I am now a double drop-out

[Montmorency]

Since the dominators are the dominant members of the species, their genes won't be eliminated. Since the selfish and greedy types are the dominant members of our species, we are doomed.

So would you welcome for governments to invest in cybernetics, genetics, and neuroscience research directly with the goal of producing a successor-race to humanity?

The welfare state is being dismantled under the guise of financial crisis. Europe is not going the route of more socialism, on the contrary.

It's still a very strong sentiment I'm sure, that the government, regardless of its size, has some worth and institutional authority.

[Andres]

So would you welcome for governments to invest in cybernetics, genetics, and neuroscience research directly with the goal of producing a successor-race to humanity?

Do you trust those who are the problem to create a race that is not like them?

It's still a very strong sentiment I'm sure, that the government, regardless of its size, has some worth and institutional authority.

Authority?

We don't obey because they have authority, we obey because they have power.

Also, the government is just one body holding power. All power is not exclusively in the hands of governments, that would be a gross misconception. There are plently of other players holding several degrees of power. Think of media, banks and other multinationals as the most obvious examples.

[Montmorency]

We don't obey because they have authority, we obey because they have power.

I disagree that this is the factor behind most behavior with respect to government structures (at least in Western Europe). Most of the people who don't cheat on their taxes don't avoid doing so out of fear of punishment, but out of a conviction that it is wrong; this is so with the other 'bureaucratic' crimes, as well as with major crimes such as rape and murder (though with things like that, it's not really a belief that it's the government that is being wronged...).

Think of media, banks and other multinationals as the most obvious examples.

I think we're using power and authority differently. These don't have coercive power to any great extent, at least not directly.

Do you trust those who are the problem to create a race that is not like them?

Surely not. That's why they'd have to delude themselves into thinking it's to create a military advantage or somesuch.

[Andres]

I disagree that this is the factor behind most behavior with respect to government structures (at least in Western Europe). Most of the people who don't cheat on their taxes don't avoid doing so out of fear of punishment, but out of a conviction that it is wrong; this is so with the other 'bureaucratic' crimes, as well as with major crimes such as rape and murder (though with things like that, it's not really a belief that it's the government that is being wronged...).

Cheating on taxes is a national sport in Belgium...

The only reason why most of us don't, is because it's very hard for the little man to cheat on his taxes without getting caught. But most "little men" I know will inform themselves on how to, legally, pay the minimum amount of taxes possible.

I'm not sure if Belgium is representative for the rest of Europe in that regard, but as far as the heart of Europe is concerned, people hate paying taxes and will do everything they can to avoid them without getting caught. Fear of punishment is the main reason why most people don't cheat. The other reason is that most taxes, certainly for employees, are directly taken at the source, so you simply can't avoid them.

I think we're using power and authority differently. These don't have coercive power to any great extent, at least not directly.

Does it matter if their coercive power is direct or indirect? And do you truly believe media and multinationals do not have coercive power? It's not always necessary to have a military type waving with a gun to force you to do or not to do something.

Surely not. That's why they'd have to delude themselves into thinking it's to create a military advantage or somesuch.

You can say a lot about the people who are dominant, but they are not stupid. You won't delude the ruling class. It usually goes the other way around.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Andres:

I view the concept of the Social Contract more as a label rather than as a contract in the sense of known terms, informed consent, etc. The consent of a ruled class for the dominion of a ruling class is almost always tacit and that consent is almost always extended in exchange for security. It is certainly possible for a ruling class to manufacture that consent through security, panem et circum, and the like -- it worked for Republican Rome for more than 4 centuries. The idea of a social contract does NOT require that contract to be of equal benefit -- it merely describes a societal arrangement that all agree, however tacitly and unwillingly, to continue to support. When that support is withdrawn we enter a period of Hobbesian naturalism.

Deconstruction is actually a very useful tool in uncovering the actual components of the social contract governing a society -- and yes, a ruling class does have a vested interest in keeping the details of that "contract" a bit fuzzy in their efforts to manufacture consent -- by questioning the palliative labels and digging into the dynamics of power as practiced. I was arguing that Post-modernists tend to STOP there, rather than actively advancing a new "social contract" assuming that we will all somehow morph into some kind of communard extended village of the future thing. That's just the same old "historical inevitability" crap that Marx peddled -- and it comes up a cropper.

[Andres]

Andres:

I view the concept of the Social Contract more as a label rather than as a contract in the sense of known terms, informed consent, etc. The consent of a ruled class for the dominion of a ruling class is almost always tacit and that consent is almost always extended in exchange for security. It is certainly possible for a ruling class to manufacture that consent through security, panem et circum, and the like -- it worked for Republican Rome for more than 4 centuries. The idea of a social contract does NOT require that contract to be of equal benefit -- it merely describes a societal arrangement that all agree, however tacitly and unwillingly, to continue to support. When that support is withdrawn we enter a period of Hobbesian naturalism.

With that part of your post, you highlight one of the problems I have with a lot of philosophers. When confronted with critique, they play word games and attribute meanings to certain words that they do not have in the normal use of language. With a bit of good will, you can see a similarity with the tension "ivory tower academic - real world practician".

You can twist words as much as you want, but the word contract implies agreement. Sure, you can have a valid contract between parties in a different position of power, but the difference between those exercising power and those not is so large, that the powerful is capable of simply imposing his will on the other party so that the other party no longer has a free will and can no longer agree. If the ruled one disagrees, the ruling one will either force him to agree or eliminate him.

The use of the word "social contract" is wrong. Not only is it wrong in the sense that it is not correct, it is also wrong in the sense that it, wrongfully, implies a justification for the existence of a ruling class. It is wrong because it gives the ruling class a legitimacy it does not have. The people being ruled never agreed to be ruled and thus there can be no contract and also no justification for the ruler in the sense that he got his power from the people. He did not.

It's not just wrong, it is also a dangerous lie. You make people believe they have to respect the social contract, because they agreed to it. You make people believe they agreed to slavery. But they never agreed to it, so they don't need to respect it either. Of course, the ruling class defends the idea of the social contract and of course they will insist that it is a true and correct concept. Because it's a theory that gives the impression that they have the right to oppress you. They don't, however.

Deconstruction is actually a very useful tool in uncovering the actual components of the social contract governing a society -- and yes, a ruling class does have a vested interest in keeping the details of that "contract" a bit fuzzy in their efforts to manufacture consent -- by questioning the palliative labels and digging into the dynamics of power as practiced. I was arguing that Post-modernists tend to STOP there, rather than actively advancing a new "social contract" assuming that we will all somehow morph into some kind of communard extended village of the future thing. That's just the same old "historical inevitability" crap that Marx peddled -- and it comes up a cropper.

The only interest the ruling class has, is to rule.

From what I remember of that part of the introductions to various branches of philosophy we got, I'd dare say postmodernists mostly play word games nobody truly gets and therefore, they are the worst kind of philosophers. Most of them would've better quoted Wittgenstein "what we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence" and should've stopped right there.

Luckily, the present day postmodernist no longer has to write his essays himself; it suffices to click this link.

[Montmorency]

people would indeed accurately assess what their fare share is.

But what does that really mean? I just don't suppose it's possible - or perhaps it doesn't even make conceptual sense in the first place.

Ah, Montmorency, but perhaps returning to small-scale agricultural communalism would be, in fact, progress.

But as I hinted, what's to stop the cycle from swinging back in the direction of centralization. It's not conceivable to me how in a return to such a lifestyle we could retain most of the technological innovation from the past three-or-four hundred years. Coupled with the attendant loss of historical awareness that I think would follow, it would be not too much different than Sisyphus being pushed back a few meters. Also, don't forget that such a transition would entail the deaths of hundreds of millions of moderns. I just can't see a scenario where this process moves along without a nuclear exchange between nations occurring at some point.

Cheating on taxes is a national sport in Belgium...

I'll take the easy way out and say that most people (generally speaking) are socialized toward disapproval of: considering the police as "pigs"; shooting at representatives of the national postal service or census bureau; questioning the basic legitimacy of law in general (while taking their own state as a democracy).

And do you truly believe media and multinationals do not have coercive power?

Well, let's take "coercive power" as the ability to obtain concessions from a group or individual by the explicit or implicit (i.e. the 'victim' perceives a threat and/or knows of the coercer's capacities) resort to threat toward the 'victim's' person or economic status. In that case, yes, the media and large corporations can be included. But the means matter; only governments - corporations in the West are excluded here - have coercive power backed by destructive force toward the implementation of threats. Though on that note, for some countries it is indeed the case that the Mafia are major wielders of coercive power.

You won't delude the ruling class.

They're not actually all that brilliant, if you ask me.

You make people believe they agreed to slavery.

But I'll say it as I have said elsewhere on the board: the bondage we are born into is the bondage we cannot see.

[Kralizec]

The use of the word "social contract" is wrong. Not only is it wrong in the sense that it is not correct, it is also wrong in the sense that it, wrongfully, implies a justification for the existence of a ruling class. It is wrong because it gives the ruling class a legitimacy it does not have. The people being ruled never agreed to be ruled and thus there can be no contract and also no justification for the ruler in the sense that he got his power from the people. He did not.

It's not just wrong, it is also a dangerous lie. You make people believe they have to respect the social contract, because they agreed to it. You make people believe they agreed to slavery. But they never agreed to it, so they don't need to respect it either. Of course, the ruling class defends the idea of the social contract and of course they will insist that it is a true and correct concept. Because it's a theory that gives the impression that they have the right to oppress you. They don't, however.

Your idea of the social contract is slightly off.

It has been defined differently by various philosphers, but generally speaking it amounts to: why do people submit themselves to laws? Why should they respect them? (other than that God told them to; that was getting old)

The reason is that an existence without laws is a terrible one, and that people voluntarily agree to be constrained by law because they're generally better off that way. Of course, you'd need to have an authority to enforce said laws, too. Locke viewed the social contract as an agreement between the people and the government. Most other philosophers stressed that it's foremost a contract between the people.

Granted; it's a fiction and the guys who theorized about this were aware of that. But if a bunch of people got stranded on a remote island it's perfectly plausible that it would work out just that way, and it's a valid reason to justify the obligation to respect the law.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Andres:

I get your point. While I was "parsing" things a bit, the intent was not to obfuscate. "We get the government we deserve" through such "contracts." Those in power tend to want to reify that power -- no surprise there.

For me, the most beautiful words regarding government were those that begat my country:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Everybody always trots out the first of these three sentences, but the second two are as, and arguably more, important.