[rini17]

Violence is not mentioned even once. Maybe because it is and always was _the_ ground to compel all people to enter a social contract. Decentralization and deregulation of violence was attempted many times and ended up with survivors agreeing to centralize it again. And maybe that was what Kant had in mind and then immediately missed it too, instead he argued by property. And yes, private property elevated to moral imperative...has its drawbacks.

[magicalhippo]

> Violence is not mentioned even once.

It's mentioned at the start:

Our entire social contract boils down to, “I promise not to kill you if you promise not to kill me.” There’s nothing more to it.

That said, I agree that the author subsequently ignores the implications of this, which makes his conclusions rather meaningless in my view.

[lazide]

Yup, IMO they’ve been in a very shielded environment (first world problems?) where all the abstract philosophical stuff can be discussed - because they don’t need to worry about food on the table or getting murdered because of more basic things.

They’re starting to get it, but it hasn’t quite clicked yet.

[jaybrendansmith]

His entire argument rests on the foundation that he lives in a just society. It's kinda funny. The entire reason for these philosophies and government at large is to solve for externalities: Kingpins, Terrorists, Cancer-causing chemicals, Violence, Street Gangs, Sudden death by falling cranes, madmen with AR-15s, the list goes on forever. You only have the pleasure of being a punk when you have solved for all of these externalities and live in a peaceful and just society.

[rini17]

It rests on the foundation that all the things beyond his capacity to care... don't really exist.