Is there any conceivable justification for rule of the few over the many? From Paul Rosenberg at freemansperspective.com:
Last week we examined the “social contract” in some depth, to see if it passes as a legal concept. This week we’ll examine two follow-up issues: one that I didn’t mention and one that I mentioned, but didn’t delve into.
And for those who missed last week’s post, we started by noting that the social contract is the concept that describes the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. It asserts that all of us have consented to surrender some of our rights to a ruling group, in exchange for the protection of our remaining rights.
The Contract of Adhesion
There is one kind of contract that could be claimed as legitimately applying to the social contract. (This claim negates nothing we covered last week, and it’s also a dodgy type of contract.) It’s called a contract of adhesion, and it’s the kind of contract you “agree” to when using a parking garage. The tiny print, which you never read, absolves the garage from more or less everything and punishes you for any error.
In an adhesion contract, there is no negotiating, no clarification of terms, and very often an imbalance of power.
At first I was frowning over phrenology of Cromagnon Anti-Social then I was like smile. (s/)
So thankful for the if the herd was running off a cliff/bridge would you join in that was hammered into us back in vintage legacy USA.
Stranger danger was another altruism from back in the day.
I feel no love from the New Civility hive and I have none for them.
This contract is null and void and my signature is no where on there.
Mandatory do this or that lets stick this in needle in your arm or stick something up your butt?
GTFO and go F’ yourself.
Breaking from Jerry Goldsmith:
Patton (Main Theme)