The Social Contract

[muichimotsu]

Yeah, I reject this notion of a social contract. A contract is volitional. Laws enforced by the point of a gun kind of put the lie to it being a contract. A propper government is there to protect the rights of the individual, not to abridge them. Also I never signed any contract and was never given any choice. Who in their right mind would sign a contract with terms that can be amended unilaterally. Not me. I agree to respect the individual rights of every man or woman, to not initiate the use of force, to deal honestly and to mutual benefit by means of trade, to be productive and keep my hands off other peoples' lives and property. Those are my terms.

Then you've technically formed a sort of contract and have terms that others can agree upon, merely because it isn't formalized doesn't mean it doesn't have some degree of validity, even if it isn't in the same way we think of other contracts; even if many of those are entered into unknowingly or not with full knowledge (Terms and Conditions)

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Then you've technically formed a sort of contract and have terms that others can agree upon, merely because it isn't formalized doesn't mean it doesn't have some degree of validity, even if it isn't in the same way we think of other contracts; even if many of those are entered into unknowingly or not with full knowledge (Terms and Conditions)

It's the fact that this "contract" is imposed on me at the point of a gun that invalidates it, not that it isn't formalized. I completely reject the notion that living among others in a group means that I have to give up some of my rights. That's exactly what every dictator that has ever existed says. A right imposes no obligation on anyone and harms no one. If it did it wouldn't be a right.

 

[muichimotsu]

It's the fact that this "contract" is imposed on me at the point of a gun that invalidates it, not that it isn't formalized. I completely reject the notion that living among others in a group means that I have to give up some of my rights. That's exactly what every dictator that has ever existed says. A right imposes no obligation on anyone and harms no one. If it did it wouldn't be a right.

Who's remotely advocating that kind of authoritarianism versus something that is able to consider that extenuating circumstances can necessitate the involvement of the government with the understanding that it should be a temporary thing at best?

Except you necessarily have to give up the idea that your rights are absolute in their extent, they must be constrained, even if that isn't the same as giving them up, it is modulating them to the situation. Your right to punch someone stops at their nose, correct?

A right in itself is the negative liberty, a right in execution is positive liberty, I think you're confusing the two nuances

 

[klutedavid]

"In moral and political philosophy, the social contract is a theory or model that originated during the Age of Enlightenment and usually concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order.[2][3]"
Social contract - Wikipedia

So, I was recently involved in a discussion about the fact that I will not be taking any mandatory vaccination. And if one is introduced into the society I am apart of, I believe that I will have to pull out, for conscience sake.


I gave reason for my decision--the gist of it being, that I do not agree with that level of control over myself, because I am already under a much higher Sovereign. Therefore, I will not place myself under any other headship.

Anyways, the discussion moved to him giving an "I'm an Island" type of argument and that he will choose to take a mandatory vaccination, because whatever agenda they might have doesn't mean anything to him. In other words, he was placing himself within the comforting idea that it's all relative to the individual and so his decision was his own to bear, apart from any liability.

This is when I reminded him about how the powers that be see it, as summed up in such statements as, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" (Ignorantia juris non excusat - Wikipedia). I also reminded him that we have entered a social contract wherein he and I have experienced, first hand, its power as we have both been incarcerated. So, if he truly is an island, why did he do 40+ years in prison? He didn't like this at all.

Basically, I wanted to show him that it doesn't matter whether he believes he will accept the mandatory vaccination for himself alone, apart from any effect on others. The fact of the matter is, is that he is just as liable as the one injecting it into the bloodstream.

So, if there are to be negative consequences for those of us who do not consent to the vaccinations, it should be understood that whatever those consequences are, e.g., loss of employment, a tax, a fine, etc...those who do take the vaccination are giving their blessing to it and have become surety for all debt.

Thoughts?

There are much bigger issues than a jab in the arm, to be concerned with these days.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I'm probably going to wait a month or so just so I can know that the vaccine is effective and doesn't have notable side effects.

It's probably going to be longer than that...

Florida for instance has 1.3 million jobs in the healthcare industry.. on the other hand in this first run they are getting 179,400 vaccines.

That seriously limits who gets the vaccine at first, highest priority to COVID facing health care workers (ICU nurses etc.)

Each run where each state is given more vaccines, will be running down the list of those at highest risk, staying at first within the healthcare industry and first responders almost solely, then outward to those at the highest risk of mortality then to general population.

States like Massachusetts don't believe the general population will start getting vaccinated until April at earliest.

By then if they are still talking about an extreme shortage of healthcare professionals we know not to take the vaccine.

 

[Strathos]

It's probably going to be longer than that...

Florida for instance has 1.3 million jobs in the healthcare industry.. on the other hand in this first run they are getting 179,400 vaccines.

That seriously limits who gets the vaccine at first, highest priority to COVID facing health care workers (ICU nurses etc.)

Each run where each state is given more vaccines, will be running down the list of those at highest risk, staying at first within the healthcare industry and first responders almost solely, then outward to those at the highest risk of mortality then to general population.

States like Massachusetts don't believe the general population will start getting vaccinated until April at earliest.

By then if they are still talking about an extreme shortage of healthcare professionals we know not to take the vaccine.

I meant a month after it first becomes available to me.