As Mr. Fight the Power points out the social contract
is not something which exists as a physical object.
I figured that.
The social contract does exist a thought-object
however. What I mean is that there is no physical contract stating that a certain group of people is part of that contract
So the contract is more so a product of instinctual developments of humanity/society. It is mutual with social interaction.
The social contract is that which embraces all individual wills of the people in it, forming it into a combined will so to speak. The resultant of the individual wills is named 'sovereign
'. A person can be part of a social contract and thereby influencing the sovereign will without even knowing it.
I agree that whoever has an influence on the whole society's will, or the combined will is what makes up the sovereign.
And the public can be uniformalized by manipulation of the major influences; corporations, media, and government all work to taint the will so as to create a sovereign in favor of their virtue. But then who really is sovereign? It would make sense that if the public has no self control they have no individual grasp and potential on what the sovereign turns out to be.
In effect it can be said that the sovereign will is that form of interaction which is realised by all the individuals defined as part of the social contract.
So what is the formula for the interaction? There has to be some patterns.
Sometimes the sovereign will allows a certain government to govern it. At other times the sovereign will decides to overthrow the government.
Are you saying that the public has majority influence on the social contract, and that it can always? It would be hard to define such majority influence but generally I see social interaction as a product of rights/liberty, which is controlled by the government. The public has the potential to have rights whenever they please but they simply can't whenever they want because the public is apathetic and blind at times.
So in Germany back when Hitler was trying to get power through fascism, the people chose for Hitler's dictatorship feeling that it would bring progress to Germany's situation, and past. Hitler was insane so the past may have had nothing to do with his real feelings about the Jews but the public allowed for Hitler's sentiments through blind faith in the past.
There seems to always be a negative outcome in blind faith, and its correlation to the past, which strives to endure through tradition, rather than the positive implications of change that people ignore for the simple sake of progress.
So it is better to have no government as an end result if you tend to agree that everyone should have equal sway in society. I personally believe that sway should be correlated to intellect so as to assure virtue through wisdom. That seems like a rational ideal to me.
And there really is no fine example of a society in which the government deserved a higher potential on the sovereign will, right?
Here the difference between the social contract and the government ruling is visible. A government can be a part of a scoial contract, but it does not have to be. A sgroup of people can live in anarchy, but still have dealings with eachother.
:puzzled: I thought anarchy was sovereign will that had no government/state/bureaucracy... so you'd be right but it seems to me that a government has to not exist otherwise it is undoubtedly going to be of influence.
Locke's starting point is the state of nature
, which he insists must have been a historical fact. His state of nature is a situation in which men lived together according to reason , without a common superior on earth.
Perhaps realisation occurs when the people have just had a war. And the state of nature is a state of public's realisation that causes what can be basically be said as anarchy, because people want a reestablishment of rights or at least major change.
I have to disagree with him morally. It would be better to achieve a state of nature without the government. But logically I guess, I don't see how its going to be possible.
And as a product of ego and separation from other groups, along comes culture (good), and religion (bad).
In my personal opinion any government is a deviation from the social contract, be it needed or not. Any government is a form of chaos within the natural order, trying to force a certain behavorial pattern onto the populace which is self-destructive by its nature, although certain benefits may be had before it destructs itself.
I agree entirely. Which is why I don't like the aspects of socialism, because it will turn into people hating the government a lot. Higher taxes seem obvious with socialism for one thing.
And aside from that I think there is a pattern with the states of social order. Being that of barbarism to feudalism to capitalism to socialism to communism. Barbarism and feudalism was about expansion and sp****d out focus on production and wealth. Forts would be built along borders of territory, villages sp****d out so as for little interaction(also due to transportation differences back them). Capitalism and Socialism seem to be the result of the ability to focus wealth and production, due to science increase?; and so maybe it will go back to expansion. Globalization for example, expanding until the economy flows in a way that we are basically under one nation. And then focusing again with major capitalism of the one world nation. And as a force against this evolving social progress that could be a product of socialism getting out of hand would be totalitarianism.
And despite the totalitarianism notion the social interactions would always increase, which is bad probably because war exists because of ego with social interaction.
I'd like to compare it to the analogy of a network of neurons (for lack of a better word, I was thinking dots but whatever).
Each person is like a neuron and some neurons are connected via synapses, electrical signals being the potential that could be compared to as social interaction, as that is the potential on our actions anyways.
But neurons are only connected to so many other neurons. And we strive for every neuron to be connected to every other neuron, like a 4D system, but as such being an asymptote.
We change social systems so as to make more connections, and because we want to get as many connections as possible, we have a government or state that creates MANY more connections. And the government acts as a master neuron, it gets bigger because it is linked to more neurons, and as such, it has more potential on other interactions, indirectly of course.
But still, the government may create more connections of neurons but the people are still gaining their own connections through memory, the past, or by science/technology. And when we reach enough connections without aid of government we need a new method of organization, a new system. So we'll switch (due to memory/science/technology mind you) from capitalism to socialism.
And communism is when all neurons are connected to all other neurons but under the rule of some master, even if the public is in lead of it. And Anarchy is the end result being that all neurons are connected to all other neurons but not by the aid of a master neuron.
This means that every neuron has the same number of connections as another; no master neurons that are connected to a billion others.
And what is better; being a part of social contract, the will, or being separated? A neuron part of the network, having potential to the overall being, consciousness, or not doing anything for the progress of humanity at all?
But we are still growing and learning from the past, and so we develop new neurons, new people, population growth. So progress is forceably restrained by technological progress.