[theonemind]

That's a perspective from leveraging one limited mode of thought, albeit a prevalent one in the modern Western world. I think throughout most of human history, most humans would've had the ability to deal with both the implied and imprecise or ambiguous. I view mode of thought that disregards them as rather the more limited and incorrect one, as they ultimately form the basis of the notion of codified and explicit, via mechanisms such as implicit beliefs like "we can make a cooperative explicit system and abide by it", and so forth.

A lot of the UK's legal system itself rests on convention, tradition, and precedent, and isn't written, and moreso going back in time as evidence of this.

Enforcement has historically sometimes taken the form of kings' heads on pikes, when the explicit law is that the king does what he wants and suffers no consequences. The implied contract of just rule takes precedence.

[BearhatBeer]

I think you've misunderstood - the social contract is a fiction, that's why it's purposely undefined in my opinion. It's just something we're told exists so we can feel like the fox watching the henhouse is a good arrangement. I prefer not to believe in very many things simply because belief's the end of the logical process.

[dTal]

> I prefer not to believe in very many things simply because belief's the end of the logical process.

I think it's worth acknowledging that belief in some types of things makes them real - "self fulfilling", if you will. The social contract is one such thing, Santa Claus is another. As such, belief isn't limited to being just a mental reflection of truth - it can also be a statement of intent about what you want the world to be. When I say "I believe in you", I am not simply stating my assessment of your capabilities, I am trying to help you. It is an action. Likewise when I say "I believe in the rule of law", or "I believe causing pain is wrong" - I am trying to make them true.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/66591-all-right-said-susan-...

[notacoward]

Counterpoint: the social contract (or treaty, or whatever term you want to use) protects both sides. It says that people or institutions that could otherwise crush you won't, in return for you following a set of basic rules and conventions. You seem very focused (to use the polite word) on how it's less freedom than you wish for, but it's also more freedom than you might have had otherwise. There's endless room to debate what those rules are or should be, but in general the social order thus created is better for everyone - including you. Cooperation brings benefits, and structured cooperation avoids the losses of endless bickering about the boundaries. The alternative to a social contract is "might is right" and it would be absurd for you to assume you'd be on the winning side of that.

[theonemind]

Fair enough!