The "Social Contract"

Van Living Forum

Help Support Van Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Laughing my ass off rolling on the ground in the dirt had to say something what's the two things that get you in arguments the quickest religion and politics

Sent from my Z799VL using Tapatalk
 
sushidog said:
 Regardless, I believe, as Rand did, that the ultimate responsibility to care for ourselves falls on the individual and not government. Others believe that it is government's role to do this, under a mythical social contract (which I doubt anyone's ever seen, let alone read.)  I do not. The question is, "Are we our brother's keeper?" For me, I say individually, yes; and collectively, no.
Interesting view of society, or, more accurately, of members within  a society. Individual responsibility to care for each other speaks of a moral code of conduct. Perhaps believing that it's the government's duty diverts responsibility to those elected to represent us. This could be behavioral justification, avoiding involvement, or sound thinking in that a group can be more effective en masse with pooled resources (or a combination of these two). If we are individually our brother's keeper, and a group that holds true to this idea sees a brother in need, are we not a collective at this point, be it a barn raising, a van build, or defense of honor?
 
I believe the government keeps it drilled in our heads that they need to control or medications and health care so that they can have control over us and you are right it falls on us as an individual to deal with their own health care problems the government has just found a way to profit from it

Sent from my Z799VL using Tapatalk
 
I think that if you are part of a group, call it society if that works for you, there are benefits that you get simply by being a part.

For example, in my current social arrangement, there is a road that I use, there is a community watch program, trash service (free) and other things that I get simply by being where I am. I feel obliged to return something back to the society in some way , call it an unspoken/unwritten contract.

I think that there are a complex set of dynamics that are woven through this topic that could keep me rambling on for days, but the upshot is, yes, you should feel an obligation back to someone or some group from which you have taken some benefit. Call it a contract.

If you opt to be apart from some group, and garner no benefit from that group, then there is nothing that you should feel obliged (or "contracted") to pay back.

One caveat to mention is that, very often, one derives benefit from a group whether or not they've asked for it. Even in the remotest areas I've ever been in, there were at least trails. Someone, more likely some group, created and maintained those trails.

For me, I feel compelled to take care of the effluent that someone elses's work created, and that I am now using.

Not sure if the foregoing makes any sense, but, yah, those are my thoughts for whatever they are worth. :)
 
Jeremiah Diminovich said:
Laughing my ass off rolling on the ground in the dirt had to say something what's the two things that get you in arguments the quickest religion and politics


That's why discussions of both are banned here. But alas, there's always SOMEONE who can't resist dragging their political opinions into it......

(sigh)

I presume the mods will come in and sweep the floor.
 
I agree but it still funny to watch other people are you about stuff they can't change we moved out here to get away from all that yet they drag it out here with them so I saying in one of my videos there's a lot of politely bitter people out here

Sent from my Z799VL using Tapatalk
 
Jeremiah, we just PMed you with our phone number We are out here looking for you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Motrukdriver said:
Greed is the evil that all other evils sprout from.
I would say Fear is the fundamental one.

Very common for people to believe the social programming that "security" comes from wealth and being "independent" of others.

Both terms are fantasies. Becoming trusted, interdependent, embedded in a caring community is the answer, also to so many other questions not yet asked.
 
Jeremiah Diminovich said:
That's the problem with people today there going so far in debt try and to have the things there neighbors have trying to have the bigger better shiny stuff and are going in debt doing it they don't realize all that takes is to lose your job 1 time and not be able to make your payment and you lose everything Society is all about money and not freedom of choice

Sent from my Z799VL using Tapatalk

I’ve got some friends with a terrible marriage and the wife is constantly posting beautiful family pics on Facebook and also constantly feeling hurt by yet another grievance with her husband.  

Both of them are so completely buried in their Cuban culture where they play roles accordingly and can’t seem to figure out why they keep having problems.

Neither understand the necessity to be two free individuals that are “married” by deep synergies, which they don’t have.
 
lenny flank said:
Go ahead and try that. Let us know how it works out for you. (shrug)

The "rugged independent individual" of mythology, simply does not exist, and never has. Anywhere. It is a fantasy. It's simply an ideological excuse to try to make 'selfish greed' into a social virtue.

How odd you believe that.  The people that moved west from cities, along such passages as the Oregon trail, and settled in the wilderness of America did all those things.  So it is hardly a fantasy or myth.

As for your final statement I have no idea what you are talking about.  The idea of being self reliant is the exact opposite of being a set of ideals of selfish greed leading into a social virtue.
 
geogentry said:
How odd you believe that.  The people that moved west from cities, along such passages as the Oregon trail, and settled in the wilderness of America did all those things.  So it is hardly a fantasy or myth.


They had Wells Fargo and Sears & Roebuck.

Who makes YOUR clothes? Who produced YOUR food? Who built YOUR shelter? Indeed, who made the computer you are typing on right now? 

Show us this "self-reliance".
 
^ Your mention of mountain men brought this movie clip to mind.
Even here there's society with a code of conduct.
 
I did not mean to turn the conversation political, only philosophical. Unfortunately social and political issues are closely related. I mentioned no political parties, only what I feel my duty is to others in society, which is to help them as I can, and my take on the "social contract" which is what I thought we were discussing. No offense intended to anyone's political beliefs. I don't think there is much we can do about politics anyway, just make our way in life as best we can with the hand we are dealt, but I'm sure happy to be living here, where we have the liberty that many others don't enjoy.

Chip
 
lenny flank said:
They had Wells Fargo and Sears & Roebuck.

No they didn't.  Sears started 50 years after the end of the Oregon trail exodus and Well Fargo started 10 years after.

Who makes YOUR clothes? Who produced YOUR food? Who built YOUR shelter? Indeed, who made the computer you are typing on right now? 

Show us this "self-reliance".

You seem very angry Lenny.  Is there a reason?  You said that rugged independent people were a myth and that they never existed.  I pointed out why you were wrong.  And you were.

I see no point in high jacking this thread so I think we should just stop this.  Well at least I am stopping.
 
[font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]sushidog[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] [/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]I must have missed something.  I didnt see politics - but ok.  I thought it was a good discussion on society and all that comes with it.[/font]
 
Van Man Dave said:
I've been thinking a lot about society and the "social contract".

Many people will say we are all obligated to fulfill certain obligations regarding our "debt to society".

Does anyone have any insight or beliefs into this subject they would like to share?

Would someone become a de-facto member of a society, merely based upon the location of their birth?

My position is that a society is a group of like minded people, wherein an individual has the right to choose wether to be a part of said society.  

If one chooses not to be a part of a society, should they also be relieved of the burden of this "contract"?

Just some random morning thoughts I wanted to share.

VMD :D

I believe Panarchy is a viable solution. If you want to belong then you support the society of your choice. No coercion or force but don't expect everyone to see your point of view. Examples are forums like this, we all have discovered something here that resonates with us yet we all hold different ideas of what is acceptable to us.one man's ideals are slavery or worse to another.
 
This is my first visit to Ehrenberg
About 3 miles in someone set up a table
They labeled it"FREE Table". I watched people for several days go look at it. No one ever took anything from it. My curiosity led me to go see on the 4th day
. It is a few books and a lot of trash that those who left it should have taken out. It might have made the litterer feel good by maybe someone needing their trash. To me it is a societal issue that people can leave their trash anywhere. This is how access to land is lost. "Leave no trace " is a fundamental philosophy.
Until people learn to be responsible, and respect those of us who follow behind the slobs. Boondocking will just be more difficult to find places.
 
Top