From: ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com   
      
   In article <2952o5-uoh.ln1@mail-news.jamver.id.au>,   
    Aqua  wrote:   
      
   > > Of course, one possible problem with that view of it is that it weakens   
   > > or eliminates the moral force of the contract metaphor, since it makes   
   > > the social contract a contract signed under duress--and most people   
   > > don't think contracts signed under duress are binding.   
   >   
   > I think you're going to have to explain what you're talking about here,   
   > because as far as I can interpret what you're saying here, this model of   
   > social interaction doesn't even get out of the starting blocks.  How do   
   > your kind of people deal with having no control over where and when   
   > they're born, who their parents are, what their first language will be, etc?   
   >   
      
   I don't see why that would be a problem.   
      
   The problem is how to deal with other people who make claims on us that   
   we have not agreed to. That, after all, is the essence of the "social   
   contract" idea--that each individual has a set of obligations, like the   
   obligations one has from agreeing to a contract, but obligations he did   
   not actually agree to.   
      
   --   
    http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/   
    Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.   
    Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)