In this essay, I will discuss on what basis and for what reasons societies are formed. I will then discuss the importance of the procedures these societies use to govern themselves. I will lastly discuss what makes the individuals in these societies obligated to follow these laws.
In light of overcoming reciprocal stagnation in human progression and a world of ‘primitive kill or be killed’ ideology, it seems to be in every individual’s best interests to live peacefully amongst one another. But the question of whether we can do so without sacrificing our autonomy (that which we will hold as the highest human value) is debatable.
When individuals come together and cooperate mutually with one another, we call this a society. In order to cooperate …show more content…
This first decision when agreed upon, automatically dictates who is a member of the agreement and who isn’t. For if you did not agree to cooperate, you are not a member, and if you agreed to cooperate, you are a member. In this way, the first system of government is automatically a unanimous direct democracy whether by accident or on purpose. The society and its members have been unanimously agreed upon and the decision has counted each individual as an equal say in the …show more content…
It seems prima facie that consent is only acquired by seeing, hearing or having an individual record his consent for future reference, we call this explicit consent. The alternative to acquiring explicit consent is by assuming they have consented to the laws via their action or omission, for example, when someone eats out at a restaurant, their ordering of their meal and consumption of the food is taken as an act of consent to paying the fee for the service. This is called tacit consent. In order for tacit consent to have any standing, it seems only valid when the knowledge of the action or omission that binds them to the contract is understood by the person that is supposed to be consenting. In this way, it could be argued that if through lack of knowledge, a person did not understand that ordering a meal and eating it at a restaurant was seen to be an act of tacitly consenting, then he does not seem to be bound by obligation to pay for the meal. This, for most practical purposes, seems hard to come by but could be occasionally a valid defence against tacit
In light of overcoming reciprocal stagnation in human progression and a world of ‘primitive kill or be killed’ ideology, it seems to be in every individual’s best interests to live peacefully amongst one another. But the question of whether we can do so without sacrificing our autonomy (that which we will hold as the highest human value) is debatable.
When individuals come together and cooperate mutually with one another, we call this a society. In order to cooperate …show more content…
This first decision when agreed upon, automatically dictates who is a member of the agreement and who isn’t. For if you did not agree to cooperate, you are not a member, and if you agreed to cooperate, you are a member. In this way, the first system of government is automatically a unanimous direct democracy whether by accident or on purpose. The society and its members have been unanimously agreed upon and the decision has counted each individual as an equal say in the …show more content…
It seems prima facie that consent is only acquired by seeing, hearing or having an individual record his consent for future reference, we call this explicit consent. The alternative to acquiring explicit consent is by assuming they have consented to the laws via their action or omission, for example, when someone eats out at a restaurant, their ordering of their meal and consumption of the food is taken as an act of consent to paying the fee for the service. This is called tacit consent. In order for tacit consent to have any standing, it seems only valid when the knowledge of the action or omission that binds them to the contract is understood by the person that is supposed to be consenting. In this way, it could be argued that if through lack of knowledge, a person did not understand that ordering a meal and eating it at a restaurant was seen to be an act of tacitly consenting, then he does not seem to be bound by obligation to pay for the meal. This, for most practical purposes, seems hard to come by but could be occasionally a valid defence against tacit