Under the libertarian and anarcho-capitalist instantiations of free society, you are free to find like minded individuals and establish the egalitarian community and society you desire.
You are free to opt in or opt out of any social contract you care to enter into, with anyone you care to associate with.
Unless I’m misunderstanding you, the freedom you espouse would involve forcing the libertarians and anarcho-capitalists to submit to your system of “freedom” even if it goes against all their deeply held beliefs about what is just and right.
If you are talking about your right to willingly and voluntarily form and participate in a “free” society of your own making (focused on equality, “a society in which each strives for the common good”), then we are in agreement.
However, if you are suggesting that you must be “free” to impose your conception of what constitutes an ideal social contract on the rest of us, then our level of agreement is near zero.
"...your right to willingly and voluntarily form and participate in a “free” society of your own making..."
Here lies, I think, the heart of the misunderstanding between the two of us. There's no "my" right or "your" right. There's no "my" society or "your" society. There's only "our" society in which you and I need to find a mode of co-existing that caters to the maximum amount of freedom for the both of us. To make that work, concessions have to be made by both of us, and in those concessions are the necessary restrictions to both our liberties. So, there's no absolutely free society. Hermits are free, individuals who participate in society are not. They can't be and they know it. Rousseau made a distinction between "natural liberty" and "civil liberty," with the latter being the organized and structured collection of individuals in "civil society." The notion that each individual is "free to opt in or opt out of any social contract you care to enter into, with anyone you care to associate with," is as flawed as the notion that if you don't like your job you're free to look for another job, or if you don't like it here you can move to another country. Those answers are too easy, and the problems addressed by the questions are too complex to be properly addressed by such simple answers. Having said all this, there are certainly many criticisms to be made against Rousseau's idealism of civil society; even in his own time he had to flee and had trouble finding a place to live elsewhere in Europe. The "general will" of the people can be and often is akin to a "dictatorship of the majority." Rousseau even went so far as to say that individuals would be "forced to be free" in his ideal civil society. Search Google on that phrase and you'll find tons of descriptions, rebuttals and debunkings of his forced freedom. Personally I think he had the right idea, looked in the right direction because we want to be united in a functioning and relatively free society, just not under a traditional ruler, and the best replacement for that traditional ruler is self-governance by the people through society's general will.
I would very much like to hear your thoughts and responses to my questions and comments below ...
There's no "my" society or "your" society. There's only "our" society in which you and I need to find a mode of co-existing that caters to the maximum amount of freedom for the both of us.
Why? There is plenty of space on the earth for multiple societies, each with their own 'social contract' to which the members of that society mutually agree to.
Why must there be a one-size-fits-all social contract?
It seems that our major disagreement lies in your assumption that all of humanity must live as a single society under a single social contract, whereas my core assumption is that many different societies are possible, and preferable.
we want to be united in a functioning and relatively free society, just not under a traditional ruler, and the best replacement for that traditional ruler is self-governance by the people through society's general will.
Agreed! You do realize, I presume, that self-governance, not under a traditional ruler is the anarcho-capitalist ideal ("rules without rulers"). However, your respective meanings of the term 'self-governance' may not be the same, as in your respective meanings of 'self' are presumably quite different.
In any event, the idea of a 'social contract' is great. However, in order for a contract to be 'valid' it must satisfy the requirements of [1] a meeting of the minds (i.e. the terms of the contract mean the same to all parties involved), and [2] a voluntary agreement (i.e. no one was 'forced' to enter into the contract).
Although we can probably never achieve the true ideal wherein everyone resides in a society where they are fully in agreement with the social contract under which they are living, the best "mode of co-existing that caters to the maximum amount of freedom for the both of us" is for each of us to have a multitude of social contracts from which to choose.
The one-size-fits-all paradigm can only end in oppression and subjugation. If it is a democracy, then it is the majority who are able to subjugate the minority. If it is a dictatorship, then it is the dictator who forces his/her will on everyone else. Those are the two extremes. Every space in between, within a one-size-fits-all worldwide 'social contract', involves subjugation of one or more groups at the hands of others.
But some time I do asked, "Do Freedom really exist in reality?" even freedom is not freedom. If freedom is freedom why nature favor some and maltreat some? I think freedom are only found in books and hard in application. Let think about this. Thank you so much at this teaching @zyx066
Under the libertarian and anarcho-capitalist instantiations of free society, you are free to find like minded individuals and establish the egalitarian community and society you desire.
You are free to opt in or opt out of any social contract you care to enter into, with anyone you care to associate with.
Unless I’m misunderstanding you, the freedom you espouse would involve forcing the libertarians and anarcho-capitalists to submit to your system of “freedom” even if it goes against all their deeply held beliefs about what is just and right.
If you are talking about your right to willingly and voluntarily form and participate in a “free” society of your own making (focused on equality, “a society in which each strives for the common good”), then we are in agreement.
However, if you are suggesting that you must be “free” to impose your conception of what constitutes an ideal social contract on the rest of us, then our level of agreement is near zero.
Thanks for responding @trostparadox :-)
Here lies, I think, the heart of the misunderstanding between the two of us. There's no "my" right or "your" right. There's no "my" society or "your" society. There's only "our" society in which you and I need to find a mode of co-existing that caters to the maximum amount of freedom for the both of us. To make that work, concessions have to be made by both of us, and in those concessions are the necessary restrictions to both our liberties. So, there's no absolutely free society. Hermits are free, individuals who participate in society are not. They can't be and they know it. Rousseau made a distinction between "natural liberty" and "civil liberty," with the latter being the organized and structured collection of individuals in "civil society." The notion that each individual is "free to opt in or opt out of any social contract you care to enter into, with anyone you care to associate with," is as flawed as the notion that if you don't like your job you're free to look for another job, or if you don't like it here you can move to another country. Those answers are too easy, and the problems addressed by the questions are too complex to be properly addressed by such simple answers. Having said all this, there are certainly many criticisms to be made against Rousseau's idealism of civil society; even in his own time he had to flee and had trouble finding a place to live elsewhere in Europe. The "general will" of the people can be and often is akin to a "dictatorship of the majority." Rousseau even went so far as to say that individuals would be "forced to be free" in his ideal civil society. Search Google on that phrase and you'll find tons of descriptions, rebuttals and debunkings of his forced freedom. Personally I think he had the right idea, looked in the right direction because we want to be united in a functioning and relatively free society, just not under a traditional ruler, and the best replacement for that traditional ruler is self-governance by the people through society's general will.
I would very much like to hear your thoughts and responses to my questions and comments below ...
Why? There is plenty of space on the earth for multiple societies, each with their own 'social contract' to which the members of that society mutually agree to.
Why must there be a one-size-fits-all social contract?
It seems that our major disagreement lies in your assumption that all of humanity must live as a single society under a single social contract, whereas my core assumption is that many different societies are possible, and preferable.
Agreed! You do realize, I presume, that self-governance, not under a traditional ruler is the anarcho-capitalist ideal ("rules without rulers"). However, your respective meanings of the term 'self-governance' may not be the same, as in your respective meanings of 'self' are presumably quite different.
In any event, the idea of a 'social contract' is great. However, in order for a contract to be 'valid' it must satisfy the requirements of [1] a meeting of the minds (i.e. the terms of the contract mean the same to all parties involved), and [2] a voluntary agreement (i.e. no one was 'forced' to enter into the contract).
Although we can probably never achieve the true ideal wherein everyone resides in a society where they are fully in agreement with the social contract under which they are living, the best "mode of co-existing that caters to the maximum amount of freedom for the both of us" is for each of us to have a multitude of social contracts from which to choose.
The one-size-fits-all paradigm can only end in oppression and subjugation. If it is a democracy, then it is the majority who are able to subjugate the minority. If it is a dictatorship, then it is the dictator who forces his/her will on everyone else. Those are the two extremes. Every space in between, within a one-size-fits-all worldwide 'social contract', involves subjugation of one or more groups at the hands of others.
But some time I do asked, "Do Freedom really exist in reality?" even freedom is not freedom. If freedom is freedom why nature favor some and maltreat some? I think freedom are only found in books and hard in application. Let think about this. Thank you so much at this teaching @zyx066