The individual in society (2 Viewers)

[loquasagacious]

Does the individual owe society anything?

This question goes to the heart of the relationship between society and the individual, is this relationship strictly transactional or is it something more? Is society merely a collection of individuals buying and selling their labour and possessions or is there something more?

It is easy to see the tangible transactional relationships, people trade all the time and have for thousands of years. Harder though to identify are the intangible relationships - especially at the community (as opposed to friends/family) level.

So what do you think?

Is it purely transactional or is there something deeper and more intangible going on? And what are the implications of this?

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

No one owes society anything.

The only way you can accrue a debt is by agreeing to do so. This is something almost everyone acknowledges routinely, except in the case of the mythical "social contract" where people have been conditioned to make a hypocritical, nonsensical exception.

Those in favor of social obligations argue that since "society" provides us things we use, we owe something to society. But we never contract voluntarily with society for those things.

If the society wants it can exclude people who it judges to be failing to contribute to society from enjoying such benefits. Using exclusion and ostracism is perfectly legitimate. Kidnapping people at gun point and locking them in violent rape dungeons (prisons) is not.

 

[Slidey]

*siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh*

 

[philphie]

a sense of unity invested into consensus history might be something intangible, although it is mostly based on a history of transaction.

 

[philphie]

No one owes society anything.

The only way you can accrue a debt is by agreeing to do so. This is something almost everyone acknowledges routinely, except in the case of the mythical "social contract" where people have been conditioned to make a hypocritical, nonsensical exception.

Those in favor of social obligations argue that since "society" provides us thing we use, we owe something to society. But we never contract voluntarily with society for those things.

If the society wants it can exclude people who it judges to be failing to contribute from such benefits. Using exclusion and ostracism is perfectly legitimate. Kidnapping people at gun point and locking them and violent rape dungeons (prisons) is not.

there's not much wrong in being grateful

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

there's not much wrong in being grateful

Nothing at all wrong with being grateful.

Everything wrong with forcing people to do certain things against their will under the threat of imprisonment and murder.

 

[BlackDragon]

It depends upon your definition of society, in so far as it is something that is formed between people then one would posit that each person must be required to commit him or herself to it. This is holding that it is an 'object', however abstract.

*siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigh*

But yeah, this will probably just end up being semantics.

 

[philphie]

It depends upon your definition of society, in so far as it is something that is formed between people then one would posit that each person must be required to commit him or herself to it.



But yeah, this will probably just end up being semantics.

which you love

 

[BlackDragon]

nup

 

[A High Way Man]

I'm pretty sure Libertarianism is not just about coming up with combative statements in order to justify the existence of society's lowest common denominators and laziness in general. Seriously, I'll just leave this quote


“I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... ” -- Nikola Tesla

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

I'm pretty sure Libertarianism is not just about coming up with combative statements in order to justify the existence of society's lowest common denominators and laziness in general. Seriously, I'll just leave this quote


“I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... ” -- Nikola Tesla

"Niggas are coastin' the S.L. but can't post bail. Niggas are roast the L" - Jay Z

woooooooo, i can post irrelevant quotes too.

 

[A High Way Man]

It's not irrelevant.

Everyone should be encouraged to contribute to society. This is how civilization progresses.

I understand that people should be free not to (no one said anything about imprisonment and rape (??)) but the first step to a very jaded world is by saying "no one owes society anything".

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

It's not irrelevant.

Everyone should be encouraged to contribute to society. This is how civilization progresses.

I understand that people should be free not to (no one said anything about imprisonment and rape) but the first step to a very jaded world is saying "no one owes society anything".

So people should be encouraged to contribute but not forced, and violence and imprisonment is wrong? Awesome. We agree then.

 

[A High Way Man]

Ew, Ayn Rand reader found

Really, by contributing to society i mean getting a job/starting a business/inventing shit. You know, what most people already do

 

[Graney]

The relationship exists in a compulsory way, you get out exactly as much as you put in to society.

I wouldn't see it as an obligatory relationship on either part, but simply a relationship of mutually beneficial potential opportunity.

I'd say it's much harder, with the huge weight of social pressure, for the average individual to leech off the system than it is to put your head down, and just do some basic job and be an average person, at least for any individual from a decent background.

You can choose to opt out of society, and live independently, but it's really much harder than staying in the system and contributing in some way.

And even a choice to be 'opting out', deliberately avoiding the system, may end up influencing others, and changing the system in some positive way.

 

[Slidey]

So people should be encouraged to contribute but not forced, and violence and imprisonment is wrong? Awesome. We agree then.

Imprisonment is so wrong hey. What do you do with murderers in Libertopia? Perhaps you murder them back. What do you do with thieves? Murder them, too?

Perhaps you don't murder them at all (I would hope not), then what do you do - let them roam free? You need prisons, dude (even if they're Swedish-style prisons).

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Imprisonment is so wrong hey. What do you do with murderers in Libertopia? Perhaps you murder them back. What do you do with thieves? Murder them, too?

Perhaps you don't murder them at all (I would hope not), then what do you do - let them roam free? You need prisons, dude (even if they're Swedish-style prisons).

Imprisoning murders falls under self defense. We all have a right to self defense, as long as we use the minimum force necessary to protect ourselves.

If someone has a habitual propensity to kill others, then imprisoning them is probably justified.

Unfortunately it is not justified for 90% of things that the government does imprison people for, most of which is drug related.

Even with things like theft and assault there are probably better alternatives based on making the criminal pay restitution. Imprisoning people is very costly and private security firms would only have an incentive to do it in extreme cases like murder and rape. It makes far more sense to try and get a thief for example to pay damages rather than paying to lock them up. If they continually fail to pay, blacklisting and ostracism may work, and prison may exist only as a last resort.

 

[loquasagacious]

Imprisoning murders falls under self defense. We all have a right to self defense, as long as we use the minimum force necessary to protect ourselves.

If someone has a habitual propensity to kill others, then imprisoning them is probably justified.

Unfortunately it is not justified for 90% of things that the government does imprison people for, most of which is drug related.

Even with things like theft and assault there are probably better alternatives based on making the criminal pay restitution. Imprisoning people is very costly and private security firms would only have an incentive to do it in extreme cases like murder and rape. It makes far more sense to try and get a thief for example to pay damages rather than paying to lock them up. If they continually fail to pay, blacklisting and ostracism may work, and prison may exist only as a last resort.

Worth noting the prevalence of debtors prisons in the 18th Century... in some cases it may be more profitable to imprison someone than release them....

 

[A High Way Man]

We should make criminals our butlers!

 

[philphie]

yeah just like batman did with alfred!!! whooaoaaa