Proposal for a new social contract
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-03-2013, 06:58 AM
RE: Proposal for a new social contract
You know you're the biggest ignorant fuck since birdman right?

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 07:18 AM
RE: Proposal for a new social contract
Intelligent, scholarly reply.

Pretty well what I expected from earmuff.

Now, if he took those earmuffs off once in a while and started listening -- that would be an improvement! Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 07:20 AM
RE: Proposal for a new social contract
Fucking earmuffs... Dodgy

[Image: 10339580_583235681775606_5139032440228868471_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 07:26 AM
RE: Proposal for a new social contract
(26-03-2013 07:18 AM)Zat Wrote:  Intelligent, scholarly reply.

Pretty well what I expected from earmuff.

Now, if he took those earmuffs off once in a while and started listening -- that would be an improvement! Big Grin
It's earmuffs btw. Or Mr Muffs to you actually, we're not on first name bases.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2013, 09:26 AM
RE: Proposal for a new social contract
OK, I'll just wait to see if anyone else has anything interesting to say.

Till then...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2013, 02:11 AM
RE: Proposal for a new social contract
A new social contract?

I never remember signing the old one.

Just because you call something a "social contract" doesn't make it binding. People have to be in agreement to have a contract.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2013, 02:44 AM
RE: Proposal for a new social contract
(27-01-2013 11:26 AM)Zat Wrote:  Our lives are shaped more by convention, social pressure, inertia and accidents than by intelligent planning.

I was going to formulate a reply, but it would of been just saying this in a way filled with much more pointless rambling.

I agree the idea ought to be moving to push societies in thinking of adjusting these ways... just any on how to is absent from me.

Heywood... was gonna say more, yet it's such a troll attempt; People are in agreement of the "social construct" idea.. simply going with the flow and mainly obeying conventions and rules is doing so. It's a matter of the organic social system something that changes over time through evolution. You shouldn't have a problem understanding that, literally.

"Love is hot, Truth is molten!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2013, 01:04 PM
RE: Proposal for a new social contract
I don't think I've responded to this thread, so I might as well. I've read through some of the thread, previously, but I'm not going through all of it, or looking through again. I'll just respond to the OP.

You should have called the thread 'proposal', maybe for a social and/or political economic model. Nothing is uniquely 'new'. It also, has absolutely nothing to do with 'social contract', that just makes in misleading, if not nonsensical.

(24-08-2011 10:44 AM)Zatamon Wrote:  We are a species of contradictions:

Co-operation and competition; desire for freedom and for power; generosity and greed; loyalty and enmity

In a social context this duality manifests itself as freedom from, and compassion for, one another.

That is just overstating the case. People experience the world subjectively, by default, yet also rely on things part of what they perceive as reality, that includes other human beings making up society.

However that society, culture, reality that shapes them is environmental. Freedom, power, generosity, greed, loyalty, enmity might be a part of a particular mold, to separate or different extents, but not definite or contradictory.

Quote:The different social systems in our history were built on different assumptions of human nature.

- Capitalism assumes that our primary motivation is greedy self interest (freedom and competition)
- Communism is built on the assumption that we can be like a family, each caring equally for all (compassion and sharing).
- Socialism of various kinds try to find a compromise between those extremes.

Social systems are manifestations of human nature, for the most part. The rest are made up and/or applied subsequently.

Capitalism, as far as I can tell, if any thing, only ever assumed scarcity. Beyond that, if that is even the case, it's simply a system that fell in line with certain people's beliefs at a particular time in history and/or along with what they viewed would be an ideal, or workable or acceptable, system for economics.

Communism was, again, as far as I know, a part of Marxist theory, as a final stage of development, economically, socially, politically. If any thing, communism only assumes that things, at a particular time in the future, would be working, in such a way, that traditional social systems and concepts that made up organizational structure, an others that would be worked against to be reduced and abolished, would simply become obsolete.

Mixed economies, are the result of movement, away from the right-wing (what you are seemingly, in an attempt, labeling as compromise). Socialism is just fixing a lot of the problems with capitalism, a way of moving away from the right, what above I called 'traditional social systems and concepts.... that would be worked against to be reduced and abolished', mainly private ownership, specifically of things people in society need to live, prosper and progress, and profits, or it describes a full system prior to communism, which would be prior dropping off what I above called 'traditional social systems and concepts that made up organizational structure', mainly money, states and classes.

Quote:So far without much success, because the compromises were arbitrary, piecemeal, without a clearly defined principle.

That assumes compromises: both as actually having been made between two parties and as a cause for lack of success. Do you live in the West? Or East/other? The East/other consists of people who never truly went through the prerequisite stages, who were backwards politically, socially and economically, and really weren't a correct model for the implementation or ideas (if you could even call them ideas previously), that they were attempting to build, thus becoming backwards x2, and for the most part today are periphery/semi nations. In the West, especially the US, we reacted to the backwardness x2 of the East/others, politically, in what was a period called the Cold War (1947 to 1991 by Wiki), prior to that was a Civil War, a Reconstruction, Industrial Revolution, Depression and World War, and during/after that there was a Civil Rights movement, a Women's rights movement, cultural/societal shifts in general, and advancements in modern science and technology, previously unavailable, possibly, to a lot, unimaginable.

Damn, we had a lot of time to "compromise" and figure things out.

Quote:Can we find a compromise acceptable to most people?

I believe we can.

Let’s agree that we acknowledge both of our needs: freedom from, and compassion for, one another. Let us agree that the compassion part has priority, up to where the basic survival needs of every citizen in our country is assured. Beyond this point our priorities change and our need for freedom takes over.

The concept I have in mind is a variety of the ‘Basic Income Alternative’ a policy that has been and is currently studied by various western governments (including Ireland and Canada).

In my version, we have a two-compartment economy, with the two parts completely isolated from each other. One, the public sector, is communist in nature, while the second, the private sector, is pure capitalism.

In the public sector, basic human needs are the responsibility of the national government and takes priority over every other human activity. In the public sector there is no money.

The government is in charge of all the industries and infrastructure (without exception) required to provide basic human needs: food, clothing, housing, health, education, communication, transportation.

The government controls all the resources necessary to eliminate poverty and make sure every citizen’s basic needs are satisfied.

The basic human needs can be easily calculated by using scientific data on age-dependent calorie requirements, climate-dependent clothing and housing requirement, population-dependent health- and education-requirement and the necessary energy and raw-material production, as well as the necessary infrastructure in transportation and communication. It could be easily planned – and adapted, as conditions change - based on physiological, climatic and demographic data.

Production in this economy presupposes that the sector is self contained, the nation has all the resources required to implement this system; no foreign trade is required.

Basic human needs are very easy to satisfy - we have all the resources and the technology to do it in abundance today, if we put everything else on hold and eliminate all waste (ostentation, lavish entertainment, military, finance, duplication and competition) until basic human needs are satisfied. In my opinion no ethical human being could justify spending any amount of resources on those items I just listed, as long as there is one hungry child or homeless citizen in the country.

This does not mean that I would want to live without arts or sports or some luxuries, but the beauty of the system is that I would not have to. The key word above is ***ABUNDANCE***. With intelligent organization, elimination of wasteful competition and duplication, we could produce ***ENOUGH*** of the basic necessities to accommodate individual differences in needs and statistical fluctuations in demand, with a comfortable margin of safety.

No regulation on the individual level is necessary. The produced goods and services could be made freely available: people could just help themselves in the warehouses, find the ‘basic quality’ house they need, close to the place where they work. If basic needs are guaranteed, no sane person would bother with hoarding, so no artificial shortages would happen (the assumption being that insane persons are in a very tiny minority).

Besides being in charge of all production activity to satisfy this goal, the government will have to maintain the police and the courts to make sure the system is defended against criminals, sociopaths and psychopaths. Another beauty of the system is that once basic needs are satisfied, the level of crime, violence and destructive behavior will decrease drastically.

The time an average citizen will have to work in the Public Sector could be as low as 2-3 hours per workday. This minimal contribution can be accumulated in advance to provide for vacations and personal projects, but would not be transferable to make sure no person has a ‘free ride’. You don’t have to ‘save up’ for illness and retirement, because those are provided for by the excess safety buffer built into the system.

The government would stay the sole ‘owner’ of all natural resources that are common birthright of all citizens. Among these are primarily land, air, water, space, forests, wildlife, mineral deposits, communication frequency bands. Nobody can expropriate any of this for exclusive personal use beyond what they are entitled to in their basic needs (these needs are defined by national consensus, reached by referendum, based on scientific and demographic data).

After basic needs are satisfied and poverty, hunger, preventable illness and ignorance is eliminated from the nation; crimes are prevented to the best of the police’s ability, then the government’s task ends. It has done all in its power to make sure that basic human needs are satisfied, nobody goes hungry, no one freezes to death on a winter sidewalk, nobody gets abused by crime or exploitation, no one too young, old or sick gets neglected, no human greed and evil is allowed to rule.

The second compartment in the economy which would be completely private, and totally separate from the Public Sector and the government. Other than assuring that no criminal activity (theft, fraud, murder, pollution, inhumanity to animals, etc) is taking place in the second tier, the government is staying completely out of it.

The private sector could be organized in any way participants want to - it can have money and banks and loans and interest rates and what-have-you. It can lease excess natural resources (only in a sustainable way) from the government for its own purposes, by contributing extra benefit to the public, basic-needs production economy (they can not pay in currency because the government does not use any). The value of natural resources in terms of public service provided for its use will have to be calculated by the economic planners of the government, based on scarcity of resources versus public benefit of service provided for it. It has to be dynamic, with strict guidelines protecting it from abuse.

Nobody could be forced to participate in the ‘private sector’ of the economy, it would be strictly voluntary. If the private economy organizes itself to use a recognized common currency, then citizens could get ‘paid’ for their work in the private sector and use this money to purchase luxuries (products and services beyond basic needs) just as they do now. The private sector could do any amount of foreign trade so long as it does not compromise the public economy.

No compromise would be tolerated when it comes to basic needs and rights, the sustainability of the system, the health of the environment and the rights of other living species. Of course there are millions of details to be worked out, I only wanted to describe the basic principles of a ‘workable’ social organization. And, of course, I have no roadmap leading from ‘A’ to ‘B’ and don’t even know if such a roadmap is possible in the immediate future. However, I wanted to describe how a social organization could exist without money.

To summarize:

The essence of my system: People decide that the most important goal is to make sure everybody’s basic needs are met. They create an economy to assure that. There is no money involved, every able citizen contributes a minimum number of hours per day and the produced goods are made available to everyone freely. This economy is completely self contained: it has its power generating stations, mining, industries, agriculture, transportation and communication facilities, schools and hospitals.

Now, whoever wants more can do it in their spare time, as long as 1./ they don’t touch our economy in any way whatsoever (if they can’t do it without us, it is their problem, we will not let anything compromise the ‘prime directive’). 2./ They don’t cause damage to the environment and don’t harm anyone in the process (including other species).

As Will Durant wrote in “The Lessons of History (chapter X. - Government and History) -- “If our economy of freedom fails to distribute wealth as ably as it has created it, the road to dictatorship will be open to any man who can persuasively promise security to all; and a martial government, under whatever charming phrases, will engulf the democratic world”

Prior to the things I mentioned, from a US perspective the Declaration of Independence is like 1776; Constitution is like 1787; the Enlightenment, modern Western thought, in general, I'll start with Meditations on First Philosophy, René Descartes 1641, and An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, John Locke like 1690, and for science, On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres, Nicolaus Copernicus like 1543.

If your argument is that we have basically had maybe 100-200 years to get shit together, maybe 500 at the most, I'd agree that we haven't.

500 years is basically 5 old fucks, back to back, maybe double that if you are a pessimist.

This shit has worked; Enlightenment has worked.

Do you seriously think you are the only idiot in town with a gun? Do you seriously think you are the first to propose a silver bullet?

That, in essence, is a perpetually, yet self developed catch 22.

You are proposing a position that we would be in simply by being in a certain position, yet not being in that position, requires actually being in that position, that is being aspired to be achieved.

You are also ignoring the fact that we are aspiring and working to be in that position, already, right now, and have been for some time now, successfully. You are simply proposing an end to a means, like somehow it's a good idea, new or unique, when people have been aspiring toward that position, if not something very similar, for some time now; however, not ignoring the means, altogether.

If you propose the means, that would be nice, though I can only assume it isn't a new, unique or innovative, means, but until then, I can't really take any thing you are saying very seriously, other than realizing that you seem like a pretty smart, aware guy.

I understand that you can propose or agree to ends, and I like your ideas, for the most part. Now, lead us to the promise land Mr. Moses. Or would that require Q-like, powers? If you already provided the proposals needed as a means, and I didn't read them, simply link me to the location.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2013, 02:06 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2013 02:10 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: Proposal for a new social contract
Like you, this is the first time I have noticed this discussion, and social contracts is my specialty being the author of the Secular Library Knowledge Classification and the Secular Library Charter System.

The discussion leader has left the discussion ungaurded for a long time, now, and I have found that he has campaigned his idea in a couple of other forums:

http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=15199

http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/v...f=5&t=7667


Since you like to analize social contracts, check out my renditions, and we can continue this discussion in earnest.

http://www.secularlibrary.com

CAUTION: If you had any ambition of authoring a constitution, don't read my stuff, because you will be forever indebted to the format that I devised - there is no more efficient organizational format than the one I put together. If you want to debate me on that theory alone - fine, read it. I will win the debate, and I will rub your nose in it, just as I do to every other atheist idiot.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2013, 03:01 PM (This post was last modified: 31-03-2013 06:55 AM by Zat.)
RE: Proposal for a new social contract
(29-03-2013 01:04 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  I don't think I've responded to this thread, so I might as well. I've read through some of the thread, previously, but I'm not going through all of it, or looking through again. I'll just respond to the OP.
...
I f you bother to read through the whole thread, you will be surprised how many intelligent responses I got to this thread almost 2 years ago.

Who would have thought that in less than two years the English language could lose all meaning?

It certainly supports my theory on the Bell Curve. Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: