Oxford defines social contract as an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection>The Russian contract (Informal freedom)I was reading about the Russian revolution and its leadup and something struck me about their society at large. Namely, that their social contract between the lower/middle class citizen goes like this: In order to keep Russia secure from both internal and external threats, as well as projecting their power on the world stage, the citizenry will tolerate a strong central government at the top (ie the tyranny part of Anarcho-Tyranny). In exchange, said government will leave local matters largely to its citizens and mostly abstain from projecting their bureaucracy into the everyman's face. This comes with a push and pull effect by both parties, wherein the government sometimes gets a bit uppity and tries to pass and enforce oppressive laws or empower its bureaucrats whilst the citizenry respond with 'evasion' tactics. These include skirting or ignoring rules, bribing officials, doing business 'illegally.' Occasionally there are more organized protests as well. This social contract appears to be based on a form of Anarcho-Tyranny, but with the perspective that the average Russian has had the tendency to tacitly approve of said system. The peasant commune, or Mir, was a good real-world institution that illustrates this and stood the test of time. I am not Russian living in the early 20th century, so I would love to get a Russanon's perspective.
>The American contract (Encoded freedoms)Meanwhile, the American system takes a much different approach to the inevitability of government and the freedoms of its citizenry. First off, the country was born in rebellion to central government and has never completely lost its suspicion of consolidated power. In contrast to the Russian contract, the American one relies on formal civil rights encoded into law. This has caused the worth of said rights to be viewed as sacred and they cannot be tread upon lightly. However, as the country has become more diverse culturally and ethnically, as well as had its middle and lower classes subjected to growing economic instability, these rights have become chipped away at on a broad scope. The freedoms guaranteed in law may have caused a certain amount of complacency in resisting their erosion, especially as the citizenry have become more divided and financially weaker whilst the bureaucratic state has become only larger and more powerful. That said, the inbred attitude of the citizenry to be suspicious of government overreach and trampling of rights provides a certain amount of backbone when faced with tyranny directed at the bottom. It makes it less risky to voice concerns, go on strike or protest, and generally be openly discontent. However, open discontent may not be enough when faced with a kafka-esque system whose goal is the subjugation of the population. We will have to see if the ebbing of resistance eventually swings back into flow.
>The European contract (social welfare)Before I begin, I must state that Europe is a continent with dozens of nations, cultures and ethnicities and that all these have a variance on the European contract. Also, this contract mostly applies to the wealthier western states, though I believe the other states have aspired to be in a similar situation. Europe has focused inward on stability, consumer/worker rights, and social welfare. This comes in exchange for a government with a bureaucracy more empowered than the other two countries discussed. The average citizen of the EU has had it better off than the average citizen of Russia or America (though the latter is debatable due to the sheer wealth generated in and directed to it). They have higher pensions, higher wages, better infrastructure, and better living conditions on the whole. This is the benefit of the contract. The cost of it is that the citizen has less EFFECTIVE freedom than the other two contracts provide. This is due to three conditions: 1. There is a less inbred sense of suspicion of big government. The government is generally looked upon as a good thing, a paternalistic system that has mostly looked out for its citizenry. This may have been different before the world wars, but since the founding of the EU the citizenry on the whole instinctively looks up at the government with trust. This is a huge factor with the next two.2. They have no culture of local evasion as the Russians do, and no expectation that the central government's bureaucracy will stay out of their personal and local affairs. 3. They may have some rights encoded into law as Americans do, but due to point #1, they have no expectation of having to fight for those rights.1/2
>>523360467Personally, I am an isolationist and applaud a civilization for looking inward and taking care of its people before worrying about global strategic power plans. The European system, however, is, in my opinion, illegitimate. This is because since WWII and the Marshall Plan, the social contract of the Europeans has been subsidized by either America or the Soviet Union. It is all well and good to provide first for one's own citizenry, but if this comes at the cost of sovereignty and security, then it merely becomes a bribe. While their bureaucrats seemed to have awakened to their peril since 2022, their predicament may be impossible to squirm out of without discarding the old social contract of Paternalistic Socialism altogether. This looks to be the case, as Europe's economic situation looks pretty bad and their attempts at creating (almost from scratch) a force capable of providing them sovereignty and security have been half-baked, incompetent, and agonizingly slow. As for the American system, time will tell. I am of the opinion that this contract may be the first to disappear or at least be rewritten; otherwise the European citizen may look around and see shrinking wages and pensions, a crumbling safety net and infrastructure, and a nanny state that will not relinquish its power to oppress without a fight.2/2
>>523360467IndeedGibs was promised to me 1000 years ago
>>523360196So you saying social contractors ?
How about People organize them self by popular peoples congress with presents of gallows for a discipline, lie = die. Members of board of directors get rotated in a company of Huawei so it prevents corruption if you rotate members of committees for all tasks that state needs, medicine, police, infrastructure building , trade , education and so on.
>>523360196Community-centricThere is a tight bond and a great relationship between the development team and the community. We communicate with our users and constantly use their feedback to improve Linux Mint.
>>523360196Social contract doesn't exist.
