(Read Beggars in Spain by Nancy Kress, one of the characters makes the exact same plea)
I dont know about them. There will always be people who behave badly. But soceity shouldn’t be a dictatorship and if people cannot live by the social contract of others, they should be free to leave and start their own soceity unmolested elsewhere.
If people living in these freer soceities are beginning to feel mistreated, they should have the freedom to come back
I wasn’t disagreeing with you. I just wanted to add the reminder that the ideal of turning enemies into friends by showing them a better world will not work on everyone, and we must be ready to deal with that discrepancy between idealism and realism.
Reason and argument should be the first resort, to be sure. I also agree that those who don’t agree with that social contract should form their own society, separate from the rest of us, and that there should always be an open door to (re-)immigrate, if they’re willing to abide by the contract.
However, I anticipate that not all will leave willingly, nor will they leave us unmolested if they do. We must be willing and ready to defend our society against these enemies.
Force should be a last resort, but it must be a resort. There are people who will never be convinced, because a society that’s good for everyone else is incompatible with their need to inflict suffering. To the privileged (or those who feel they should be), equality feels like oppression.
I occasionally see people arguing that we should never force people to comply with our social norms. My intention here is to point out that, at the very least, we should reserve the right to force these people out of our society.
I agree with your ideal, and I would gladly stand by you. I do not mean to take away from that. I want to cover the gaps.
(oh I know you weren’t disagreeing, sorry if my tone came across like that!)
I mean yeah – ultimately it boils down to whether the social contract (equality/tolerance) is one that should be enforced, and how rigid that contract should be.
Fascism tends to descend in gradual stages, where lines are crossed repeatedly but slowly enough that people no longer see the lines anymore. So having a rigid and well-defined social contract (somewhat like a constitution) that will bring out the troops as soon as one of the tenets is breached should (theoretically) provide a filter for the bad apples.
Of course, a society like that build upon such a rigid constitution will never evolve with the times.
(oh I know you weren’t disagreeing, sorry if my tone came across like that!)
Oh the joys of communication by text online 😄
whether the social contract (equality/tolerance) is one that should be enforced
Here, I agree with Karl Popper that a tolerant society which permits intolerance is doomed to be undermined, as you outlined with the gradual descent. In this case, I believe that means the contract needs to be enforced if it is to have any meaning at all.
Of course, a society like that build upon such a rigid constitution will never evolve with the times.
Usually, a body of law consists of both a rigid, more general constitution laying down the fundamental values and principles by which the polity in question is governed, and a more flexible and specific set of laws designed to be malleable and evolve with the times. There is also often some leeway in enforcing those laws in order to allow a more fine-grained case-by-case handling.
The vulnerability we observe right now is that the processes designed to govern the modification and application of that contract require a degree of engagement, leisure and education in order to make informed decisions, critically question claims and also reflect on your own preconceptions. A society seeking to remain free and democratic must afford its citizens the luxury of participation and encourage them to get involved.
I don’t need to point out all the ways this is going poorly.
require a degree of engagement, leisure and education in order to make informed decisions, critically question claims and also reflect on your own preconceptions. A society seeking to remain free and democratic must afford its citizens the luxury of participation and encourage them to get involved.
(Read Beggars in Spain by Nancy Kress, one of the characters makes the exact same plea)
I dont know about them. There will always be people who behave badly. But soceity shouldn’t be a dictatorship and if people cannot live by the social contract of others, they should be free to leave and start their own soceity unmolested elsewhere.
If people living in these freer soceities are beginning to feel mistreated, they should have the freedom to come back
I wasn’t disagreeing with you. I just wanted to add the reminder that the ideal of turning enemies into friends by showing them a better world will not work on everyone, and we must be ready to deal with that discrepancy between idealism and realism.
Reason and argument should be the first resort, to be sure. I also agree that those who don’t agree with that social contract should form their own society, separate from the rest of us, and that there should always be an open door to (re-)immigrate, if they’re willing to abide by the contract.
However, I anticipate that not all will leave willingly, nor will they leave us unmolested if they do. We must be willing and ready to defend our society against these enemies.
Force should be a last resort, but it must be a resort. There are people who will never be convinced, because a society that’s good for everyone else is incompatible with their need to inflict suffering. To the privileged (or those who feel they should be), equality feels like oppression.
I occasionally see people arguing that we should never force people to comply with our social norms. My intention here is to point out that, at the very least, we should reserve the right to force these people out of our society.
I agree with your ideal, and I would gladly stand by you. I do not mean to take away from that. I want to cover the gaps.
(oh I know you weren’t disagreeing, sorry if my tone came across like that!)
I mean yeah – ultimately it boils down to whether the social contract (equality/tolerance) is one that should be enforced, and how rigid that contract should be.
Fascism tends to descend in gradual stages, where lines are crossed repeatedly but slowly enough that people no longer see the lines anymore. So having a rigid and well-defined social contract (somewhat like a constitution) that will bring out the troops as soon as one of the tenets is breached should (theoretically) provide a filter for the bad apples.
Of course, a society like that build upon such a rigid constitution will never evolve with the times.
So I don’t really know what the answer here is
Oh the joys of communication by text online 😄
Here, I agree with Karl Popper that a tolerant society which permits intolerance is doomed to be undermined, as you outlined with the gradual descent. In this case, I believe that means the contract needs to be enforced if it is to have any meaning at all.
Usually, a body of law consists of both a rigid, more general constitution laying down the fundamental values and principles by which the polity in question is governed, and a more flexible and specific set of laws designed to be malleable and evolve with the times. There is also often some leeway in enforcing those laws in order to allow a more fine-grained case-by-case handling.
The vulnerability we observe right now is that the processes designed to govern the modification and application of that contract require a degree of engagement, leisure and education in order to make informed decisions, critically question claims and also reflect on your own preconceptions. A society seeking to remain free and democratic must afford its citizens the luxury of participation and encourage them to get involved.
I don’t need to point out all the ways this is going poorly.
Hear hear