saving ink • A Conservative Tumblog: savingink: ... First of all, way to rip off Ms. Rand. But more...

A Conservative Tumblog: savingink: ... First of all, way to rip off Ms. Rand. But more...

savingink:
…

A solution to the problem of teabagging

This argument comes courtesy of Fuck No Liberals:

First of all, way to rip off Ms. Rand.

But more importantly, let’s consider the underlying problem with this premise. It is a fair assumption that these two men live in a Western country - most likely the United States, given the author’s nationality. Assumption two is that both of these men are over the age of 18 - i.e., legally they’re adults. So while they may have had no choice as to which country they were born in, by remaining in that country as adults, they have entered into a social contract.

This contract states that by accepting the status of citizen and all of the privileges that come with it, such as education for their children, roads to drive on, the right to own property, police and fire protection, etc., they will in turn support this state financially, through paying taxes, as well as physically, in the case of a draft during a war.

Of course, if you don’t agree with such a contract, there are two solutions: work within the state’s system by running for office and try to change things, or leave. In fact, I would be absolutely thrilled if all of the teabaggers complaining about every aspect of the state they live in would get up and leave and found their own country on an island somewhere. I imagine they would think they were making Galt’s Gulch (well the handful or so with the ability to read a 1000-page book, anyway), but in reality, I don’t think they’d last a week before they missed their McDonald’s and their Wal-Marts and their FOX News.

How’s that for a rebuttal?

Fuck No Liberals:
That was asinine when Rousseau said it, it’s asinine now. You don’t enter into a contract simply because you happen to be somewhere. There are no terms made, no offers given, no acceptance granted, no consideration exchanged. The “social contract” theory is a poor disguise for gang mentality dictatorship; ie “You’re on my turf, you have to do what I say.”

It’s nonsense. Frankly, I’m surprised to see someone who still buys into that crap.

This contract states that by accepting the status of citizen and all of the privileges that come with it, such as education for your children, roads to drive on, the right to own property, police and fire protection, etc.

And here’s where your “social contract” theory comes completely and obviously apart. The soverign had no business presuming their subjects wanted these things. And if they did, that doesn’t mean that the soverign was entitled to a monopoly on them.

Think about it this way: Suppose I unilaterally decided that you wanted… no, needed a goat. So I took my goat and I chained him up to your fence post. And then I knocked on your door and said, “Hey, you owe me for this goat. Pay up.” And you’re not allowed to refuse to pay me. If you do that, I get to throw you in federal prison. And hey, maybe you actually did want a goat - but who said you wanted it from me? Maybe you wanted to shop around a bit for them, instead of being forced - by someone else - to pay for their goat?

It doesn’t matter whether you wanted it. It doesn’t matter if you asked for it. You got it, and now you owe for it. If you don’t like it, move somewhere where someone hasn’t tied a goat to your fence.

Social contract theory. It’s retarded. It’s a fun and wild thought experiment for philosophy 101 students, but it doesn’t actually make any sense.

Actually, there are terms made: they are called “laws”. No one asks you whether you would like to follow the laws of a country, and yet, if you were to take that gun and actually rob your neighbor’s house, you would be punished if you were caught and convicted. If you were to have no laws, you would live in a state of anarchy, which is impossible to maintain (not to mention counterproductive to progress) with a large population. Think of a society without a social contract as social anarchy.

As for the goat argument:

The soverign had no business presuming their subjects wanted these things. And if they did, that doesn’t mean that the soverign was entitled to a monopoly on them.

This I agree with, but it doesn’t apply because we are speaking of a democracy, not a dictatorship. Yes, if a dictator tried to stick me with a goat I didn’t ask for, that would be morally wrong. But a democracy works (present state of American Congress notwithstanding) because I, as an individual, have a say in what the government can or cannot give me. When you go vote Republican, you are stating that you want the government to give you fewer things; but just because your vote doesn’t match the majority in that election, doesn’t mean that you have the right to disobey the laws that are passed.

Again, if you don’t like the system, you can work within it to change the laws - to convince public officials that goat A is better than goat B, or that actually, cows have been proven to be far more efficient resources. Or you can GTFO.
The goat argument - just as your initial argument about your “friend” - simplifies a complex, multi-faceted problem into a black-or-white dichotomy. I hate to burst your little privileged bubble, but the real world doesn’t work that way.

Source: fucknoliberals