What, now I gotta substantiate my wild-ass rhetoric? I thought this was the internet.
I think we're running into the classic term-definition problem that plagues human discourse. Are you talking about the "social contract1" between people that keeps them from killing each other when nobody's looking? Or are you talking about the "social contract2" between ordinary people and other people claiming to be their representatives and/or rulers that says "We'll do what you say, and if you hurt us, we'll ask you to stop, but not too loudly"? Because, for me, social contract1 is society, and social contract2 is government. Breaking down social contract1 results in chaos and destruction, usually replaced with whatever form of social ordering can reforge the social bonds needed to sustain society-at-large quickest. Unfortunately, the quickest solutions are rarely the best ones for the long term, and often people stop there. Breaking down social contract2, on the other hand, can (and often does) strengthen social contract1, because the manifestations of social contract2 tend to usurp the functions of social contract1 to the detriment of both sets of social assumptions.
More later, when it stops being as busy here at work. Thanks for the dialogue, though. Explaining my thoughts to other folks who disagree with me helps me to organize them more effectively.
Also, as far as What I am arguing against is the idea that the Right is no worse than the Left when it comes to eliminationist rhetoric goes, yeah, probably. The Right has a tendency towards more heavyhanded rhetoric than the Left, at least in the last several decades. Some of that's the influence of Fundie Xtianity on Hard Right culture, and some of it's due to the Hard Left getting pushed out of the political equation by the political managers who are running the DNC and most of the Left's political apparatus. The folks who push the Left political machine don't seem to, for the most part, believe in anything except getting into power and staying there, which tends to deflate harder rhetorical stances.
no subject
I think we're running into the classic term-definition problem that plagues human discourse. Are you talking about the "social contract1" between people that keeps them from killing each other when nobody's looking? Or are you talking about the "social contract2" between ordinary people and other people claiming to be their representatives and/or rulers that says "We'll do what you say, and if you hurt us, we'll ask you to stop, but not too loudly"? Because, for me, social contract1 is society, and social contract2 is government. Breaking down social contract1 results in chaos and destruction, usually replaced with whatever form of social ordering can reforge the social bonds needed to sustain society-at-large quickest. Unfortunately, the quickest solutions are rarely the best ones for the long term, and often people stop there. Breaking down social contract2, on the other hand, can (and often does) strengthen social contract1, because the manifestations of social contract2 tend to usurp the functions of social contract1 to the detriment of both sets of social assumptions.
More later, when it stops being as busy here at work. Thanks for the dialogue, though. Explaining my thoughts to other folks who disagree with me helps me to organize them more effectively.
Also, as far as What I am arguing against is the idea that the Right is no worse than the Left when it comes to eliminationist rhetoric goes, yeah, probably. The Right has a tendency towards more heavyhanded rhetoric than the Left, at least in the last several decades. Some of that's the influence of Fundie Xtianity on Hard Right culture, and some of it's due to the Hard Left getting pushed out of the political equation by the political managers who are running the DNC and most of the Left's political apparatus. The folks who push the Left political machine don't seem to, for the most part, believe in anything except getting into power and staying there, which tends to deflate harder rhetorical stances.