Selfishness

[o_mlly]

Ah, but what about when that 'social contract' fails its moral obligation to the old, the poor, the young, the vulnerable, the neglected, the outcasts, or a myriad other socially disenfranchised and disaffected groups? I would argue that in such situations your venerable social contract gets superseded by the overarching right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 'Community' isn't sacrosanct, but those rights are.

And your point is?

So yes, where your 'social contract' fails, and it often does, then any claim to authority that the community may think it has becomes null and void.

Legally migrate.

Everyone has been given the gift of life, and with that life comes the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and no entity exists that can usurp that right.

Who gave you the right to life?

 

[partinobodycular]

And your point is?

When disenfranchised, people have the right to deviate from your venerable social contract.

Legally migrate.

People are under no obligation to do any such thing.

Who gave you the right to life?

The same entity that gave you yours. If you wish to claim some moral superiority take it up therewith.

 

[o_mlly]

When disenfranchised, people have the right to deviate from your venerable social contract.

? Why do you keep trying to make this exchange personal? Your social contract is the same as mine, and every other citizen of the USA.

Are there any grounds to justify the disfranchisement of human beings who are by nature political animals? Only two: infancy and pathological disablement by amentia or dementia. In addition, criminal behavior justifies a deprivation of political liberty, as well as liberty of action, either for a period of time or for life.

People are under no obligation to do any such thing.

? People have the freedom to emigrate.

The same entity that gave you yours. If you wish to claim some moral superiority take it up therewith.

You can say His name. It's in our Declaration of Independence. Hint: It's not the King of England.

 

[Studyman]

Yes. Such as stealing bread when your family is starving....where have I heard from that before? Hmmm....

What an interesting philosophy. If I have joined myself to God in Faith, and God places me in a circumstance where I and my family are hungry. Is rejecting God's Commandment and "Stealing" my only option? Where in the Bible did God ever place His People in a place where they were forced to reject His Commandment that they might eat? I mean, Shadrack refused to reject God's Word at the price of being thrown into a furnace of fire. There is a lesson in there someplace.

What about humbling oneself and offing their labor for food to feed the family. What about asking someone if they can help. Of course, this would cause humiliation for some. It would be much easier and less humiliating to just sneak around and steal what is not yours. That would save the pride from being hurt. Which is certainly selfish.

God said HE wouldn't place a circumstance on His people that the only way out was to sin against Him.

When all the lipstick is removed, the very foundation of "Theft" is selfishness, in my view.

 

[timothyu]

When all the lipstick is removed, the very foundation of "Theft" is selfishness, in my view.

It's also not trusting in God to provide, that is if it be His will. But as we all know, giving up control does not come easy to mankind.

 

[partinobodycular]

Your social contract is the same as mine, and every other citizen of the USA.

A social contract isn't between me and the state. The state is simply the local authority in charge of the administration thereof. The contract is between you, me, and everybody else. So long as the contract is fairly derived and equitably applied everything is hunky-dory, but in such circumstances where it isn't, the obligation to abide by it is diminished.

Are there any grounds to justify the disfranchisement of human beings who are by nature political animals?

No, there are no grounds under which disenfranchisement (applying the social contract inequitably) is ever acceptable.

In addition, criminal behavior justifies a deprivation of political liberty, as well as liberty of action, either for a period of time or for life.

So long as your 'criminal behavior' doesn't include actions undertaken in defense of one's rights then I have absolutely no objection.

? People have the freedom to emigrate.

And the right not to.

You can say His name. It's in our Declaration of Independence. Hint: It's not the King of England.

Oh, by all means show me where.

 

[o_mlly]

A social contract isn't between me and the state. The state is simply the local authority in charge of the administration thereof. The contract is between you, me, and everybody else. So long as the contract is fairly derived and equitably applied everything is hunky-dory, but in such circumstances where it isn't, the obligation to abide by it is diminished.

Nonsense.

No, there are no grounds under which disenfranchisement (applying the social contract inequitably) is ever acceptable.
So long as your 'criminal behavior' doesn't include actions undertaken in defense of one's rights then I have absolutely no objection.
And the right not to.
Oh, by all means show me where.

More of the same.

 

[Ophiolite]

Nonsense.

More of the same.

Such a well argued, insightful response. The balance of reason and evidence is astounding in its depth and breadth. I am wholly converted to your view. Remarkable and memorable eloquence.

 

[o_mlly]

Such a well argued, insightful response. The balance of reason and evidence is astounding in its depth and breadth. I am wholly converted to your view. Remarkable and memorable eloquence.

You're welcome.