Maybe you are correct. But I don't prefer to argue such a point based on a definition understood by only 1 in 1000 people, or by referring to academic topics, or by using quotations (in general).
Thanks for the info though. Next time the "social contract" is brought up, I will try to determine whether is is meant in this context, or whether the meaning is the usual "you owe us your money and your obedience... because... social contract".
Actually, the apartheid government of South Africa should have thought of this argument. "If you don't accept the social contract we are imposing on you, you can accept exile somewhere and never see your home and family again. If you stay, that means you agree the contract is fair and you'll abide by the contract terms. The contract terms are whatever we say they are. We can change them at any time."
A "social contract" sure is a useful way to justify using force against people.
"She said NO over and over and over, but she never fought back physically and she never ran away into the wilderness, leaving everything she knew behind. Therefore it wasn't rape."
Why are prohibitionists so quick to resort to insults?
Because "let's hurt these people who are not like us" is a large part of the motivation for the laws. Sometimes it's not the motivation, but "it will only hurt these people who are not like us, and who cares about them?"
These are old arguments. The problem is that the people making them usually start with "in 1926, [someone you've never heard of] said..." and then everyone falls asleep.
Meanwhile, the other side says "you like free stuff, don't you?" and "you want to get back at those [insert slur here] people who aren't like you, right?" so "let's pass a law that will totally work great and won't backfire at all -- you'll get everything you want and those [insert slur here] people will pay".
But even by the rules of the people thrusting this upon me, it can only be a contract if I receive consideration. It creates in the society a duty to me. To deny that without also abolishing all law is simple thuggary.
Since paying you a consideration is entirely optional, while obeying the law is not optional, it's clearly not a contract.
But "all" law isn't thuggery. Laws against murder, for example, are inherently beneficial to all people who don't wish to be murdered (and if, for whatever reason, you do wish to be killed, it's easy to classify killing you as not murder in that circumstance). Even murderers don't wish to be murdered. The law benefits all.
"Laws exist, therefore let's use them to force people to live the way we choose, and let's also use them to force people to pay us money we didn't earn" is thuggery.
It's possible to achieve improvements, even though it's impossible to achieve perfection (and usually undesirable to try). The goal is less force, fewer threats, less government power over people, and more personal autonomy.
Saying "anarchy" is just like saying "social contract". Both are false, and neither legitimizes or justifies threatening people to impose your choices on them.
But they are not obligated by any legal contract to provide it. They can decide to provide it today and decide not to provide it tomorrow.
And you didn't get to negotiate the amount you're owed. They can say it's whatever number they want, or zero. You have no recourse to stop obeying the law.
Also, imposing a second involuntary action on person A to compensate for imposing the first involuntary action on person B is a poor process, leading to a never-ending cycle of wrongs. Stop using threats and force against people.
And, more to the point, stop pretending that doing any of this is a "contract". It isn't.
People in power will still use threats (and violence if the threats don't work) to force you to accept their choices instead of your own. The point is:
a. It's not legitimate. Saying "social contract" doesn't make it legitimate. b. Don't let people get away with pretending their choices are The Good Choices or they are The Good People. Every tyrant can offer justifications. c. Don't do it yourself -- even if you know which choices are The Good Choices and you know which people are The Good People who can make it all work out great. (This time for sure!) d. Vote for people who want to take decision making out of government hands. Then you can make your own contracts -- agreements that are mutually beneficial to everyone involved -- or you can decline without being threatened with violence.
Because "social contract" notions are always self serving. Forcing your choices on other people using threats (or implied threats) requires a justification. So "social contract" -- and do what you're told -- or give me the money I did not earn but I want to spend.
Generally, a "contract" is entered into voluntarily, with no force or coercion, or it's not binding.
The value I get back is a very small fraction of the value I pay in taxes.
I don't get free health care or free education or free social care or a welfare check. Our version of an old age "pension" system exists, but I will probably never get back anywhere near the amount I paid (and will pay) in. Police, fire, ambulance, and parks and playgrounds are paid by local taxes, not national taxes being discussed here. Research is an infinitesimal fraction of the national budget, and lots of that money is wasted. I'm not worried about getting injured by my computer.
We are not saying "down with government". We are saying "less government" and "more cost-effective government".
And personally, I am saying less generous and fewer duplicate (redundant) benefit programs for non-workers.
Step 1: "We've got to pass new laws because of the bad corporations making things worse for us." Step 2: New laws are passed. Step 3: Corporations take advantage of the new laws. Things get worse. Step 4: Go back to step 1
Step Never: Learn that powerful people use government actions to give themselves more power.
I pay a water bill for running water. I pay a fuel tax that goes for roads and bridges and a property tax that goes for streets. I pay sales taxes for prepared food that can go for restaurant inspections, and the restaurants themselves pay for various permits. I also pay a property tax and a local sales tax for fire and police protection. That's how those things are provided.
Income taxes on individuals or corporations are not needed to provide water or roads or food inspections. Why would you imply that they are? Are you intentionally trying to mislead people?
It's a race. You can call it "to the bottom" if you think you somehow benefit from high taxes. (I don't, because I work and pay taxes instead of sitting at home collecting a benefit check.) If you benefit from having employers able to hire you and pay your salary, it's a race to make your country competitive environment for employers to hire.
Yes it is. Tabs are some number of spaces. If you backspace over them, you will have to hit backspace an unknown number of times. Maybe once because there's just a tab. Maybe 4 times because there are 3 spaces and a tab. Maybe tabs are set to 8 in your terminal and 4 in your editor.
Meanwhile, a space is always 1 space. Always.
If you use a bunch of careful setup and a few workarounds, you can get everything working with tabs so it's just as good as if there were spaces instead of tabs. Or you can just use spaces and not worry about any of that.
Spaces are one space. There's no "unless they aren't that many spaces this time" situation because they're always 1 space.
When I want to backspace over something that's indented with tabs, there's no way to know how many times I will have to hit backspace. Are there 4 spaces and a tab so I have to hit backspace 5 times? Or just a tab, so I have to hit it once?
Maybe. But there would be less risk of imminent harm if the police were less trigger-happy, better trained, more respectful of non-police, and more accountable for their actions.
Tests measure knowledge so schools and teachers can be held accountable for teaching knowledge versus just using up time. If you object to using tests to measure performance, then how would you suggest it should be measured?
My personal preference would be for parents to direct most of the education funding for their child individually. So if a parent wants tests to measure, that parent would send her child to the school with the best performance on tests. If a parent had some other metric, she could use that. Or she could use a balanced approach of tests versus something else she values.
How would you like student and teacher performance to be measured?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you are correct. But I don't prefer to argue such a point based on a definition understood by only 1 in 1000 people, or by referring to academic topics, or by using quotations (in general).
Thanks for the info though. Next time the "social contract" is brought up, I will try to determine whether is is meant in this context, or whether the meaning is the usual "you owe us your money and your obedience ... because ... social contract".
Actually, the apartheid government of South Africa should have thought of this argument. "If you don't accept the social contract we are imposing on you, you can accept exile somewhere and never see your home and family again. If you stay, that means you agree the contract is fair and you'll abide by the contract terms. The contract terms are whatever we say they are. We can change them at any time."
A "social contract" sure is a useful way to justify using force against people.
"She said NO over and over and over, but she never fought back physically and she never ran away into the wilderness, leaving everything she knew behind. Therefore it wasn't rape."
Why are prohibitionists so quick to resort to insults?
Because "let's hurt these people who are not like us" is a large part of the motivation for the laws. Sometimes it's not the motivation, but "it will only hurt these people who are not like us, and who cares about them?"
These are old arguments. The problem is that the people making them usually start with "in 1926, [someone you've never heard of] said ..." and then everyone falls asleep.
Meanwhile, the other side says "you like free stuff, don't you?" and "you want to get back at those [insert slur here] people who aren't like you, right?" so "let's pass a law that will totally work great and won't backfire at all -- you'll get everything you want and those [insert slur here] people will pay".
But even by the rules of the people thrusting this upon me, it can only be a contract if I receive consideration. It creates in the society a duty to me. To deny that without also abolishing all law is simple thuggary.
Since paying you a consideration is entirely optional, while obeying the law is not optional, it's clearly not a contract.
But "all" law isn't thuggery. Laws against murder, for example, are inherently beneficial to all people who don't wish to be murdered (and if, for whatever reason, you do wish to be killed, it's easy to classify killing you as not murder in that circumstance). Even murderers don't wish to be murdered. The law benefits all.
"Laws exist, therefore let's use them to force people to live the way we choose, and let's also use them to force people to pay us money we didn't earn" is thuggery.
It's possible to achieve improvements, even though it's impossible to achieve perfection (and usually undesirable to try). The goal is less force, fewer threats, less government power over people, and more personal autonomy.
Saying "anarchy" is just like saying "social contract". Both are false, and neither legitimizes or justifies threatening people to impose your choices on them.
But they are not obligated by any legal contract to provide it. They can decide to provide it today and decide not to provide it tomorrow.
And you didn't get to negotiate the amount you're owed. They can say it's whatever number they want, or zero. You have no recourse to stop obeying the law.
Also, imposing a second involuntary action on person A to compensate for imposing the first involuntary action on person B is a poor process, leading to a never-ending cycle of wrongs. Stop using threats and force against people.
And, more to the point, stop pretending that doing any of this is a "contract". It isn't.
People in power will still use threats (and violence if the threats don't work) to force you to accept their choices instead of your own. The point is:
a. It's not legitimate. Saying "social contract" doesn't make it legitimate.
b. Don't let people get away with pretending their choices are The Good Choices or they are The Good People. Every tyrant can offer justifications.
c. Don't do it yourself -- even if you know which choices are The Good Choices and you know which people are The Good People who can make it all work out great. (This time for sure!)
d. Vote for people who want to take decision making out of government hands. Then you can make your own contracts -- agreements that are mutually beneficial to everyone involved -- or you can decline without being threatened with violence.
Because "social contract" notions are always self serving. Forcing your choices on other people using threats (or implied threats) requires a justification. So "social contract" -- and do what you're told -- or give me the money I did not earn but I want to spend.
Generally, a "contract" is entered into voluntarily, with no force or coercion, or it's not binding.
Air traffic control and airports are paid for by ticket taxes.
"Mandates" and "standards" don't pay for anything -- and setting mandates and standards need not require a huge, costly bureaucracy.
Let automobile manufacturers and buyers pay for automobile standards like electrical appliance makers and buyers pay for UL certification.
Let food-buyers pay for USDA inspections and medicine-buyers pay for FDA. Let shippers pay for rail car inspections.
These things don't require corporate or personal income taxes at all.
The value I get back is a very small fraction of the value I pay in taxes.
I don't get free health care or free education or free social care or a welfare check. Our version of an old age "pension" system exists, but I will probably never get back anywhere near the amount I paid (and will pay) in. Police, fire, ambulance, and parks and playgrounds are paid by local taxes, not national taxes being discussed here. Research is an infinitesimal fraction of the national budget, and lots of that money is wasted. I'm not worried about getting injured by my computer.
We are not saying "down with government". We are saying "less government" and "more cost-effective government".
And personally, I am saying less generous and fewer duplicate (redundant) benefit programs for non-workers.
Step 1: "We've got to pass new laws because of the bad corporations making things worse for us."
Step 2: New laws are passed.
Step 3: Corporations take advantage of the new laws. Things get worse.
Step 4: Go back to step 1
Step Never: Learn that powerful people use government actions to give themselves more power.
I pay a water bill for running water. I pay a fuel tax that goes for roads and bridges and a property tax that goes for streets. I pay sales taxes for prepared food that can go for restaurant inspections, and the restaurants themselves pay for various permits. I also pay a property tax and a local sales tax for fire and police protection. That's how those things are provided.
Income taxes on individuals or corporations are not needed to provide water or roads or food inspections. Why would you imply that they are? Are you intentionally trying to mislead people?
All that does is encourage a race to the bottom.
It's a race. You can call it "to the bottom" if you think you somehow benefit from high taxes. (I don't, because I work and pay taxes instead of sitting at home collecting a benefit check.) If you benefit from having employers able to hire you and pay your salary, it's a race to make your country competitive environment for employers to hire.
How does shift-delete know I want to go back 8 spaces when I'm at the 12th character in a line?
What if the code came from someone else? Then how do you know?
How do you know it's not 3 spaces plus a tab?
Yes it is. Tabs are some number of spaces. If you backspace over them, you will have to hit backspace an unknown number of times. Maybe once because there's just a tab. Maybe 4 times because there are 3 spaces and a tab. Maybe tabs are set to 8 in your terminal and 4 in your editor.
Meanwhile, a space is always 1 space. Always.
If you use a bunch of careful setup and a few workarounds, you can get everything working with tabs so it's just as good as if there were spaces instead of tabs. Or you can just use spaces and not worry about any of that.
Yay! A series of workarounds! Who doesn't love having to do a bunch of workarounds and configuration setup steps to edit code?
Spaces are one space. There's no "unless they aren't that many spaces this time" situation because they're always 1 space.
When I want to backspace over something that's indented with tabs, there's no way to know how many times I will have to hit backspace. Are there 4 spaces and a tab so I have to hit backspace 5 times? Or just a tab, so I have to hit it once?
Also, why would anyone still have a typewriter?
Spaces are 1 space. Tabs are a random number of spaces.
What we really need are "Member 11-99 Foundation" license plate holders -- enough for every car in California.
Maybe. But there would be less risk of imminent harm if the police were less trigger-happy, better trained, more respectful of non-police, and more accountable for their actions.
Tests measure knowledge so schools and teachers can be held accountable for teaching knowledge versus just using up time. If you object to using tests to measure performance, then how would you suggest it should be measured?
My personal preference would be for parents to direct most of the education funding for their child individually. So if a parent wants tests to measure, that parent would send her child to the school with the best performance on tests. If a parent had some other metric, she could use that. Or she could use a balanced approach of tests versus something else she values.
How would you like student and teacher performance to be measured?