Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

MLK & Social Contract

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:31:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Accepting that "governing" is a significant influence on the lives and well-being of many....

Social Contract Theory occurs in a consensual arrangement of power between the state and the people. MLK qualified as neither, but still had the distinctive power to influence the law and to harm or benefit the populace.

MLK and anyone similar to him is therefore, I believe, a disruption of this theory. What gives the government the right to govern us is that we consent for our own benefit, but MLK had the status of what I consider a pseudo-government...he was a private individual, yet still had the influential might to influence the masses. He had not received the consent to influence the lives of the people so significantly. On that note, I find that it is of dire importance to the freedom of the population that the rightful government regulate and retard the power of MLK and others like him.

I'm not entirely sure of this line of thinking, but at the moment I think it makes sense. Thoughts?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:45:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
lol mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery.

Your argument is a ridiculous strawman, a failed stunt, because MLK's influence was of a voluntary nature. MLK did not have the power to FORCE the people to act or FORCE the people into any situation that was unfair or left many disadvantaged. A corporation however is a power with a nature of coercion, seeing as our prosperity and livelihoods are contingent on Corporate actions, they do have the power to force without consent.

---Thread ends here----
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 6:55:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 6:45:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
lol mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery.

It's called reductio.

Your argument is a ridiculous strawman, a failed stunt, because MLK's influence was of a voluntary nature.

And if me and a bunch of my buddies decide to set up a company and buy and sell things to willing participants, that is also voluntary. (By the way, it's not actually true that MLK's unfluence was of a voluntary nature.)

MLK did not have the power to FORCE the people to act or FORCE the people into any situation that was unfair or left many disadvantaged.

And presumably a company doesn't FORCE people to buy from or sell to it.

A corporation however is a power with a nature of coercion, seeing as our prosperity and livelihoods are contingent on Corporate actions, they do have the power to force without consent.

You don't think MLK's actions affected the "prosperity and livelihoods" of a great many people?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 7:22:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 6:55:13 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/14/2012 6:45:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
lol mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery.

It's called reductio.

Your argument is a ridiculous strawman, a failed stunt, because MLK's influence was of a voluntary nature.

And if me and a bunch of my buddies decide to set up a company and buy and sell things to willing participants, that is also voluntary. (By the way, it's not actually true that MLK's unfluence was of a voluntary nature.)

MLK did not have the power to FORCE the people to act or FORCE the people into any situation that was unfair or left many disadvantaged.

And presumably a company doesn't FORCE people to buy from or sell to it.

A corporation however is a power with a nature of coercion, seeing as our prosperity and livelihoods are contingent on Corporate actions, they do have the power to force without consent.

You don't think MLK's actions affected the "prosperity and livelihoods" of a great many people?

You don't seem to understand what it means to coerce.

If 5 companies plunder, bottle, and sell the world's water supply. They can make fresh water inaccessible to people simply by making outrageous prices. If 5 companies run the entire economy, and decide not to hire any Black people, the African Americans have no way to make money and will live in poverty. If you deny that corporations can force and coerce then you're simply uninformed.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 7:50:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 6:31:46 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Accepting that "governing" is a significant influence on the lives and well-being of many....

Social Contract Theory occurs in a consensual arrangement of power between the state and the people. MLK qualified as neither, but still had the distinctive power to influence the law and to harm or benefit the populace.

MLK and anyone similar to him is therefore, I believe, a disruption of this theory. What gives the government the right to govern us is that we consent for our own benefit, but MLK had the status of what I consider a pseudo-government...he was a private individual, yet still had the influential might to influence the masses. He had not received the consent to influence the lives of the people so significantly. On that note, I find that it is of dire importance to the freedom of the population that the rightful government regulate and retard the power of MLK and others like him.

I'm not entirely sure of this line of thinking, but at the moment I think it makes sense. Thoughts?

So any public figure with disproportionate influence is a pseudo-government?

You realize the "influence" MLK wanted was about stopping de jure and de facto segregation, right?

That's what you want to retard and stop?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 7:50:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 7:22:45 PM, 000ike wrote:
If 5 companies plunder, bottle, and sell the world's water supply. They can make fresh water inaccessible to people simply by making outrageous prices.

Perhaps the problem is with the plundering, yes?

If 5 companies run the entire economy, and decide not to hire any Black people, the African Americans have no way to make money and will live in poverty.

It's not coercion to not associate with someone.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 7:52:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 7:50:03 PM, Wnope wrote:
So any public figure with disproportionate influence is a pseudo-government?

MLK certainly had more influence in most people's lives than most corporations.

That's what you want to retard and stop?

I'm arguing that this must be Ike's position is he wishes consistency.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 8:05:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 7:52:10 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/14/2012 7:50:03 PM, Wnope wrote:
So any public figure with disproportionate influence is a pseudo-government?

MLK certainly had more influence in most people's lives than most corporations.

That's what you want to retard and stop?

I'm arguing that this must be Ike's position is he wishes consistency.

I have no idea what you reference to when it comes to Ike.

So you agree that when you say MLK was a "pseudo-government" you would also classify any person with extremely disproportionate influence of citizens as a pseudo-government?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 8:13:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 8:05:35 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/14/2012 7:52:10 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/14/2012 7:50:03 PM, Wnope wrote:
So any public figure with disproportionate influence is a pseudo-government?

MLK certainly had more influence in most people's lives than most corporations.

That's what you want to retard and stop?

I'm arguing that this must be Ike's position is he wishes consistency.

I have no idea what you reference to when it comes to Ike.

So you agree that when you say MLK was a "pseudo-government" you would also classify any person with extremely disproportionate influence of citizens as a pseudo-government?

Wnope he's trying to compare my argument that corporations have the power to force and coerce the public into MLK has influence over the public. Its just a massive strawman.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 8:15:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 8:05:35 PM, Wnope wrote:
So you agree that when you say MLK was a "pseudo-government" you would also classify any person with extremely disproportionate influence of citizens as a pseudo-government?

"How do we define governing. It is, simply, the power to force or significantly influence the course of life for another human being. Corporations can have such power, except that they do not have society's consent." - 000ike
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 8:18:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 8:15:15 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/14/2012 8:05:35 PM, Wnope wrote:
So you agree that when you say MLK was a "pseudo-government" you would also classify any person with extremely disproportionate influence of citizens as a pseudo-government?

"How do we define governing. It is, simply, the power to force or significantly influence the course of life for another human being. Corporations can have such power, except that they do not have society's consent." - 000ike

Oh, so Ike claims corporations are pseudo-governments?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 8:18:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Similarly, MLK significantly influenced the course of life of other human beings and did not have society's consent.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 8:19:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 8:18:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/14/2012 8:15:15 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/14/2012 8:05:35 PM, Wnope wrote:
So you agree that when you say MLK was a "pseudo-government" you would also classify any person with extremely disproportionate influence of citizens as a pseudo-government?

"How do we define governing. It is, simply, the power to force or significantly influence the course of life for another human being. Corporations can have such power, except that they do not have society's consent." - 000ike

Oh, so Ike claims corporations are pseudo-governments?

Right. And I'm arguing that, under his own definition, MLK is also a pseudo-government.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 8:27:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
9000 thread points to Reasoning for pointing out the fallacy of using the definition of government so liberally (by Ike in this instance) better than I could have.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2012 8:31:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/14/2012 8:19:54 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/14/2012 8:18:14 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/14/2012 8:15:15 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/14/2012 8:05:35 PM, Wnope wrote:
So you agree that when you say MLK was a "pseudo-government" you would also classify any person with extremely disproportionate influence of citizens as a pseudo-government?

"How do we define governing. It is, simply, the power to force or significantly influence the course of life for another human being. Corporations can have such power, except that they do not have society's consent." - 000ike

Oh, so Ike claims corporations are pseudo-governments?

Right. And I'm arguing that, under his own definition, MLK is also a pseudo-government.

Yeah, other than a few really special, extremely unlikely possibly examples, it doesn't pan out.