I just don't understand how libertarians reject the social contract, but they support property
It just boggles my mind.
I can understand rejecting both (which I used to do, till I actually read about the social contract). But you can’t accept property and not believe in the idea of a social contract.
Simple, propertarian libertarians hold that the principle of rights, including property rights, is a corollary of the principle of non-aggression.
case and point
The “non-aggression” principle is a social contract.
When did the people born into society consent to “non-aggression”? When did they consent to property rights? You can consent to the concept of ‘non aggression’ without consenting to property because you view property as being violent.
Notes
-
pickledhappiness liked this
-
ijustino reblogged this from anticapitalist and added:
be skeptical of claims to rights. Just so we are on the same page,...understanding of...
-
elusivemusings liked this
-
parallaxative liked this
-
anticapitalist reblogged this from ijustino and added:
You’re implying natural rights, which do not exist. There are no inherent rights associated with being human. >”There is...
-
jessestsjames liked this
-
kriszensufi reblogged this from sinidentidades
-
kriszensufi liked this
-
jorjpeligro liked this
-
oldenough2burmom liked this
-
harlowdrae liked this
-
sinidentidades reblogged this from anticapitalist
-
ghost-of-algren reblogged this from anticapitalist and added:
tl;dr libertariens do not know what a social contract is.
-
tiny-irishman liked this
-
sinidentidades liked this
-
adumbrations liked this
-
glitchthemachine liked this
-
adumbrations said:
how do you accept the social contract as an anarchist?
-
noeticallysexy liked this
-
thedismembermentflan liked this
-
frankgrievance liked this
-
r-i-o-t liked this
-
domesticterrorism liked this
-
anticapitalist posted this
