Social contract

The “social contract” is supposed to say something to the extent of: “by living in this country, you agree to abide by government’s requirements.
Which could be considered as a justification for the iron curtain: because you were living in the USSR, you agreed to having us make your live as hard as humanly possible. Oh, and we don’t want to let you leave, because your persons are belong to us. !?!?!??

Apart from the (valid) argument “I didn’t sign that!”, how about: “contracts are between 2 or more parties” and clearly government (the failed state) is not holding up its part of the deal, by harming the interests of the people (not only Venezuela, DPRK etc. Do so but certainly every NATO-country which is provoking islamic counterterrorism, and also making war with Russia more likely by the day, by opening new NATO-bases, or holding military exercises, ever closer to the Russian border all the time.
That is NOT representative of the interests of the people!

Then there’s the economic malfeasance of toying with the currency, and so having caused depression after depression.

The following is inspred by http://www.georgeoughttohelp.com/

See the bottom video (“You can always leave”)
Why should I leave? I’m not the one creating the bad situation, so why should the burden of departure fall upon me? (If I would leave – where to? Then I would leave behind millions of other victims for politicians, so leaving would be rather selfish. More pragmatically considered: if the entire population just up and left, there would be no country left for politicians to rule.
And besides, if I move into a different society, I implicitly sign its social contract, choosing to feel that the laws and customs are at the top of my list of most desirable ones (least undesirable ones). This leads to the following:

The only way a social contract might be used, is in this weak form:

“When people live among eachother, certain modes of behavior are more conducive to happy cohabitation.”

So people not killing, or stealing from, others, etc. would fall under the social contract. Note that the tit for that-mechanism (or fear there of) will do just fine for encouraging respect of the social contract: there’s no need for a big, extorting, bully, that breaks social contract rules itself (by stealing taxes from the people, by killing some of them – in war, or in a penal system)

It’s not the government I agree to by living there: by (attempting to) rule over us, they agree to abide to our rules. Because the state of nature is independence and so government is an unnatural construct on top of the natural state of being, government is only tolerated so long as they behave acceptably well, so in effect, the people can behave toward government any way it chooses to. Government is on the bottom rung of the social hierarchy (if even that high up, as to be on a rung at all).
Also, it’s society’s rules I agree to live in accordance with (regarding murder etc.), and since government is hostile to society, and in no way representative of society, I owe no allegiance at all to government.

Advertisements

Homo homini lupus est

Not that I have read Thomas Hobbes so I don’t know exactly in,what exact context he used the expression of man as a wolf, but surely, the suggestion from that phrase must surely be, that submission to the wolves, surrendering all power to them, would be a fatal idea.
Acording to https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_homini_lupus the phrase stands for: “man is a wolf to his fellow man”, if Wiki is to be trusted (never on political issues), then my standpoint must be the correct one.