Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

456

Your parents by bringing you into this world never gets a positive response

Your parents by bringing you into this world never gets a positive response

(post is archived)

[–] • 5 pts

I would say you signed it by taking advantage of modern society. You go the the grocery store then you signed it. If you don't want to sign it then go get your own food, in the wild.

[–] • 0 pt

Wrong. The wild is owned by the government (which administers the social contract). By virtue of being born in our society, you have no claim to it. Since you can't opt out of modern society, there's no opt-in to the social contract.

You're automatically in. The only way out is to break the covenants (and risk the consequences).

[–] • 0 pt

You are not wrong but I still think my point is valid.

[–] • 0 pt

Seems a little unfair to claim someone chose to enter into the social contract when in reality they did not. And wrong also.

[–] • 2 pts

A good response:

Nobody signs it. You're automatically bound to the social contract. And like it or not, if you choose to break it you risk the concequences (namely society coming after you).

[–] • 1 pt

Your parents by bringing you into this world never gets a positive response

A good response. Parents gave consent for their child by bringing them into this world, in this nation.
Besides, the entire premise is as flawed as complaining that your parents didn't ask your permission before bringing you into the world. It's just a ridiculous complaint with no solution.

I'd say that after turning 18, they are welcome to opt out of the contract by leaving the nation. By remaining, they implicitly sign the contract.

[–] • 1 pt

This rot is the pablum of long-dead wankers like Jean-Jacques Rousseau et al, who were moralists and ethicists intent on imposing their BS on others, much akin to the Kantian crap the vegans use to try to guilt trip carnivores into converting to their idiocy. Okay for them that cannot think for themselves, and must be told by another what to believe, or how to act....not so okay for others. Regressive? Nonconformist!

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Any "contract" is supposed to be entered into with informed consent. The "social contract" isn't a contract at all, it's the majority deciding that they will leave no refuge or quarter for those that don't want to live according to their standards. This is why people can't opt-out and move into the wilderness to find their own way and build their own communities apart from the existing "social contract" slaves (it's illegal).

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

The social contract isn't for the good of the individual but the whole.

[–] • 1 pt

Are you willing to utilize slaves so long as a larger group benefits? It's the same thing.

[–] • 1 pt

What's in the contract? What do you promise to do one signing it? Can I make you sign something without you knowing?

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

The agreement that we will work within the confines of the law and social norms and not seek to change society by force.

Don't be like antifa you awesome person.

[–] • 2 pts

And who does this apply to? New laws are made to change society by use of force, so I'm assuming the social contract only applies to some, until you sign another contract that states you ensure the social contract through coercion and threats of violence.

Antifa is like a chicken with its head cut off. No values, no dignity.

But the current situation to me seems like an oxymoron. Use violence to stop violence.

Blood in the roots blood in the shoots.

[–] • 1 pt

It's not a contract.

You can conform to what is, in all honestly, a very sensible and reasonable way to live to together, or you can do something else, and face what consequences may come. Calling it a 'contract' does not change anything