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 …
-
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).
-
-
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.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It boils down to opt-in vs forced-in. In opt-in scenario, social contract would make sense.
-
Yes, and states, constitutions, etc. are not opt-in.
End of conversation
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.