Social Contract - 1st topic of discussion

[Holiday20310401]

I do not believe that the social interactions that happen to parallel the sovereign make the state justified, nor the sovereign will. The public is easily manipulated by propoganda, fear, fanaticism, etc.

I am too used to the term social contract now to break away from it. While a contract implies something more concrete it is obvious that we are talking about something intrinsic and fundamental to social interaction.

I am still confused though with the version of actuality and reality you give.

I have this sort of idea in my head that reality is 'real' but only to what has potential by means of being coherent to the mind. It is not really the actuality of the universe though. The actuality is what is sort of underlying of reality. It makes reality possible, but we situate reality. We have no perception of actuality, only reality.

And actuality has no potential in itself, because it is absolute, therefore reality sets in with causality included, linking potential to the environment.
Both reality and actuality are the environment; just that actuality can never be linked to potential, and reality is always.

That was my view of it all. Obviously I'm lost though.

Also, I see no problem with trying to understand society. Fight the power, you seem to think that is just not possible though.

Yes, I'm for the pure communism, and democracy.

Once what people deem 'good' has changed in a way that would define the form of state as 'bad' the form of state will follow to conform to the peoples views.

The problem with this is that it assumes the public will always be able to revolt, when that is just not the case. I'd also say that the state has in history shown great control over the public's interests. The public only holds rational regard, need for rights, in time when irrational behavior is blatant.

And yes, we need to get into paradoxes, which I will start the thread on hopefully tonight around midnight GMT -4 time. Any suggestions on how to start off? So that we can come back to this thread as well.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

I am still confused though with the version of actuality and reality you give.

I have this sort of idea in my head that reality is 'real' but only to what has potential by means of being coherent to the mind. It is not really the actuality of the universe though. The actuality is what is sort of underlying of reality. It makes reality possible, but we situate reality. We have no perception of actuality, only reality.

And actuality has no potential in itself, because it is absolute, therefore reality sets in with causality included, linking potential to the environment.
Both reality and actuality are the environment; just that actuality can never be linked to potential, and reality is always.

I never gave a version of actuality and reality. I don't know what they have to do with the social contract or society. There is not much reason to go into archaic metaphysics on this one.

Also, I see no problem with trying to understand society. Fight the power, you seem to think that is just not possible though.

Not at all, I think that society is understandable.

Yes, I'm for the pure communism, and democracy.

I am a market anarchist.

[Holiday20310401]

Yes I like anarchy as well, except I just don't see it as possible so I don't really focus on it.

And the actuality and reality stuff I was refering to Arjen's comments above.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

You are examining all of this in a vastly different context than I did.

As such, I am lost.

Your post bears the mark of someone thinking while they are typing, so I am asking you to please be more concise: What are you trying examine here?

I will say this, though: The social contract is bogus. There is no such thing, and when human nature is taken into account, it does not make for a reasonably model of social structure.

There is simply no way for a person to create in himself a system of rational valuation free of the roles he or she has been relegated to in society.

There are real examples of the social contract, some of which go back to the story of the Iliad, or at least to the death of Agamemnon. When people had honor as their sole economy, they were obliged to defend it at a moment's notice. Look at how suddenly Cuchelain would slay for a slight of honor. But we cannot have broader economies, or nation states without laws regulating human behavior. So people at some point, give up the right to instant vengeance for every wrong, and instead appeal to the larger society for justice, and justice is an essential price of honor. It is not nothing for nothing; but something for a due consideration. Certainly, where honor is not an essential to economy, and money becomes a substitute for honor, then there gets to be a class of people who believe they can deny justice for honor because honor is meaningless, and so is justice to them. But the fact is: that people give peace, and demand justice so that without the shadow of violence darkening every door, that they may still have their essential honor. So look at the situation. To have his honor Orestes killed his mother. And it was necessary that she be killed so that her murder in the temple, and in the community did not draw the wrath of the Gods onto the innocent, and that killing, by Orestes, as was demanded by Electra, was his obligation to his community, because no matter what her guilt was, her killing by another would have called forth vengeance. As among the native Americans; if yours needed killing, no one but your own group would do the deed. Honor, ones place in the community, habitation, as rehabilitation means: restored to honor, demands that no one accept injury or give hurt to others. The social contract means giving peace for the promise of justice, because justice is as essential to us in reality as it was for primitive peoples. And you should ask: Why are our first, and some of our best dramas centered around crimes and affairs of honor. If you wish to see the thing at its turning point, look at Romeo and Juliet. As a formal drama that some what misses the point, it also serves as an illustration of the state taking over the management of justice and law. As does the story of Orestes.

[Arjen]

Fido, I too view such moments in time as examples of the social contract at work, they can also be called anarchy though. As I stated before there are many ways to view the social contract. I am hoping Mr. Fight the Power will treat us to a clear explanation of his thoughts on it. After that I would like to respond and explore his reasonings.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

You are conflating the creation of rights, duties, and obligations between people under a civil government with the social contract. The social contract is but one manner in which these rights, duties, and obligations have been created. Yes, legal rights, duties, and obligations within society are dynamic, and the social contract can be dynamic.

As I said before, the central characteristic of the social contract is free agreement. While we can certainly document where society has progressed and rights have changed by popular demand, but there has never been a situation where government was created and maintained through free agreement.

[VideCorSpoon]

Just in case this helps the substance of the discussion, a contract (modern legal) is by definition a promise or a set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes a duty. In so many words, modern contracts are legally binding agreements between two parties who agree to do something for something.

But in a contract (and this holds true to any contract that’s ever been made regardless of historical context) there are five key elements that have to be fulfilled to make it legal.

Offer – The proposal to enter into the contract with the other based on acceptance of terms.
Acceptance – The acceptance to the terms offered.
Consideration – The exchange of one thing for another, whether it be a promise, service, or forbearance.
Capacity – qualification for one to make that contract in the first place
Legality – the scope of whether or not the contract was legal to begin with.

Interestingly enough, this basic framework in legal structure has an infinite amount of loopholes. Hence the dilemma in the interpretation of contractualism whatever its context. That’s perhaps why lawyers exist in the first place.

[Fairbanks]

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

. . .
But in a contract (and this holds true to any contract that’s ever been made regardless of historical context) there are five key elements that have to be fulfilled to make it legal. . . .

Probably calling this thing a contract is confusing the issue. Likely the language translation is iitself presenting a problem. Evidently something is there, but how it works is not at all clear and most people wouldn't ink a contract with whatever state they happen to have been born in. Seriously, if you were born in Zimbabwe would you sign on to a million percent inflation? What a deal!

[VideCorSpoon]

I think the fact that at least some implication of the term “contract” is helpful to fully understand the scope of the discussion. But I don’t follow your point about lingual translations being problematic. Is it the terminology or the literal interpretation of the terms that could be misconstrued the issue? But like most things abstract, the social contract is never literal.

[Fairbanks]

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

. . . lingual translations being problematic. Is it the terminology or the literal interpretation of the terms . . . .

As far as I know the term 'social contract' first appeared in Rousseau's work, which was in French. 'Social Contract' is a translation of 'Du Contrat Social' which was not about contracts at all but about the principles of political right. But, the work was more utopian than philosophical and the philosophy of the state has yet to be written.