The Social Contract

repression was needed?

On mobile right now, but you should know the noble savage is a bit of a hyperbolic and over simplistic reading of his work

no state deserves anything, especially blind loyalty.

I agree. I did ask what are the limits of the loyalty and obedience to the state. I'll drive on the right side of the road, and stop at red lights, but I will not torture children for the state.

not wanting to die in a traffic accident or get arrested is not loyalty to the state, its fear of death and imprisonment.

well it's not heroic loyalty to the state, but it's a kind of obedience. The state makes some rules, traffic laws or whatever. These aren't moral laws, just conventions to keep order.

But that is one role of the state.

What are the other roles of the state?

Its not obedience to not drive into head on traffic, people will only follow traffic laws to the extent that it benefits them to do so. Traffic laws don't keep societal order, its a way to make people kill themselves less or to get people arrested to create more tax revenue.

To fuck you in the ass for asking stupid questions. lurk more

Imbecile, traffic laws, like most other laws, exist to disincentivize crime, and in the case of traffic laws, dangerous driving practices. Please think at least one move ahead before proposing conspiracy theories to explain the things you don't understand.

harvardlawreview.org/2015/04/policing-and-profit/

Many county's in the united states greatest form of tax revenue comes from traffic tickets. Its not a conspiracy, their are things called speed traps for a reason. I know because i live in an area where the local government makes most of its money by ticketing people at one particular interchange where the speed limit suddenly decreases.

Get fucked :^)

Great job reaching out and educating the people, there comrade.

Yes.. tickets are a source of revenue, but nothing happens without money,,,,

Do you know if accidents declined at the intersection?

...

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure Locke was talking more about society in general, and referred to the state as a sort of "our civilization" ideal. Obviously he was a man of his time, but I'm sure it is perfectly applicable to socialism in the sense of society (inb4 spook) - a collective of people living together with interdependence on each others work - agreeing to certain things such as don't fucking needlessly kill others or steal personal property.
It's a pretty basic concept really, similar ideals can be found in non-western works such as Confucius.

I don't just not want to die in a traffic accident, I don't want other to die in an accident.

"bait" I'm not trying to anger you for my own amusement. I am curious about Marxist theory and role of the state.

I just wanted an intelligent conversation with my coffee this morning,, I may as well as gone to Holla Forums and posted pics of my bunghole as far as talking to you is concerned.

So you view mass man as some sort of mindless retard that will only not hurt himself if he is threatened with state sanctioned violence.

...

That's Hobbs not Aristotle. I interpret that quote as meaning that he recognizes the value for the greater good of at least a few laws.

Aristotle is saying he obeys those laws not from fear of punishment but because it is the right thing to do.

How do our modern political labels apply to the ancient world?

I hope you aren't serious.

The social contract itself should not regard the state so much as the people.

The roots of such a position actually come from one of Plato's dialogues (I forgot which) where Socrates makes a pretty weird statement about how people belong to the state they live in and forced to abide by its rules. Of course, I don't think he'd say such a thing in modern day because all land is now territory of different states, but at the time this was the social contract.

It was Rousseau who made a move towards a more coherent idea of the social contract: you don't belong to the state, but the ethical life is really the best life when one is living in a society, and a shift from personal desire to help one's self, to a personal desire to help others will make us happier and generally better off in the long run.

I don't like the word obedience user. I think anyone does not like being referred to as a dog. We still have rights.

...

Stirner was wrong though

Actually, guess who made that meme you're posting against me

What did you mean by this?

Yes. I am serious.

In a culture, where slavery was a given, rulers routinely claimed to be descended from gods to gain legitimacy, and having people fight to the death for entertainment was popular, who would you call a "liberal"?

I mean read Kierkegaard

(I'm kidding. Well, mostly)

Whilst Kierkegaard and Cioran offer a very good ironic appeal as to why Stirner's philosophy is nonsensical (and why life is the flower of fixed ideas and therefore Stirner is life denying), there are 2 main *philosophical reaons* to reject Stirner.

1. It's ahistorical. The "ego" or "creative nothing" assumes that one is what one is already, and that there is something fundamentally unchangeable about a person. But this isn't true. We are shaped irreversibly by our experiences and interactions.
It may sound controversial, but we *are* our obsessions, they are a part of us. One can't categorise "someone else's cause" and "my cause", and whilst it's true that all actions are fundamentally because you want to do it, the "you" isn't a concrete thing- it's outer lines are blurred by relation to the external, like a membrane. "the creative nothing" is a cop out.

2. It's based on rejection of the Hegelian universal, and this makes Stirner an anti-Hegelian materialist, rather than a Post-Hegelian or "true Hegelian" like people wanna believe. Because Hegel is right, Stirner is wrong :^)

if we change the word to "compliance" does it appeal to you more?

No, not really. Coercion is used all the same. Where's the democracy?

I agree with the entirety of your post, but wasn't Stirner an idealist.

>inb4 le materialism is idealism XDDD maymay

For one group people to enjoy power and muh privilege that comes at the direct expense of most of the other people in society, yes. repression was needed.

If you want to obfuscate and confuse people and provoke people with Hegelianism, then yes materialism is idealism, but given that you probably want to represent your opponents fairly, and most materialists wouldn't take kindly to the assumption that Hegel was correct on that point at least, I'm not going to do that mean thing that Yui does.

Stirner wasn't an idealist, he was a materialist. He rejects the Hegelian universal. I think if you study the context of his thought, this becomes obvious. His philosophy is based on the pure (and incorrect) idea of ego and everything external to ego.

What's less obvious is that he's a communist, you have to read his critics and followers to realise he thought of himself that way

Hobbes was right, and all of you are on the wrong side of philosophy.

Hobbes pls go

In democracy, I am expected to submit to the will of the majority so isn't there a little element of "coercion" there as well.

why is the majority view automatically moral and true? (That might be a topic for a whole other thread.)

All enlightenment philosophers are shit.

I haven't read Hegel yet, starting with Science of Logic soon, but I think I get what you mean with the universal.

Indeed, I know you have read some Lacanian lit, and this is a problem that is quickly noticed with Stirner, he believes in an ego (a subject) who is undivided and whose actions are only for his own pleasure, while ignoring the presence of the Other in one's life.

But serious question, what is it you mean when you consider materialism to be idealism?

Always? Can someone not have influence because of their abilities and knowledge. This is power, but in a more limited way.

Could the perks of that status be freely given by society?

Just Trying to be optimistic.

Give me an example of a system which requires *no* coercion. If you can't, tell me why coercion is a useful word?

What I'm talking about when I say that all metaphysical ideologies are a flavour of idealism is an echo of Hegel- dialectical idealism is a method intended to bridge the gaps between ideologies and show they are all two sides of the same coin. So think liberalism and conservatism, so too is it with realism and idealism. This is why Hegel later began to call his philosophy instead of "absolute idealism", "Ideal-realism".

Think "the rational is the real and the real is the rational". The point of the dialectic is for the individual to fix his perception of the object by tapping into "spirit", and by doing this he also fixes "spirit"'s perception of the object.

I can't say I get most of what you said since my understanding of materialism, idealism and dialectics is meme tier, but thank you.

Alright, all you need to know is that the point of Hegel's method is to show that all things can be known and reduced to what is knowable.

I really cannot do that.

You're correct. Ultimately all authority rests on the ability to use force.

This starts in childhood,, if a toddler disobeys, the parent merely picks her up and carries her away to the desired activity. The ability to overcome some one's resistance is the foundation of authority.

Anyone who gives you orders, can either use force against you or get someone to do it on their behalf.

But the measure of the system is how much it depends on violence. If my only claim to authority is that I'll beat the shit out of you if you don't obey me then I'm not much of a leader.

The greater good,, morality,, majority support, the will of god yadda yadda are all means to gain authority.

But yes,, ultimately power must be able to call upon force when reason or persuasion fails or it just isn't power.

"how much it depends on violence"
If everything depends on violence and the competition of will, which it does, there is no how much.

Sounds liberal, and spooky.

In a sense, yes. That's why people on this board will say you don't have the "right" to anything.

In many cases this notion of "rights" involves the restriction of the actions of others. This is the case for private property for example: what this "right" entails is essentially restricting others' ability to use your property.

The way in which Locke and most leftists differ is this notion that without an authority figure society would crumble into horrible chaos.

Most leftists argue (though some may suggest the temporary use of the state) that humans will be able to manage on their own without the intervention of the State or structures like Capitalism to keep the general public in line.