This is silly socialist sophistry. Words means things, and socialism specifically means gov't ownership of capital which necessitates authoritarian control of people's economic decisions, which inevitably degenerates into mass violence. Rothbard explains:https://mises.org/library/end-socialism-and-calculation-debate-revisited …
-
To call this being "controlled by the community" is a malicious double lie -- the electorate of a typical state does not form a community of people who talk to each other peer-to-peer, and the actual legal control is in the hands of only an extremely small number of officials.
P.S. don't get me started on "social contract." Yet another political buzzword that turns out to be preposterously false and dangerously misleading when one studies the actual law (here of contracts, for this thread of property).
-
-
Yes all he had to do was study some actual contract law.
-
P.S. I don't necessarily agree with his conclusion. Constitutions are much more akin to treaties, which can be and almost always are agreed to under coercion, whereas coercion nullifies an actual contract. I generally consider treaties to be legit, just not as legit as contracts.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It seems ideological, rather than pragmatic, to reject wholesale language associated with the emergent tendencies of collectives associated w/ their long-term agency (politics), while acknowledging those associated w/ short-term tx of rivalrous goods (markets / pricing).
-
Sure if one's mind is filled fully with ideological oxymorons and doesn't understand much of anything about actual law and practical control particular people have over things, you will think everything is just some ideological hallucination, only yours is better cuz its you.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.