[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: Social Contract Theory Idiocy: What Contract? The very idea of any ‘social contract’ for any large group of individuals is asinine on its face. It is an impossibility to be sure if freedom is considered, and that is why constitutions, (‘social contracts’) which supposedly require individual explicit or ‘tacit’ consent, neither of which are valid in this context, are completely worthless, and only deceit by the state. Social contracts require that some or most freedoms be relinquished, and submission to the false authority of a ruler or ruling class be accepted for the ‘common good.’ This is usually based on only a majority ‘decision,’ or not, due to the corrupt and evil nature of voting, for the purpose of gaining protection for only those rights considered remaining, and state-supported in the bogus contract. In other words, natural rights are eliminated in favor of ‘legal’ rights created and administered by the state for the sole purpose of monetary gain and mass control. This can only mean that all natural rights are disallowed and non-existent’ in this lie called a social contract. The assumed starting point for social contract creation in theory is to examine the human condition absent a political order. From here, social contract supporters would seek (assume) to argue that ‘rational’ individuals would voluntarily give up their natural freedom in favor of consent to a governmental (political) ruling system. Thomas Hobbes’ approach to the “state of nature” circumstance and social contracts was telling of his desire to see humanity ruled over by counterfeit documents shifting power from the individual to the state. Hobbes said that in a state of nature, or freedom of the individual, would be a horrible situation where everyone would have unlimited rights to pillage, plunder, rape, and murder, and endless war of all against all would be the result. His solution to his made-up claims, was for all to establish what he called “civil society” through a social contract in order to gain security by giving up natural rights and accepting an absolute sovereign made up of one man (king) or an assembly of men (oligarchy). He saw absolute government as the only option. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|