I’m disconcerted by/about the arising of a strand of philosophy that claims that lacking a (fictional) social contract, coercion of the population is acceptable.
Such activists presumably feel that neither the French in 1792, nor the Russians in 1917/the 1990s, had a right to overthrow their oppresive, exploitative governments.
Such people clearly lack both perspective and a functioning moral compass. The solution/refutation is so simple: all governments are capable of, is:
- And to finance all that: Stealing.
(Fits nicely on the digits of one hand!)
The people are the only ones actually capable of producing.
So: are people better off with or without a government?
And what would be the implied order of priority Seems to me that people outrank government. So the only acceptable coercion is of politicians., by civillians. Since that’s never gonna happen, because politicians have to volunteer for the job and they only volunteer for jobs when they can have some fun in them, thesloution is staring us in the face, government is entirely unworkable/unacceptable/ even downright impossible.
So: time for an overthrowing (of academia & of government).