Okay. Now address this OP with what you know about the Michigan riots. how is your link relevant to that? Don’t give me theories from Wikipedia. How do we live today?

Edit: from an earlier post; How does a movement begin? Is it begun by one lone individual or is there some other mechanism at work? Or does the state itself, unwittingly, create the movement?

Are you seriously asking me how the ‘social contract theory’ is relevant to this topic? You appear to have given up before you’ve even got started.

Maybe someone else will help you out. GL

Are you seriously asking me how the ‘social contract theory’ is relevant to this topic? — I like sushi

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m asking. Apply your own mind to the the situation or are you going along with Rousseau who thought people did not know their own will, or Proudhon who believed in a social contract that did not involve an individual surrendering sovereignty to others, or Pettit who thought that instead of arguing for explicit consent, which can always be manufactured he argues that the absence of an effective rebellion against it is a contract's only legitimacy.

I asked why you viewed extreme altruism with concern and then what you meant by extreme altruism. Then in reply you sent me a link to Wikipedia. So I still have no real idea of what you think or where you’re coming from.

So, which theory on the social contract can we look at the Michigan riots from. They’re not purely black, they are in response to something specific but address some greater underlying problem, they destroy their own environment, they’re probably justified, they’ll spark further riots, they’ll probably lose, and they’ll provoke an aggressive response from authorities.

Isn’t this my whole OP in action, something real instead of speculation on a philosophy forum?

one of the books I'm reading right now seems to go to the heart of this topic. It's called "Mind, Self, and Society" and it is quickly becoming one of my favourites. — Pantagruel

I’m not familiar with it but I’ll look into it. Thanks.

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m asking. Apply your own mind to the the situation or are you going along with Rousseau who thought people did not know their own will, or Proudhon who believed in a social contract that did not involve an individual surrendering sovereignty to others, or Pettit who thought that instead of arguing for explicit consent, which can always be manufactured he argues that the absence of an effective rebellion against it is a contract's only legitimacy. — Brett

So you were just playing dumb. Look where that’s got you ...

Bye!

So you were just playing dumb. — I like sushi

I don’t see any evidence of playing dumb. But maybe it’s possible that I don’t see it. So point it out to me.

Hey Brett, I didn't mean to abandon the discussion. In any case you've thrown a lot of questions at me and I'll start with one or two and I guess we'll go from there. I'd rather explore 1-2 questions deeply then go after 5-6 and have everything be shallow/branch off.

Individualism, of the individual, is like the idea that all men are equal. Nature says differently, but we chose to try and live by the idea. But it constantly need picking up as it stumbles.

I hear this point often, but there's a lot to unpack with the word "equal." If individualism is saying that all men are equal in talent or ability then it's obviously stupid. I think what it's saying is that all men have inherent equal value - e.g. a king's life is ultimately worth the same as a poor man's per se. In any case, broadly speaking I conceive of individualism as just any philosophy which emphasizes the individual and their ability to pursue their own ends unencumbered.

If the idea and value of individuality is so important and valuable then why does it threaten the state? And why is it a threat and is that a good or bad thing

I think it can come to threaten the state because the state ultimately wants to maintain a monopoly on force and it's concerned with power. Note that I'm considering "the state" here as kind of its own entity apart from the individuals composing it. I hope I'm being clear here. As one example of this, lets say Trump and even the US Government as a whole is friendly with Russia. Lets say Trump likes Putin are two are friends.

Well, even still Russia is a growing nation and has historically been expansionist and not too long ago annexed part of Ukraine. Russia is also active in Latin/South America. Even though the two leaders might like each other, the states are in some sort of tension as both vie for power and influence. Both each have powerful space programs.

In any case, I think individualism can threaten the state if an individual accrues considerable power or threatens to undermine the state's power through maybe technology or something along those lines. The battle for encryption/privacy between the state and cypherpunks is what I have in mind here.

the state ultimately wants to maintain a monopoly on force and it's concerned with power. Note that I'm considering "the state" here as kind of its own entity apart from the individuals composing it. — BitconnectCarlos

By state do you mean the machinations of the state; the unelected members, the permanent established bureaucrats, or the elected government?

By state do you mean the machinations of the state; the unelected members, the permanent established bureaucrats, or the elected government?

None of those. I guess I'm talking about an abstraction, maybe.

I believe the primary function or purpose of a state is protection: maybe that's protection from other nations or protection of rights... either way, it's about security. if the state is unable to provide adequate security we say it's a "weak state" or a "failed state." I think history also teaches us that governments tend to grow, at least once they've established stability.

None of those. — BitconnectCarlos

Then who’s applying the power, who has the monopoly and who’s doing the protecting?

I understand it's people, but it's also rules and laws and judges. It's a complex system. A threat can still exist to a state even if no one in the government grasps it as a threat. A state can still have interests even if no individual mind grasps it as well.

Like some sort of organic, unconscious entity?

I don't know about organic, but I think this conception of the state is an interesting one and I've been thinking about it for a while. I was originally just tempted to view it as a collection of individuals and that does seem to be the most straight-forward approach but... I'm kind of liking the one I've been thinking of now. Feel free to poke holes or add to it.

It's interesting to think about. Imagine two tribes back in ancient times and the individuals in the tribes are generally friendly, however one of the tribes gradually starts becoming much, much more powerful than the other. Even though the individuals may still remain friendly, the relationship between the groups has likely changed. If a grievance or dispute were to arrive everyone knows who's the boss. An interest of the smaller group here may be to band together with other weaker tribes even if the leadership of the tribe doesn't recognize this and personally likes the individuals in the stronger tribe. Who knows how things will be in later years.

Then maybe you’re thinking of things in terms of a collective. Which I had considered, but I don’t think that works in terms of the state today. It’s likely that there’s a faction within a state, like Permanent Secretaries in government, bureaucrats, careerists, that feed information to politicians and government and are interested primarily in their career. The CIA is primarily careerists, as are all other state departments. This is a monopoly on power, but is it the monopoly people mean when they talk about the state?