Quote: (11-06-2017 04:16 PM)Different T Wrote:
Quote: (11-06-2017 07:02 AM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:
Society is a social compact between the different classes. The elites and ruling classes have to deliver enough to the common folk to at least keep them from rebelling, but with modern economics and the information age, they actually need the common people well enough off to work hard and creatively to succeed in their careers and companies.
So, society should treat its citizens as well as possible so they work hard and are happy, and they create economic growth and pay more taxes.
The alternative perspective would be that your idea of a “social contract” is directly based upon the philosophy and anthropological account of “Classical” Liberalism which posits a bunch of “free” individuals that somehow came into being and somehow came together and somehow formed this “contract.” This philosophy was promoted by certain, usually monied, powerful members within Western society to justify the State being run for their own benefit (which you largely allude to in your post with all the talk about the “ruling class” needing to increase their “worker drones” productivity).
The alternative anthropology would look something like:
Quote:”mrscientism” Wrote:
"The individual is not prior to society" means that society is not an "intersubjective" matter of agreement. You're born into a society and in the process of becoming a mature individual you must master its norms. You take them on not by considering each one and agreeing to it (you're not yet capable of this!) but through mastery of them. Once you have become a mature individual with an identity, the norms of society are already part of you. To reject them all (if this were even possible) would be akin to self-mutiliation. Society is not something like a mutual hallucination and the concepts of agreement, consent, contract, etc, are not appropriate to conceiving of the nature of society as a whole. There are circumstances within society when we come to agreements, give consent, make contracts with one another, etc, but these are not part of the fundamental nature of society.
We don't need this myth of society being formed by the agreement - consensual or otherwise, conscious or unconscious - between individuals. Our society precedes us as individuals and it has evolved over countless generations. That's where complex societies come from: from older, less complex societies. The changes society goes through may, of course, involve voluntary decision making, agreement, etc, but this sort of thing can only take place within an existing society with a rich set of norms and traditions already in place. The kinds of highly intellectual skills liberals tend to depend on in explaining the origin of society - reasoning, bargaining, agreement, consent, etc - are only possessed by the mature individual within society.
Every individual gains tremendous benefit from being born into a society. Even if a newborn baby could survive on its own it'd have no language, no culture, etc. So we can see already, from this perspective, that this idea that society must somehow prove its worth to the mature individual is nonsensical. Under ordinary circumstances, there's really very little reason to oppose our society or its structure, certainly not in any total sense. It's very perverse indeed that revolutionary and anarchic politics has become the norm and that we feel we must always be transgressing societal norms and challenging authority. In fact, sometimes liberals and Leftists actually express frustration because most people are happy to just go along with the social status quo, but this shouldn't really surprise us. The total misunderstanding of the relationship between the individual and society we find in the liberal tradition is surely responsible for this bizarre situation.
Or more bluntly:
Quote:”Bertrand de Jouvenel, Pure Theory of Politics, 57” Wrote:
Man appears, a screaming bundle of flesh, the outcome of mating. He is utterly helpless, his existence hangs upon the nursing he receives.
Quote:”Bertrand de Jouvenel, Pure Theory of Politics, 60” Wrote:
“Social contract” theories are views of childless men who must have forgotten their own childhood. Society is not founded like a club. One may ask how the hardy, roving adults pictured could imagine the solidarity to be, had they not enjoyed the benefits of a solidarity in being throughout their growing period; or how they could feel bound by the mere exchange of promises, if the notion of obligation had not been built up within them by group existence.
The social contract is not some highly reasonable thing that enlightened commoners negotiate with enlightened elites, in an atmosphere of reason and graciousness.
Rather, throughout history, elites have realized that if you oppress the common people too much, they will rebel. You can have your soldiers slaughter them, and that works well in the short term. However, there is a risk the soldiers will side with the people past a certain point.
The elites know they have to accomodate the common people, so they don't find themselves hanging from a lamppost, strangling slowly as they watch their children's throats being slit in front of their burning mansions.
In modern times, the welfare state is the way this is accomplished. The elites would gladly work us to death, but they recognize that it's not practical to do so.
This brings me back to my point that the demands of the MRAs may not make hot girl's pussies tingle, but the elites would be smarter to take the MRA's seriously, and change the laws to favor them more. They'll do so eventually once enough men decide to check out and stop killing themselves to build society with no recognition or reward.
Red pill men tend to scorn MRAs, because we are willing to do what it takes to make women's pussies tingle, but MRAs don't seem to get what it takes. Like I said, I'll do what it takes to make pussies tingle, but it's obvious to me that most men, by nature, can't or won't get this.
So, who do you side with? The women, who only care about pussy tingles, or the clueless betas who think that hard work, loyalty, and reliability should result in respect and a happy family? I side with the men. Eventually, the surviving elites will too.
![[Image: 1385758775000-177927962.jpg]](https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/69933fb7a307cf10f80866989c7ecd087937e147/c=0-185-3053-4259&r=537&c=0-0-534-712/local/-/media/USATODAY/test/2013/11/29//1385758775000-177927962.jpg)
