't want to live within the system, that is basically outside the jurisdiction of the U.S., but still technically part of the U.S. Maybe somewhere in the South or West, with a coastline.


How about you? Do you lie the current system, or would you like to see something different?

Inequalities from what? I'm not saying you have to pay a set amount. But if, let's say, you immigrated in your 60's, and never used the public school system, and won't have kids who will use the system, why should you have to pay for it? Or if you want no part in Social Security, why should you be forced into it?

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 25, 2016, Original Post Date: Sep 25, 2016 ---

Do I have the right to declare war on you, and take your property/wealth?

 

Good question but ya. Doesn't mean i'm not going to stop you. Everyone has the RIGHT to do WHATEVER they want by nature but by the basic logic others then have the right to try and stop you and the one who provales takes (or at least in theory) that right.

 

But assuming I'm successful (I would be successful), I would then be guilty of murder in the first degree, robbery, and a whole slew of other things, for which I would be punished. Punished by whom, you ask? Our government, which did basically the same thing only 200 years ago, and pretty much every society has gotten away with it at some point. The reason they got away with it? Nobody had a bigger stick, or nobody with a bigger stick had any inclination to stop it.

Just because I'm capable of doing something doesn't give me the right.

 

It's the same primus as before. The government is even more powerful than you so they win.

 

Except it wouldn't be all boats, it would be poor boats. And you'd be doing it by putting leaks in wealthier boats.
Making the poor richer really helps the economy when it's done by generating wealth, not through redistribution. Wealth generation, on a national scale, happens when the value of exports is very high, higher than the value of imports, which then builds up a pool of money which can be used to pay workers, raise standards of living, buy luxury goods, etc. This is accomplished by having a strong manufacturing economy, to make goods like cars, planes, boats, etc., that are then sold in various countries, and the profit is sent back to companies in the country, who, ideally, pay their workers decently, because in a strong manufacturing economy, there's a greater demand for labor than there is a supply, which increases worker's wages.
At least, that's my take on it.

 

Of a sort.

Yeah, that's not the way I was talking about it. I'm not saying that the expanding of the businesses is what gives wealth to lower classes, it's the greater demand for labor than supply, which is an effect of expanding businesses,

It's possible, but it would probably take some regulation.

The rich have gotten richer by manufacturing in Taiwan, Vietnam, China, etc. Manufacturing moved out of the U.S. a long time ago.
And the stock market. :/

 

yep.

 

Ok I feel everyone here needs to put feeling aside and understand this from a third person perspective. I had long ago a bunny farm in my garage. I started it with only 2 bunnies and well it grew fast. I had two large cages to keep males and females apart , or else....

One day the bunnies somehow got out and had free range of the garage. I also had a dog, well trained dog that knew how to corral them into the cages.

What I noticed was I was the dictator of the garage. (I did not hate the bunnies) however I did not feel the bunnies had any rights or were equal to me, after all I created the cages and fed and watered them. I also noticed that when they were free they crapped all over the garage, like little olive seeds which got stuck under my shoes.

Now most of the bunnies when they saw my dog Buddy they ran to what they knew was safe their cage. However there were some which I call terrorists evading my dog lets call them law enforcement agency. It took quite a bit of time to catch all the terrorists that constantly evaded my law enforcement agent buddy. One actually bit me so I took him and made him my dinner later that week.

BUT we are in a democratic government right?
Well why are they acting like a dictators? and why are we acting like bunnies crapping all over our garage? Stop rioting and start working together and act like a civil society !

They use us to control us or maybe it's Us being dictators by blaming other bunnies for crapping all over the garage.

Don't read too much into this. but it is a true story though.

 

I personally feel nothing gives them the right. I feel that they just have so much more power than us and we are on "their" land that we are kinda forced to follow their rules.

 

They are rabbits...

They aren't equal to you, but they do have some 'rights'.

Amen.

 

Carl Marks says Government can tell us what to do

 

huh