Subject:
|
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Mar 2003 18:39:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1029 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
>
> > Morally, you may be correct, but practically, it is better to proceed under
> > the generational contract as long as the new generation has the means to
> > modify it.
>
> And I pay my taxes and vote my concience. I just think it's messed up to call
> it a contract. It's a dodge. I'd be happier if we just enunciated the fact
> that we are partially or sort-of owned by the state. As long as they control
> our right to our own body's labor, we are vassals.
As I said, morally you may be correct, but practically, I see no better way
to proceed. It's not an ideal contract, because you are bound by your
predessor's contract, not one you made for yourself. I must admit I
categorically reject the "sins of the father" notion, though I suppose that
is more religion than contractual law.
I don't particularly view it as a dodge. It's making the best of an
imperfect situation. Nor do I agree with the notion of us being vassals,
because it is owned by the collective whole, rather than some feudal lord
(or at least, in theory, nothing being perfect).
>
> > In the case of the Africans, they were brought here by force, and
> > never entered into a contract, either individually or by previous
> > generations.
>
> Does that mean that the descendants of those slaves have a different set of
> obligations to the state?
That's a very good question. No restitution was paid to the slaves at the
time: no means were provided to leave to where they might like, and in fact
their cultural ties were so utterly and deliberately destroyed that there
was no place that they could easily go to and rebuild their lives. For that
matter, what obligations do Indians/Native Americans have? Both of these
shoot holes in the previous generation contract concept because no true
ancestor contract was made. Morally, clearly wrong, but practically, as
long as they now have the ability to modify the contract or beat feet, I'm
not sure what else to do (pay them a weregeld and they leave, or stay and
accept the contract?).
>
> From the perspective of the individual, how is being brought from Africa with
> no choice, different than being brough from the womb with no choice? I reject
> the possibility of being born into a contract.
Then you are doomed to a lifetime of futile frustration and tilting at
windmills. I already said that morally you may be correct, but practically
what is the alternative? Society grinds to a halt every time someone is
born? If you reject the possibility of being born into a contract, then you
have the ultimate right: modify the contract and accept it or beat feet.
As to the Africa/womb thing, one is against your will, the other you had no
will to be violated. Speaking in terms of "no choice" isn't applicable in
the latter case, and the two are not equivalent. To make it an even less
appropriate comparison, one is the willful action of humans (enslaving
someone else) versus a rather unwillful natural process of maturation of a
foetus going through a hard-coded non-contractual process (perhaps you mean
conception rather than birth?).
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
164 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
