Who is this "we" you speak of?

[tod evans]

I keep reading posts that refer to "we" and "us" as if there is some sort of collective here that can be driven or directed by persuasive speech..

I'll read what you write but make no mistake, this inclusive verbiage is a big red flag to me.

There has been a whole lot of this BS going on since Mr. Bundy stood up.

I am just me, I don't speak for you and you damn sure don't speak for me!



Thought I'd reiterate this sentiment due to recent threads...

[heavenlyboy34]

I keep reading posts that refer to "we" and "us" as if there is some sort of collective here that can be driven or directed by persuasive speech..

I'll read what you write but make no mistake, this inclusive verbiage is a big red flag to me.

There has been a whole lot of this BS going on since Mr. Bundy stood up.

I am just me, I don't speak for you and you damn sure don't speak for me!



Thought I'd reiterate this sentiment due to recent threads...
It's the Republican influence. As collectivists, Republicans think in terms of "We". It's been this way since the dawn of Republicanism. (democrats are the same way, of course) I personally loathe the royal "We" myself, and go out of my way to avoid it.

[otherone]

I keep reading posts that refer to "we" and "us" as if there is some sort of collective here that can be driven or directed by persuasive speech..

I'll read what you write but make no mistake, this inclusive verbiage is a big red flag to me.

There has been a whole lot of this BS going on since Mr. Bundy stood up.

I am just me, I don't speak for you and you damn sure don't speak for me!



Thought I'd reiterate this sentiment due to recent threads...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-kvBIN_RS-2w/Ug1FuTtP0FI/AAAAAAAAGII/LkPrENR-N1U/s640/MadMagazine-WhatYouMeanWe.jpg

[Deborah K]

I do it. I mean no offense. I'll try to keep that in mind when I post.

[DamianTV]

Im selfish and dont do it. I often call out others when they do it.

"We like Obama!" Uh, no, you like Obama.

---

The Lone Ranger AND Tonto?
(lone + "and" = contradiction)

That always made me laugh...

[donnay]

I do it. I mean no offense. I'll try to keep that in mind when I post.

*Ducks* I do it, at times, too. But since I am frequently lumped in with Conspiracy theorist nut job truthers, I forget.

[LibertyEagle]

I do it. I mean no offense. I'll try to keep that in mind when I post.

I've done it too and probably will continue to do it. Along with those others who speak of "libertarians" as if they have some kind of hive mind. In other words, heavenlyboy's BS is not limited to just the Rs and Ds.

[cajuncocoa]

I do it. I mean no offense. I'll try to keep that in mind when I post.
I think I do too. And I apologize, because I, too, abhor collectivism. Will try to be more mindful of it.

[DGambler]

We all do it at times and we should be ashamed. We'll try better next post.


:)

[erowe1]

I keep reading posts that refer to "we" and "us" as if there is some sort of collective here that can be driven or directed by persuasive speech..

I'll read what you write but make no mistake, this inclusive verbiage is a big red flag to me.

There has been a whole lot of this BS going on since Mr. Bundy stood up.

I am just me, I don't speak for you and you damn sure don't speak for me!



Thought I'd reiterate this sentiment due to recent threads...

Great. Then you don't have to say "we." The rest of us will.

[otherone]

Great. Then you don't have to say "we." The rest of us will.

....I see what you did there....

[HVACTech]

We all do it at times and we should be ashamed. We'll try better next post.


:)

yes, we agree on that.

no, us agree on that.

I am easily distracted by the mouse in my pocket....

[DamianTV]

Alternate Perspective.

The word "We" is the most condensed form of Group Psychology that it can be reduced to.

What the word "We" conveys as far as informational is that "my expressed opinion should replace your own individual opinion due to the power of the individual being less than that of a collective group". "We" is ALWAYS stated by one individual, which can be repeated later. "We" alters the way we percieve the individual to no longer be that of just an individual, but replaces that individual indentifier with that of a group, which has a much stronger influencing factor on the mind.

Examine each member of the group as an individual for a moment. The group as a whole may support an expressed opinion or idea. However, what ever level of participation each individual has in the group conclusion does NOT indicate the individual belief, but the group belief. Thus, the individuals of that group are expressing Group Think and not concluding individually. Some groups have leaders of single individuals or smaller sub-groups of individuals. The followers of these types of groups allow their own conclusions to be replaced by the ideas expressed by the Leaders.

Obedience vs Cooperation.

The type of Group Think that I was talking about above is Obedience. But there is a Cooperative form of "We". That form would result from two individuals first drawing their own conclusions, sharing those conclusions, then agreeing with the conclusions of the other. Many of us here (yes, that is a form of Group Think) have challenged the ideas of our Leaders and rejected them. "We" have learned to operate more as individuals which makes us less suseptible to accepting ideas from would be Leaders without challenge. Each of us have drawn our own conclusions, then shared those conclusions with others, and when others accept our expressed ideas, we form the Natural Group of "We".

Distinguishing between a Natural Group, one that is formed through Cooperation, and Assigned Group, one that is formed by a Leader barking orders, is quite important. Ron Paul supporters are the formation of a Natural Group, where the cooperation of each individual has concluded that Ron Paul is someone they want to be their Leader. Republicans take the opposite approach, where a person is Assigned an identity of "support Mitt Romney", or what ever other idea that can be expressed by the Leaders of the Republican Party.

Natural Groups tend to challenge ideas before accepting them. Assigned Groups are expected to not challenge ideas and blindly accept them. There is a Level of Acceptance that can still be exceeded. A declaration of expectation by a Leader that demands all members of a Group should prefer Horse Radish Ice Cream over all other forms of food. The Level of Acceptance here would exceed tolerance of both types of Groups. So keeping that Level of Acceptance within operating parameters is necessary for Assigned Group Think to function. This is where "We" deviate. "We" operate individually, thus, have a much lower threshold of Level of Acceptance.

The Group Think of the Republican Party Leaders expects all self identified Republicans who are not Leaders to blindly accept whatever candidate they throw our way. There are many tactics that are employed to increase that Level of Acceptance. First being the Illusion of Choice. "We" understand that being given a choice between two candidates selected by the Leaders of the Republican Party is NOT a choice. "We" challenge each candidate presented. The Obedient Group Think followers tend to not challenge the limitation of Choices presented. This causes "Them" to accept what they are told to accept. "Their " time is spent comparing the Choices presented as to which candidate each individual desires more. Then the individual Obedient Group expresses the individual conclusions and the more popular of the two candidates is selected. For the minority members of the Obedient Group, many allow the Group Conclusion (vote) to replace their individual opinion. This becomes obvious when previous Romney supporters (2008 election) change who they support, and supported McCain when Romney dropped out. Some did not. The effect is that there is an increase in the number who now support the Majority, despite several non Romney and non Ron Paul supporters having no longer offered their support to McCain.

There are two definitions of "We". I tried to be very careful in my application of the word in question, with reference to both the Natural Group and Assigned Group definitions. Natural Groups, the "We" of Ron Paul supporters and likeminded individuals does need to be maintained. At the same time, "We" need to be careful to not allow ourselves to fall into the category of the Assigned Group, which extends well beyond the Republican / Democrat paradigm.

In summary, each individual has the potential to benefit far more from seeking a Natual Group that is formed through Cooperation than one that is Assigned where Obedience is demanded. Let us (each as individuals) continue to make efforts to Cooperate and refuse Obedience.

[HVACTech]

bump for a good post.
what were "we" arguing about again?

[Suzanimal]

bump for a good post.
what were "we" arguing about again?

You don't speak for us.;)

[HVACTech]

You don't speak for us.;)

yes, dear.

[francisco]

I think I do too. And I apologize, because I, too, abhor collectivism. Will try to be more mindful of it.

Same here

[Christopher A. Brown]

I keep reading posts that refer to "we" and "us" as if there is some sort of collective here that can be driven or directed by persuasive speech..


Thank you for this thread. I've said many times, there is no "we". For like 8, 9 years now. People do not get it. Lately I've not done it, rather I've focused on making a "we". But your thread title, and singling out the issue might make a difference.

Let me say right off, that the powers that be have sent covert groups amongst us to pretend they are of us, their agenda is to prevent a "we" from forming. They do not really stand out until one actually tries to create the unity which justifies the term "we".

My effort has been to use human instinct which is also constitutional intent to form a unified group that can justifiable say "we". Our phylogenetic social instincts have a feature of mutual respect and understanding of others having much the same instincts as ourselves. This is termed natural law by philosophers of the past.

Our constitution is based in this.

My effort uses one simple natural law that sincere Americans inherently respect, whether they know it or not. It relates to the definition of the purpose of free speech in human society.

The purpose of free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood.

The insincere, the covert group jumped all over the effort, recognizing it as a threat to the powers that be so organized to reject it vehemently.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?445586-Only-Sincere-Americans-Accept-The-Root-Purpose-Of-Free-Speech

Unfortunately years of influence by "cognitive infiltration", the covert groups, have conditioned unwary Americans who perceive their behavior as normal; because they are a self assured group; as "cool" or acceptable in a social realm, and have mimicked them fairly widely.

The thread asks for overt acceptance of the purpose of free speech for the purpose of exposing the infiltrators and excluding them from discussion on constitutional defense, which is defined through these links.

Sincere Americans need to exercise their first constitutional right, to "alter or abolish". First action, clean up states.

http://algoxy.com/poly/principal_party.html

A step by step process in a forum which stands un opposed because it is fully lawful and logical.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?444637-Georgia-House-approves-Article-V-convention&p=5433668&viewfull=1#post5433668

[Brian4Liberty]

We will not stand for collectivism!

[Christopher A. Brown]

Isms are cognitive distortions.

[ClydeCoulter]

I do it. I mean no offense. I'll try to keep that in mind when I post.

We certainly hope so :D

[LibertyEagle]

Personally, I think the idea stemmed from the idea that most of us here, used to agree with most of what Ron Paul stood for and advocated during most of his life. Hence, the "we".

[angelatc]

Personally, I think the idea stemmed from the idea that most of us here, used to agree with most of what Ron Paul stood for and advocated during most of his life. Hence, the "we".

That's true, but I think it's also an attempt to claim dominance in an argument. Like insisting that "we" have to fund solar and wind energy projects because it's wrong headed to assume that a market will produce an alternative to fossil fuels. Or "we" have to have bases all over the whole word because "our" enemies are everywhere.

[mrsat_98]

I keep reading posts that refer to "we" and "us" as if there is some sort of collective here that can be driven or directed by persuasive speech..

I'll read what you write but make no mistake, this inclusive verbiage is a big red flag to me.

There has been a whole lot of this BS going on since Mr. Bundy stood up.

I am just me, I don't speak for you and you damn sure don't speak for me!



Thought I'd reiterate this sentiment due to recent threads...


You don't speak for us.;)


We, hmm somebody got a mouse in their pocket ?

http://data3.whicdn.com/images/11142871/thumb.jpg

[otherone]

That's true, but I think it's also an attempt to claim dominance in an argument. Like insisting that "we" have to fund solar and wind energy projects because it's wrong headed to assume that a market will produce an alternative to fossil fuels. Or "we" have to have bases all over the whole word because "our" enemies are everywhere.

argumentum ad populum
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)

[klamath]

I have made it pretty clear I am not one of the "we" "Us" libertarian/anarchists or anygroup else on here. I have been told specifically that "We have rejected your ideas" a number of times. I will call out bullshit here just as quick as I would call out bullshit on dailycos or redstate. That is why when people try and put down a point I have made by ridiculing my small number of rep points (pieces of flair) I bust a gut laughing.

[donnay]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_XFcyr3-tM

[osan]

I keep reading posts that refer to "we" and "us" as if there is some sort of collective here that can be driven or directed by persuasive speech..

I'll read what you write but make no mistake, this inclusive verbiage is a big red flag to me.

There has been a whole lot of this BS going on since Mr. Bundy stood up.

I am just me, I don't speak for you and you damn sure don't speak for me!



Thought I'd reiterate this sentiment due to recent threads...

I have pointed this very thing out many times and it bears endless repetition because people are in VERY bad thought- and communications habits. Otherwise highly intelligent people mkde this very mistake. I myself make it on rare occasion, though it is usually due to momentaary laziness than a lack of awareness. But one should also be cognizant of the judicious use of such terms, usually enclosed in quotes. And so long as the terms are given explicit definitions within the context of usage, I see no problem with it, though I remain sorely aware of the hazards that remain.

There is no real "we" in the sense of a homogeneous monobloc for which too many statements may be said to hold universally. This is the same problem as with the common usage of terms such as "state", "government", and so on. Way bad juju because it leads to all manner of grossly false perceptions and thought. But on the whole, people are lazier than shit - lassitude being the 'L' in F.A.I.L., the Four Necessities, and the tyrants are having a field day with it.

It must also be revognized that the tyrant has every advantage of human nature on his side, save one: defiance. The Four Necessities speak to the tendency to entropy in human action. Being children of this universe, there is no reason that entropy should not of necessity apply to us as well, and it does. It is easier to be lazy, to fear, to want, and to be ignorant because it requires less energy. Defeating ignorance requires energy. Overcoming fear requires energy. Working for what one has requires energy. It is easier to want than to do. Tyrants have known this forever and have take immensely successful advantage of it.

Freedom is a state of lower psychological entropy than are serfdom and slavery, and it is the psychological aspects of our existences that are the most powerful in the long run. The unwitting slave is sufficiently content to remain at his toil because it is psychologically less taxing than a state of true freedom, which requires much of his mind. He'd prefer to be body-worn than thought-worn. No idea why this is so, but only that it is.

[osan]

Im selfish and dont do it. I often call out others when they do it.

"We like Obama!" Uh, no, you like Obama.

---

The Lone Ranger AND Tonto?
(lone + "and" = contradiction)

That always made me laugh...

Perhaps he was the Rump Ranger? Gets a mite lonely out there in the desert by oneself.

[osan]

We, hmm somebody got a mouse in their pocket ?

http://data3.whicdn.com/images/11142871/thumb.jpg


Better than a gerbil up the butt.

[DGambler]

Better than a gerbil up the butt.

Richard Gere disagrees

[acptulsa]

We, hmm somebody got a mouse in their pocket ?

http://data3.whicdn.com/images/11142871/thumb.jpg

Never log in without him.

[Origanalist]

Better than a gerbil up the butt.

And you know this....how?

[William Tell]

We will keep this in mind.

[otherone]

We will keep this in mind.


“Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!”

[ProIndividual]

I'm guilty...I make myself angry with myself when I say "we" when referring to the actions of the United States government all the time too. Tough habit to break. I'll try harder.

[William Tell]

Is the Royal 'we' okay, or are we opposed to that? We would like to know...
:p

[DamianTV]

Better than a gerbil up the butt.

Armageddon!

[enoch150]

Is it OK for those who continue to support collectivist concepts like national borders to continue using "we" "us" and "our", because they're just being consistent?

[heavenlyboy34]

Is it OK for those who continue to support collectivist concepts like national borders to continue using "we" "us" and "our", because they're just being consistent?
If it's logical. For example, "we live in North America" (when discussing people who live in N.A.).

[puppetmaster]

Well lets see...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=2

Plus it is right at the top of this pesky little document, The constitution:
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm


So not everything WE is bad.


Aslo,

"We kicked their ass is good" usually....

[Christopher A. Brown]

We will not stand for collectivism!

Isms need context. The word "we" needs context. Referring to the species concerns, with clear context is okay.

When clear association and agreement is within a group, "we" is acceptable.


Consider politicians and their simply referring to us as, "IT", the public.

[green73]

I keep reading posts that refer to "we" and "us" as if there is some sort of collective here that can be driven or directed by persuasive speech..

I'll read what you write but make no mistake, this inclusive verbiage is a big red flag to me.

There has been a whole lot of this BS going on since Mr. Bundy stood up.

I am just me, I don't speak for you and you damn sure don't speak for me!



Thought I'd reiterate this sentiment due to recent threads...

So true, and when I hear people like Scott Horton make this mistake, I get a little sick.

[heavenlyboy34]

I have pointed this very thing out many times and it bears endless repetition because people are in VERY bad thought- and communications habits. Otherwise highly intelligent people mkde this very mistake. I myself make it on rare occasion, though it is usually due to momentaary laziness than a lack of awareness. But one should also be cognizant of the judicious use of such terms, usually enclosed in quotes. And so long as the terms are given explicit definitions within the context of usage, I see no problem with it, though I remain sorely aware of the hazards that remain.

There is no real "we" in the sense of a homogeneous monobloc for which too many statements may be said to hold universally. This is the same problem as with the common usage of terms such as "state", "government", and so on. Way bad juju because it leads to all manner of grossly false perceptions and thought. But on the whole, people are lazier than shit - lassitude being the 'L' in F.A.I.L., the Four Necessities, and the tyrants are having a field day with it.

It must also be revognized that the tyrant has every advantage of human nature on his side, save one: defiance. The Four Necessities speak to the tendency to entropy in human action. Being children of this universe, there is no reason that entropy should not of necessity apply to us as well, and it does. It is easier to be lazy, to fear, to want, and to be ignorant because it requires less energy. Defeating ignorance requires energy. Overcoming fear requires energy. Working for what one has requires energy. It is easier to want than to do. Tyrants have known this forever and have take immensely successful advantage of it.

Freedom is a state of lower psychological entropy than are serfdom and slavery, and it is the psychological aspects of our existences that are the most powerful in the long run. The unwitting slave is sufficiently content to remain at his toil because it is psychologically less taxing than a state of true freedom, which requires much of his mind. He'd prefer to be body-worn than thought-worn. No idea why this is so, but only that it is.
The principle of least effort is commonly used by linguists to explain why complex words and phrases become simplified over time. There are voluminous examples, but I'll pick "goodbye". This word started its life as a phrase: "God be with ye". Over generations of use and laziness of tongue, it became "goodbye" and its original nuances were (are) lost.

[heavenlyboy34]

Well lets see...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=2

Plus it is right at the top of this pesky little document, The constitution:
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm


So not everything WE is bad.


Aslo,

"We kicked their ass is good" usually....
Your examples only make sense in historical context. The "We" in those documents no longer exists. (one of the many reasons why social contract theory is full of fail, btw)

[puppetmaster]

Your examples only make sense in historical context. The "We" in those documents no longer exists. (one of the many reasons why social contract theory is full of fail, btw)

Is the bible a social contract? Does it contain social contracts? Is it full of fail?

[Christopher A. Brown]

Your examples only make sense in historical context. The "We" in those documents no longer exists. (one of the many reasons why social contract theory is full of fail, btw)

The reason you are wrong is the same reason this thread exists. The constitution lacked context for its statements of natural law.

"We hold these truths to be self evident" means that the instinctual universiality referred to between them was obvious. The terms and education they had was uniform because the people in that day educated themselves to a much greater degree. This does not negate the principle of agreement it only means that current context must be equated, and it can be easily. It is done here in part, and you can see the same elements trying to sabotage what is naturally stated.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?445586-Only-Sincere-Americans-Accept-The-Root-Purpose-Of-Free-Speech

Here the principles are consolidated I. highly functional strategy which invokes the instincts is proper sequence.

http://algoxy.com/poly/principal_party.html

Today our education suffers many compromises and our populations are quite divided in as many ways because of it. The dumbing down intentionally sabotaged our ability to re assimilate the meanings in term or context that is contemporary. However, when context of instinct is assumed, many peopled educated in science and psychology can agree upon the context intended in 1776 and forward through the establishment of the other founding documents.

The one thing that impairs the functionality of understanding, and not just today, but within a couple of generations of the days of the framing of the contracts, was the fractured series or sequence of conceptual basis.

The DOI of 1776, the constitution of 1787 and the BOR of 1792 need to be considered as one agreement. The powers that were, did not want the BOR and what it stood for. Therefore the inclusion and sequence were sabotaged making the context of the true intent more difficult to discern.

This is why Americans who love the principles and need them for generations to follow, must amend the constitution and REPAIR the sabotage. The primary purpose of the principal party is to do that.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Is the bible a social contract? Does it contain social contracts? Is it full of fail?
It seems that because the Bible does not use the word we, or even imply it as an intent of the author, that it is not a social contract.

It of course could be used as the basis for one because it defines instinctual structures of our mental and spiritual existence. Of course those principles are used in numerous areas of human society for social contract now and in the past.

[Christopher A. Brown]

The principle of least effort is commonly used by linguists to explain why complex words and phrases become simplified over time. There are voluminous examples, but I'll pick "goodbye". This word started its life as a phrase: "God be with ye". Over generations of use and laziness of tongue, it became "goodbye" and its original nuances were (are) lost.

Good post and example.

This, equates to cognitive distortion or more specifically generalization.

"complex words and phrases become simplified over time."

[TheGrinch]

I don't see the problem when used in the context of our fights for liberty.

We supported Ron Paul

We support and fight for liberty (even if we disagree on philosophy and tactics).

We comprise a liberty movement

Sure the word can be used for manipulative purposes, but the "collectivism" some of you claim is more just conveying a sense of togetherness, focusing on what we agree on, not the parts we disagree on.

You do not have to be a collectivist to realize that identity is a necessary component of group dynamics. Thus if we want to fight collectively for liberty (again, even if our tactics and philosophies differ), then we'd be foolish to act like our individualist spirit is negated by conveying a sense of community.

[otherone]

Sure the word can be used for manipulative purposes, but the "collectivism" some of you claim is more just conveying a sense of togetherness, focusing on what we agree on, not the parts we disagree on.



The word "collectivism" is floated around these parts so often it has lost its meaning.

[heavenlyboy34]

Good post and example.

This, equates to cognitive distortion or more specifically generalization.

"complex words and phrases become simplified over time."
Yes, there are several well-understood phenomena like this in linguistic science. Grammaticalization, semantic shift, etc.

[francisco]

..."complex words and phrases become simplified over time."

"Four legs good, two legs bad".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ogyip4TSis

[TheGrinch]

The word "collectivism" is floated around these parts so often it has lost its meaning.

Yep, pretty much. It should only even be a dirty word when it's a driver of policy that's forced on that collective. Many small towns have a collectivist attitude, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that in itself. It's supposed to occur naturally, not be forced. That's wherein the problem lies.


Also worth adding that "us vs. them" is human nature, so it is an exercise in futility to try to fight it. As long as there is "them" (those who you don't identify with), then there will be an "us" (those that you do).

Of course some will use this tendency as a rhetorical tool to do horrible things like wage war and divide and conquer the population, but the same can be said for any rhetorical method. Rhetoric is as noble as it's speaker, but "us vs. them" is utilized because it already exists. It just has to be fostered and directed.

But again, it is the source of the rhetoric that is the problem, not necessarily the method. There is no issue with utilizing an "us vs them" attitude when we are fighting against a "them" that we should be legitimately challenging. It can only be more productive for "us" to empathize with one another (even when we disagree), than it is to view people here as "them", which would seem to be what TPTB want.

[otherone]

Yep, pretty much. It should only even be a dirty word when it's a driver of policy that's forced on that collective. Many small towns have a collectivist attitude, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that in itself. It's supposed to occur naturally, not be forced. That's wherein the problem lies.



Collectivism ha nothing to do with groups of people generally.
The problem with it has to do with Rights.
Collectivists believe the "group" has Rights, and that the "Rights" of the group supersede the Rights of the individual.
It's the very foundation of Statism. It is the backbone (literally) of fascism, and the seminal tenet of Communism.
Groups don't have Rights.

[osan]

Is the bible a social contract? Does it contain social contracts? Is it full of fail?

Define "social contract". I say this because it must be jargon. If it is not, the question is on its face ridiculous. As has been pointed out here many times, an agreement much meet 6 specific requirements in order for it to become a contract. Absence of any single required characteristic renders the agreement non-contractual and therefore null, void, and absent of any force of law. These include offer, acceptance, capacity, intent, lawfulness, and consideration.

"No" is readily arrived upon, but let's take a close look so we understand why.

Offer: it is possible that there is in fact an offer by some party, perhaps hereinafter referred to as "government", that offers one an invitation to enter into the "social contract". There are problems with this, but let us give Themme the benefit of doubt and just call this one "good".

Acceptance: this one is of a decidedly more difficult cloth. Firstly, in order to accept, I must be aware of an offer to contract. I have personally never once experienced anything in terms of language that would have suggested to my legally untrained mind that an offer had been made. How, then, am I able to accept? Notions such as "implied consent" cut less than zero mustard in this debate. This specific detail also speaks to capacity, but we will address that shortly.

All that notwithstanding, I have made no acceptance. It has been suggested in more than a few places that the fact that I have taken a driver's license and/or other similar such rites, as it were, that these acts constitute acceptance. This notion is, of course, the purest nonsense imaginable for reasons, the details of which we need not here address. Suffice it to say that neither am I aware of any explicit offer, that implicit offers are not valid, and neither have I accepted that to which I have not been made aware as such.

I will add that lack of explicit awareness of an offer removes the element of capacity. More on that to come.

Finally, taken as a pair, offer and acceptance directly and unequivocally imply with utmost vigor and clarity that contracts must be entered into on a basis of wholly non-coerced consent. Any basis other than pure freedom renders an agreement non-contractual, null, void, and absent of any force whatsoever.

Intent: in order for a contract to exist, there must be present on the part of each party the intention of entering into legal relations. This means that each party to the agreement accepts the instruments of enforcement, such as they may apply in the specific case of a given contract. Once again speaking personally, I have never even once held such intent.

Capacity: The parties to a contract must have the mental capacity for understanding that to which they apply their signatures. If I write up an agreement with an old widow wherein I am to immediately receive her entire estate in exchange for the sum of $1 and a good roll in the hay, and she signs it after I'd gotten her good and drunk, or perhaps she was suffering from some form of dementia, no contract exists because at the time of signing her capacity to judge the merits of the deal were not present in sufficient quantity.

Consideration: there MUST be an exchange. I sell you my house for $10. The consideration I receive is $10, and yours is a house. This is perhaps the one element for which "government" can make a minimally plausible argument. In exchange for your obedience ( or what have you ), you get to drive on the roads, have the protection of our fabulous men in blue, and so forth.

Lawfulness: all stipulations in an agreement must be lawful, lest no contract exist in the first place. If every other element is in place, it is still impossible for a contract to exist where you hire your neighbor to kill your wife or help you rob the bank.

Given all this, I can say with utmost confidence that, all else equal, there is absolutely no such thing as "the social contract".

The very concept of "social contract" is repulsive at its core. It is a disgusting notion for any of a large number of reasons. Perhaps worst of all is the outright and bald-faced lie that we consent to it implicitly. This is a notion that leaves me torn between a state of violent disgust and withering anger.

I am a free man. I contract with no society. I am beyond your reach, your ability to cage, beat, or kill me notwithstanding. You can take your social contract nonsense and shove it up your ass. Not you personally, mind you. :)

[puppetmaster]

Define "social contract". I say this because it must be jargon. If it is not, the question is on its face ridiculous. As has been pointed out here many times, an agreement much meet 6 specific requirements in order for it to become a contract. Absence of any single required characteristic renders the agreement non-contractual and therefore null, void, and absent of any force of law. These include offer, acceptance, capacity, intent, lawfulness, and consideration.

"No" is readily arrived upon, but let's take a close look so we understand why.

Offer: it is possible that there is in fact an offer by some party, perhaps hereinafter referred to as "government", that offers one an invitation to enter into the "social contract". There are problems with this, but let us give Themme the benefit of doubt and just call this one "good".

Acceptance: this one is of a decidedly more difficult cloth. Firstly, in order to accept, I must be aware of an offer to contract. I have personally never once experienced anything in terms of language that would have suggested to my legally untrained mind that an offer had been made. How, then, am I able to accept? Notions such as "implied consent" cut less than zero mustard in this debate. This specific detail also speaks to capacity, but we will address that shortly.

All that notwithstanding, I have made no acceptance. It has been suggested in more than a few places that the fact that I have taken a driver's license and/or other similar such rites, as it were, that these acts constitute acceptance. This notion is, of course, the purest nonsense imaginable for reasons, the details of which we need not here address. Suffice it to say that neither am I aware of any explicit offer, that implicit offers are not valid, and neither have I accepted that to which I have not been made aware as such.

I will add that lack of explicit awareness of an offer removes the element of capacity. More on that to come.

Finally, taken as a pair, offer and acceptance directly and unequivocally imply with utmost vigor and clarity that contracts must be entered into on a basis of wholly non-coerced consent. Any basis other than pure freedom renders an agreement non-contractual, null, void, and absent of any force whatsoever.

Intent: in order for a contract to exist, there must be present on the part of each party the intention of entering into legal relations. This means that each party to the agreement accepts the instruments of enforcement, such as they may apply in the specific case of a given contract. Once again speaking personally, I have never even once held such intent.

Capacity: The parties to a contract must have the mental capacity for understanding that to which they apply their signatures. If I write up an agreement with an old widow wherein I am to immediately receive her entire estate in exchange for the sum of $1 and a good roll in the hay, and she signs it after I'd gotten her good and drunk, or perhaps she was suffering from some form of dementia, no contract exists because at the time of signing her capacity to judge the merits of the deal were not present in sufficient quantity.

Consideration: there MUST be an exchange. I sell you my house for $10. The consideration I receive is $10, and yours is a house. This is perhaps the one element for which "government" can make a minimally plausible argument. In exchange for your obedience ( or what have you ), you get to drive on the roads, have the protection of our fabulous men in blue, and so forth.

Lawfulness: all stipulations in an agreement must be lawful, lest no contract exist in the first place. If every other element is in place, it is still impossible for a contract to exist where you hire your neighbor to kill your wife or help you rob the bank.

Given all this, I can say with utmost confidence that, all else equal, there is absolutely no such thing as "the social contract".

The very concept of "social contract" is repulsive at its core. It is a disgusting notion for any of a large number of reasons. Perhaps worst of all is the outright and bald-faced lie that we consent to it implicitly. This is a notion that leaves me torn between a state of violent disgust and withering anger.

I am a free man. I contract with no society. I am beyond your reach, your ability to cage, beat, or kill me notwithstanding. You can take your social contract nonsense and shove it up your ass. Not you personally, mind you. :)


Little long winded but nice.

[heavenlyboy34]

Define "social contract". I say this because it must be jargon. If it is not, the question is on its face ridiculous. As has been pointed out here many times, an agreement much meet 6 specific requirements in order for it to become a contract. Absence of any single required characteristic renders the agreement non-contractual and therefore null, void, and absent of any force of law. These include offer, acceptance, capacity, intent, lawfulness, and consideration.

"No" is readily arrived upon, but let's take a close look so we understand why.

Offer: it is possible that there is in fact an offer by some party, perhaps hereinafter referred to as "government", that offers one an invitation to enter into the "social contract". There are problems with this, but let us give Themme the benefit of doubt and just call this one "good".

Acceptance: this one is of a decidedly more difficult cloth. Firstly, in order to accept, I must be aware of an offer to contract. I have personally never once experienced anything in terms of language that would have suggested to my legally untrained mind that an offer had been made. How, then, am I able to accept? Notions such as "implied consent" cut less than zero mustard in this debate. This specific detail also speaks to capacity, but we will address that shortly.

All that notwithstanding, I have made no acceptance. It has been suggested in more than a few places that the fact that I have taken a driver's license and/or other similar such rites, as it were, that these acts constitute acceptance. This notion is, of course, the purest nonsense imaginable for reasons, the details of which we need not here address. Suffice it to say that neither am I aware of any explicit offer, that implicit offers are not valid, and neither have I accepted that to which I have not been made aware as such.

I will add that lack of explicit awareness of an offer removes the element of capacity. More on that to come.

Finally, taken as a pair, offer and acceptance directly and unequivocally imply with utmost vigor and clarity that contracts must be entered into on a basis of wholly non-coerced consent. Any basis other than pure freedom renders an agreement non-contractual, null, void, and absent of any force whatsoever.

Intent: in order for a contract to exist, there must be present on the part of each party the intention of entering into legal relations. This means that each party to the agreement accepts the instruments of enforcement, such as they may apply in the specific case of a given contract. Once again speaking personally, I have never even once held such intent.

Capacity: The parties to a contract must have the mental capacity for understanding that to which they apply their signatures. If I write up an agreement with an old widow wherein I am to immediately receive her entire estate in exchange for the sum of $1 and a good roll in the hay, and she signs it after I'd gotten her good and drunk, or perhaps she was suffering from some form of dementia, no contract exists because at the time of signing her capacity to judge the merits of the deal were not present in sufficient quantity.

Consideration: there MUST be an exchange. I sell you my house for $10. The consideration I receive is $10, and yours is a house. This is perhaps the one element for which "government" can make a minimally plausible argument. In exchange for your obedience ( or what have you ), you get to drive on the roads, have the protection of our fabulous men in blue, and so forth.

Lawfulness: all stipulations in an agreement must be lawful, lest no contract exist in the first place. If every other element is in place, it is still impossible for a contract to exist where you hire your neighbor to kill your wife or help you rob the bank.

Given all this, I can say with utmost confidence that, all else equal, there is absolutely no such thing as "the social contract".

The very concept of "social contract" is repulsive at its core. It is a disgusting notion for any of a large number of reasons. Perhaps worst of all is the outright and bald-faced lie that we consent to it implicitly. This is a notion that leaves me torn between a state of violent disgust and withering anger.

I am a free man. I contract with no society. I am beyond your reach, your ability to cage, beat, or kill me notwithstanding. You can take your social contract nonsense and shove it up your ass. Not you personally, mind you. :)
+rep

[TheGrinch]

I guess I should mention that some of the time, when I say "we" I mean me and the other voices in my head... But they're statist assholes most of the time.

[Christopher A. Brown]

The word "collectivism" is floated around these parts so often it has lost its meaning.

To say we invest in social collectivism is a maxim based in our instinctual nature.

[osan]

To say we invest in social collectivism is a maxim based in our instinctual nature.

This needs some elaboration. As stated, it is way too open-ended to drive one's thoughts to a specific target.

[osan]

The "We" in those documents no longer exists.

It never existed. They presumed to speak for all.

[Deborah K]

I guess I should mention that some of the time, when I say "we" I mean me and the other voices in my head... But they're statist assholes most of the time.

I think the OP just doesn't want to be clumped into 'group think'. Especially since we rarely all agree on anything. I'm going to try and remember to state it like this: "I, and those who agree with me....." or "some of us believe....". Maybe it's nitpicking, but whatever.

[heavenlyboy34]

It never existed. They presumed to speak for all.
Yes, thanks for the correction! :)


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to osan again.
:( Sorry, bro.

[Christopher A. Brown]

This needs some elaboration. As stated, it is way too open-ended to drive one's thoughts to a specific target.

As a maxim it is a tool meant to be directed at a specific target. The elaboration comes when relating the maxim generally to the target.

Name an example of collectivism and I will elaborate.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Collectivism ha nothing to do with groups of people generally.
The problem with it has to do with Rights.
Collectivists believe the "group" has Rights, and that the "Rights" of the group supersede the Rights of the individual.
It's the very foundation of Statism. It is the backbone (literally) of fascism, and the seminal tenet of Communism.
Groups don't have Rights.

Which is why the infiltrators of the federal government following the civil war used the courts to illegally give corporations the rights of individuals.

The constitution actually directs away from statism and only with the aforementioned corruption does it arrive at something like your very well worded post describes.

[osan]

As a maxim it is a tool meant to be directed at a specific target. The elaboration comes when relating the maxim generally to the target.

Name an example of collectivism and I will elaborate.

You made a statement, I asked for elaboration, and you attempt to place onus on me for an example in order to provide a response?

Sorry, but this smells like a dodge. If you cannot come up with an example in so rich an environment, how can I trust that you to be credible?

Anyhow, it's not important. You have a nice day.

[MelissaCato]

I say "we" often and I'm sorry. I think listening to Ron Paul over and over for 8 years did that to me. :cool:

So much for "we the people" I guess. :rolleyes:

[Christopher A. Brown]

You made a statement, I asked for elaboration, and you attempt to place onus on me for an example in order to provide a response?

Sorry, but this smells like a dodge. If you cannot come up with an example in so rich an environment, how can I trust that you to be credible?

Anyhow, it's not important. You have a nice day.

Your post smells like cognitive infiltration because the opportunity I offer is the best for you to challenge the maxim.

How about false collectivism where a group of people get on the web and covertly pretend to care about the constitution but really are trying to distract, mislead and confuse the people that DO care?

If this is NOT true then you will use your intellect and vocabulary to prove how this step by step strategy for constitutional defense, preservation and restoration of the 1787 constitution or republic under it is technically or legally in error.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?444637-Georgia-House-approves-Article-V-convention&p=5433668&viewfull=1#post5433668

Notice the thread starter doesn't try.

[Origanalist]

//

[The Rebel Poet]

I really don't understand why so many libertarians get their panties in a wad over pronouns. If more than one person agrees with NAP, they constitute a "we." And then when someone says "I have an idea: we should blah, blah, blah," everyone gets all head up about "being told what to do." Seriously, how do we share ideas? I just shake my head.

Too many libertarians/anarchists/paleocons are paranoid of collectivism.

[The Rebel Poet]

Alternate Perspective.

The word "We" is the most condensed form of Group Psychology that it can be reduced to.

What the word "We" conveys as far as informational is that "my expressed opinion should replace your own individual opinion due to the power of the individual being less than that of a collective group". "We" is ALWAYS stated by one individual, which can be repeated later. "We" alters the way we percieve the individual to no longer be that of just an individual, but replaces that individual indentifier with that of a group, which has a much stronger influencing factor on the mind.

Examine each member of the group as an individual for a moment. The group as a whole may support an expressed opinion or idea. However, what ever level of participation each individual has in the group conclusion does NOT indicate the individual belief, but the group belief. Thus, the individuals of that group are expressing Group Think and not concluding individually. Some groups have leaders of single individuals or smaller sub-groups of individuals. The followers of these types of groups allow their own conclusions to be replaced by the ideas expressed by the Leaders.

Obedience vs Cooperation.

The type of Group Think that I was talking about above is Obedience. But there is a Cooperative form of "We". That form would result from two individuals first drawing their own conclusions, sharing those conclusions, then agreeing with the conclusions of the other. Many of us here (yes, that is a form of Group Think) have challenged the ideas of our Leaders and rejected them. "We" have learned to operate more as individuals which makes us less suseptible to accepting ideas from would be Leaders without challenge. Each of us have drawn our own conclusions, then shared those conclusions with others, and when others accept our expressed ideas, we form the Natural Group of "We".

Distinguishing between a Natural Group, one that is formed through Cooperation, and Assigned Group, one that is formed by a Leader barking orders, is quite important. Ron Paul supporters are the formation of a Natural Group, where the cooperation of each individual has concluded that Ron Paul is someone they want to be their Leader. Republicans take the opposite approach, where a person is Assigned an identity of "support Mitt Romney", or what ever other idea that can be expressed by the Leaders of the Republican Party.

Natural Groups tend to challenge ideas before accepting them. Assigned Groups are expected to not challenge ideas and blindly accept them. There is a Level of Acceptance that can still be exceeded. A declaration of expectation by a Leader that demands all members of a Group should prefer Horse Radish Ice Cream over all other forms of food. The Level of Acceptance here would exceed tolerance of both types of Groups. So keeping that Level of Acceptance within operating parameters is necessary for Assigned Group Think to function. This is where "We" deviate. "We" operate individually, thus, have a much lower threshold of Level of Acceptance.

The Group Think of the Republican Party Leaders expects all self identified Republicans who are not Leaders to blindly accept whatever candidate they throw our way. There are many tactics that are employed to increase that Level of Acceptance. First being the Illusion of Choice. "We" understand that being given a choice between two candidates selected by the Leaders of the Republican Party is NOT a choice. "We" challenge each candidate presented. The Obedient Group Think followers tend to not challenge the limitation of Choices presented. This causes "Them" to accept what they are told to accept. "Their " time is spent comparing the Choices presented as to which candidate each individual desires more. Then the individual Obedient Group expresses the individual conclusions and the more popular of the two candidates is selected. For the minority members of the Obedient Group, many allow the Group Conclusion (vote) to replace their individual opinion. This becomes obvious when previous Romney supporters (2008 election) change who they support, and supported McCain when Romney dropped out. Some did not. The effect is that there is an increase in the number who now support the Majority, despite several non Romney and non Ron Paul supporters having no longer offered their support to McCain.

There are two definitions of "We". I tried to be very careful in my application of the word in question, with reference to both the Natural Group and Assigned Group definitions. Natural Groups, the "We" of Ron Paul supporters and likeminded individuals does need to be maintained. At the same time, "We" need to be careful to not allow ourselves to fall into the category of the Assigned Group, which extends well beyond the Republican / Democrat paradigm.

In summary, each individual has the potential to benefit far more from seeking a Natual Group that is formed through Cooperation than one that is Assigned where Obedience is demanded. Let us (each as individuals) continue to make efforts to Cooperate and refuse Obedience.
Damn that was long. But absolutely true. We needed to hear it.

[The Rebel Poet]

Great. Then you don't have to say "we." The rest of us will.
^^This^^

[The Rebel Poet]

yes, we agree on that.Aha! You said the w-word! You are a communist!

[Christopher A. Brown]

I say "we" often and I'm sorry. I think listening to Ron Paul over and over for 8 years did that to me. :cool:

So much for "we the people" I guess. :rolleyes:

Seems partisan politics tries to create context where the word "we" sounds exceptionally correct. Most folk I know who think they are political are really adopting collectivist perceptions to try them on for awhile. I never felt comfortable with any of it.

After about 1993 I gave up on it and started trying to sort the different principles out. By the time GWB got a hold of the word I knew I had done the right thing.

As human beings working to survive and create a stable and truly progressive society, "we" will find that some instincts we have are try shared. When large groups share those perceptions the notion of "we" will become more meaningful to each individual.

There was a post comparing obedience to cooperation that made a very good point I echo above in different words. I would add that the form of obedience to be wary of is that driven by unconscious social fears.