One can analogise the social contract to the agreement you make every time you go to a new web page; you don't read it, and you wouldn't understand it if you did, but nevertheless, by clicking on the button or by walking on the public highway, or by sucking on that tit, you are deemed to have agreed.

You're ok with accepting some financial obligation - to maintain the society you belong to - as long as it is a clearly demarcated amount? — creativesoul

Well, I do not "belong" to a society. I am the property of our beloved Master, the Almighty Lord, Creator of the heavens and the earth.

Furthermore, I currently do not live in my country of birth. I tend to travel around quite a bit, but mostly in SE Asia, like a lot of my friends and other digital-nomad colleagues.

I actually do pay a clearly demarcated amount to the governments of the various countries I habitually reside in, the cheapest of which, Vietnam, wants around 300+ USD/year in visa fees, and the most expensive in the area, the Philippines, which wants around 700+ USD/year.

In fact, there are quite a few countries that do not charge anything at all. For example, Mexico apparently gives you 180 days free of charge. Georgia (at the Black Sea) seems to give you 360 days free of charge. They are not even interested in charging extra.

As a country, you need to be competitive because otherwise business and money will tend to move elsewhere. There are good reasons why factories have almost all ended up in China. That is not because they were charging more taxes and other government fees than others.

Therefore, except for special niche situations, and given the competitive situation, I personally think that it may be hard for a country to charge more than 1000 USD/year for individuals merely residing there. Charging more to locals than to foreigners will also be considered unfair, even though many countries actually do that.

A percentage of earnings? — creativesoul

Well, I generally live off my savings. Nowadays, I do not earn anything until I finally sell the startup I am involved in, including any saved-up cash that it may contain. The principle is simple. If I do not draw money/profits out of it, I personally do not earn anything. I just accumulate capital gains. Those are almost never taxable unless I "realize" them by selling.

When I sell, it is often a taxable event, but in many countries it is not, and even when it is, it is taxable only if I do that in a country in which I have resided for more than 180 days of that particular year; something which is trivially easy to avoid.

It is not possible to avoid the religious capital gains tax, though (2.5%).

At the moment, I am not even involved in setting up a new startup. I just talk with potential partners about theoretical possibilities. I may not even activate anything any time soon, because I don't even need to. So, at the moment, there is certainly no need for me to pay any government-related levies beyond visa fees.

Well, I generally live off my savings. — alcontali

You only have savings by the grace of the social contract. Governments regulate promissory notes such that society can rely on them, and you can hold them and exchange them for goods and services. The concept of property is brought into being by the social contract, and without it you own nothing.

You only have savings by the grace of the social contract. Governments regulate promissory notes such that society can rely on them, and you can hold them and exchange them for goods and services. The concept of property is brought into being by the social contract, and without it you own nothing. — unenlightened

Not in my case. My savings are in bitcoin, which is not issued by any government. There is no need for any government to issue any currency. Furthermore, I do not wish to save in fiat currency, because that allows the issuing government to liberally debase it, by issuing some more. So, no, no.

My savings are in bitcoin — alcontali

Bitcoin still only works by social agreement. If no one accepts your money, you have no money, because money is the social acceptance.

Bitcoin still only works by social agreement. — unenlightened

Yes, but it does not require any government.

You see, I have no alternative for lowering violence and aggression within the perimeter of a state than having a government deal with that, while I certainly do not desire the presence of 2000+ Libyan-style militia each vying for power. Hence, unlike the anarchists, I am not advocating for having no government at all. I would not want to live in a place where there is no government at all.

Still, all these governments compete with each other in terms of offering the best deal. I do not see why I would pick a worse deal, when I can get a better one. The government here nicely manages to keep things quiet and only charges me a few hundred dollars per year in visa fees. So, I am perfectly happy with my choice.

So, I am perfectly happy with my choice. — alcontali

Your happiness means a lot to me. But we are discussing the social contract. And the social contract is just the way social relations are conducted, and nation states with various forms of government are one form it can take, and Bitcoin is another. So the social contract is the social contract and exists with or without anyone's formal agreement, just as national borders exist and do not have to wait for everyone to sign up to them. And if someone wishes to deny or renege on the social contract, or exploit it or find ways around it, they in no way invalidate the existence of these mutual obligations and dependencies. It just makes them one of a number of such people society has to cope with as best it can.

Property does not cease to exist because there are thieves, money does not have no value because there are forgers, language does not cease to have meaning because there are liars; but if there are enough of them, then eventually society does collapse and usually nigh on everyone loses.

The first political act was that of being born in the first place. Suicide is not the reverse of never being born. Certainly some form of harm challenge, and struggle is part of the deal. "Flourishing" is the nice word people use for all this. That of course justifies force-recruiting people into a contract. People need to be born to follow this contract and flourish. Flourishing needs to take place. There was no right never to be a part of it. Someone else gets to decide for another that this structure is to be lived out by that other person. The first and most important political act is having been born in the first place. The agenda of "something" is now foisted on the individual who must be thankful for being put in this situation. Society somehow needs individual sacrifice for its perpetuity, and this is deemed as appropriate and right.

And the social contract is just the way social relations are conducted, and nation states with various forms of government are one form it can take, and Bitcoin is another — unenlightened

Absolutely. The contract is between individuals. The reason individuals enter into such a contract is that many people collectively are capable of much more than they would be as individuals, so it is in everyone's mutual benefit. That's the nature of a contract: there must be benefit on both sides.

The reason individuals enter into such a contract is that many people collectively are capable of much more than they would be as individuals, — Pantagruel

Reason: I like milk, and while I can milk a cow or a goat well enough, I am not very good at making buckets. Most people could not survive a week alone as adults; no one could survive alone from birth. Individualism is a fantasy that justifies exploitation.

It is not possible to avoid the religious capital gains tax, though (2.5%). — alcontali

Why not?

Your opinions stated here are vulgar and absurd.

I totally agree about the importance of the enlightenment in establishing the concept of universal rights and unifying concept of man. It is a long bridge from positing the rights of man to institutionalizing them. We're still working on that part. And I agree on the desirability of abandoning tribalism.

Your opinions stated here are vulgar and absurd. — Bitter Crank

Much worse!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exsurge Domine
Condemning the Errors of AL CONTALI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Listen to our prayers, for foxes have arisen seeking to destroy the vineyard whose winepress you alone have trod. For we can scarcely express, from distress and grief of mind, what has reached our ears for some time by the report of reliable men and general rumor.

Alas, we have even seen with our eyes and read the many diverse errors, which are either heretical, false, scandalous, and highly destructive of the vigor of ecclesiastical discipline, namely obedience.

Al Contali's errors are pernicious, offensive to pious ears, seductive of simple minds, and originating with false exponents of the faith who in their proud curiosity yearn for the world’s glory.

With mature deliberation on each and every one of Al Contali's theses, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these errors.

We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication.

As far as Al Contali himself is concerned, O good God, what have we overlooked or not done? What fatherly charity have we omitted that we might call him back from such errors? But he always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come. To the present day he has been contumacious. With a hardened spirit he has continued under censure over a year.

Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures.

We enjoin on Al Contali that in the meantime he cease from all preaching or the office of preacher.

On behalf of the Holy See
Francis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Very eloquent. Now follow that up with a full faced grovel on the floor of the main drag in St. Pete's big basilica while the college of cardinals walks all over you, and maybe then we'll reconsider your case.

Or... maybe not. It depends on whether your act of contrition meets the hazy qualifications for being genuine, authentic, and true.

So...

A morality based upon the God of Abraham. Treating others how God instructs. A collection of stories passed down through the generations through oral and written tradition.

Today we know that money is power.

Possessing large sums of cash is possessing large sums of what is available to the members of society. Society is much better off if it includes the most people with the most opportunity to reap the benefits of that society.

Accumulation of wealth cannot happen without society.

The money available is best dispersed in as many hands as possible. To hoard the money is to rob the other members of it's possible benefits when better dispersed. To hoard money harms the economy of it's potential to do the most good. It is to walk up to a table of 4 pizzas meant to feed 8 to 10 people and further proceed to a take a whole one with you on your out, but not eat it.

Magically it turns into two. You offer no one a piece of either.

God condones this?

Does anyone here actually understand what is meant by “Social Contract” or is this a thread of make-believe and misdirection? To be fair there has been mention of ‘mutual benefits’ but other than that there are some quite disturbing and strange individual interpretations of what “Social Contract” refers to.

The point of it is that we have to give up individual freedoms in order to live together in harmony. No matter what the ‘Social Contract’ may be it is only present if consistent. This is why governments/leaders/rulers exist. The balance is dictated by what we’re willing to do on a personal level against what others do to hinder/obstruct what we want. Anarchy results in a reasonable balance of social harmony or the destruction of society.

We pay taxes not because we expect governments to use the money to benefit us, but to use it to benefit everyone - including things we don’t agree with. We CANNOT (given a mediocre level of maturity) expect to have our cake and eat it.

In the land of plenty no one really notices any social contract. When times are hard and people suffer the negative - inevitable - effects of the social contract are felt. As individuals we feel this too, be it sacrificing our immediate dreams in order to feed our children’s/friend’s/families potentials. The irony is we only ever make use of our potential in an efficient/urgent manner when times of plenty are absent.

Note: I wouldn’t take Rousseau as the best exemplar of the political sciences. He was a spoilt brat who threw tantrums when no one listened to him. He was vicious, pompous and only ever rose to prominence by suckling from the teet of some rich dame - as her toyboy.

One's obligation to the rest of society.

Have a problem with that ?

The money available is best dispersed in as many hands as possible. To hoard the money is to rob the other members of it's possible benefits when better dispersed. — creativesoul

An indiscriminate approach of that nature would be a disaster, because it would soon put a halt to most sexual reproduction.

If we oversimplify the process a bit, we can say that in the man-woman relationship, the man wants to acquire a reliable supply of sex, while the woman wants to lock down a reliable supply of money.

If the State starts handing out money or other freebies for nothing to women, then the woman will no longer need the man. That will have an almost immediate effect on the birth rate, which will obviously collapse. Therefore, no, for reasons of keeping sexual reproduction afloat, it is absolutely not permissible whatsoever onto the government to hand out money or other freebies to women.

Cura Annonae
("care for the grain supply")

Adult male citizens (over 14 years of age) of Rome were entitled to buy at a below-market price five modii, about 33 kilograms (73 lb), of grain monthly. Approximately 40,000 adult males were eligible for the grain. In 62 and 58 BC the number of Romans eligible for grain was expanded and grain became free to its recipients. The numbers of those receiving free or subsidized grain expanded to an estimated 320,000 before being reduced to 150,000 by Julius Caesar and then set at 200,000 by Augustus Caesar, a number that remained more or less stable until near the end of the Western Roman Empire.

As you can clearly see, the Romans were not that stupid ...

The point of it is that we have to give up individual freedoms in order to live together in harmony. — I like sushi

Actually, I think that this is where the misunderstanding lies, not in the conditions of "social contract", but in the misunderstanding of "individual freedom". In actuality, living together under a social contract produces freedom, through the process commonly represented as the division of labour. To act freely requires time not dedicated to providing for the necessities of living. There is no fundamental difference in individual freedoms between life with or without a social contract, but the social contract provides people with the capacity (time) to act freely.

I think the ‘misunderstanding’ is due to equating ‘leisure’ with ‘freedom’.

So you think that the social contract does not increase freedoms also? And that having time to do things other than scrape by means only those activities that immediately come to mind when one hears the word 'leisure'? Slavery then could be called a social contract. For me time beyond scraping by includes political activity social activity, parenting and a host of other things than drinking bear and watching football or smoking a cigar on a yacht.

I never hinted at anything of the sort. I merely pointed out exactly what I pointed out - ‘freedom’ is not ‘free-time’/‘leisure’.

I think the ‘misunderstanding’ is due to equating ‘leisure’ with ‘freedom’ — I like sushi

I didn't equate leisure with freedom, that's another example of your misunderstanding. What I implied is that one must have leisure in order to act freely, if "leisure" is defined as "free time".

I think freedom is the capacity to carry out free acts. Since time is necessary for activity, free time is an essential aspect of freedom. What did you have in mind as a definition of "freedom"?

No thanks.

Bye.

Personally, I dont think there is anything wrong with government per se, but it may be capitalism which needs to be moderated. In the US there does seem to be great division, as in the UK. Out of the whole Brexit crisis, the two leading parties (Tories on the right and Labour on the left) have lost their standing with people and it looks like a new stronger Liberal (middle ground) party will win the next election. Sometimes a crisis is a good thing and can effect real change. The deep divisions that come from huge disparities of wealth, and opportunity and education are hard to deny.