You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Libertarianism and Mining GORP (Trail Mix) [about to hit 9k follower!!!]
You do have a point, and you are talking about contracts, wich is a good way to establish rules between two or more parts.
But still, some rules cant be put in contract or agreement form. Especially when some agreement affect people that arent directly involved in them.
But yeah, no doubt there is to many regulations with personal agendas involved.
What is needed is to reduce them to a minimum. The big question is How.
I actually agree with this statement, but point out I did not propose rules be specified, but principles by which alliances could form. Clearly those alliances would propose means of supporting their principles, and opposing their enemies, and these could be considered rules.
I submit that my proposal does reduce regulations and the corruption they potentiate to a minimum, in fact eliminating them.
Do please provide examples of how this would not work, for my edification. I can learn nothing unless others teach me what they know, and I do not.
Phrasing this way i understood better, and yes, i does make sense, and can work as long as all parts have a consensus over that.
But how would we reach consensus in other way than having written and enforced rules that everyone on the community agree with?
Would your proposal then be an unwritten social contract?
I don't think consensus is attainable. I believe that, for the foreseeable future, at least, conflict and tension between opposition parties is inevitable.
I propose no unwritten contracts, but only interpersonal agreements to which individuals set their hands, and can withdraw from at their sole option.
Unwritten social contracts are, I think, addressed by this proposal, as the principles of most folks recognize such, and their agreements would reflect their understandings.
You and I could agree on much. We would continue to disagree on other things, but the areas of agreement could be matters where we could work together, until our work ran up against one or the other's conflicting principles, at which point we could affably disagree, limiting our communal effort.
If those limitations proved to too limit the effection of our purposes, we could also choose to change our minds, and undertake a broader range of agreement.