Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SteppenAxolotl t1_j0r3jt4 wrote

That dynamic has nothing to do with social contracts. That is simply the natural outcome of capitalism in the case of ending up in a mansion. Ending up in prison is simply the natural outcome of wanting a nice life and being too lazy or stupid to create those conditions yourself, taking it from those that can is the easiest pathway.

1

EscapeVelocity83 t1_j0r53ta wrote

It's like when we had wars the losers went to prison death or slavery

1

SteppenAxolotl t1_j0r7bnj wrote

It's nothing like that.

Expecting strangers to work to support you and, as expected, when they refuse which will require you to support yourself, that inst the same as condemning you to slavery. Trying to force strangers to work to support you would be the same as enslaving them.

1

curloperator t1_j0zxumo wrote

>Trying to force strangers to work to support you would be the same as enslaving them.

Kind of like how the rich have constructed a system whereby they force us to work for them at thier companies in order to eat

1

SteppenAxolotl t1_j1z5z2s wrote

Except the rich are maybe 20% of the electorate, the 80% is more responsible for the system. That's you.

1

Affectionate-Unit96 t1_j0td2lz wrote

Then you have SBF, who has both lived in a mansion and some of the shittiest jails on earth.

1

jdmcnair t1_j0vo0qa wrote

I mean, I think you and I are agreeing that the dynamic is mostly bogus, but whatever we think of it, that pretty much is the social contract. People are assigned worth roughly based on their overall value proposition to society. If they are more useful than detrimental, they get a reasonably fair shake (though that has been rapidly changing in recent decades). A person's utility may be wrapped up in possession of resources that they inherited through no merit of their own, and their detriment may be tied to environmental reasons beyond their control, but it's still what they'll be judged on, fair or not.

1