<p>Keshira, this is trivial Statistical data on average household income includes 1) households consisting of 1 person (whatever his age is); 2) Households of yesterday college graduates starting their first job (also usually 1 person); 3) households of retirees (one or two persons), etc. Together they constitute almost half of the households.
Thus, this number has nothing to do with an average income of families having children in high school (which usually a family of 3 or 4).</p>
<p>@galoisien</p>
<p>I arrive from the abridging of "rights" (e.g. killing others) from a different perspective. Any moral proposition must be consistently and universally applied to the person proposing it as well. So if killing people against their objections is deemed fine, then that person should have no objection to being killed against their will. Similarly, the same can be said about thievery and rape etc.</p>
<p>I suggest you read a certain book (and perhaps join the forums) on this website:</p>
<p>The download link for the book "Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics":
Freedomain</a> Radio - Free Books!</p>
<p>
[quote]
So if killing people against their objections is deemed fine, then that person should have no objection to being killed against their will. Similarly, the same can be said about thievery and rape etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's the Kantian categorical imperative, which is actually quite consistent with the principles of the social contract.</p>
<p>Well yes, my premises are very Kantian, but that does not justify a social contract which implies restricting rights of a third party not involved in an act of violence.</p>
<p>
[quote]
if the median family income is ~50k, how is that skewed to the left - it must be the new statistics - median means 50% above and 50% below that value - it isn't skewed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, the median means 50% above and 50% below. But if you have a high concentration in the very low and a more normal distribution clustered around another point to the right, the median can be pulled sharply to the left into an area which provides no statistical significance. It's not the technical definition of "skew," but has the same effect.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well yes, my premises are very Kantian, but that does not justify a social contract which implies restricting rights of a third party not involved in an act of violence.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you do have some beef against the social contract! </p>
<p>But that's strange, because social contract arguments have been anarcho-capitalism's strongest arguments [that explain why anarchism != chaos]. Initially finding right libertarianism quite misguided, it's because of my exposure to the "contractual society" of anarcho-capitalism that I actually found myself to be content with anarcho-capitalists and right-libertarians [speaking as a left-libertarian]. </p>
<p>(In contrast, you can usually tell whether a self-labelled libertarian is a true adherent versus a "I will support any philosophy that gives my wealthy ass no taxes" kind of person by whether he is willing to <em>contemplate</em> the concepts of anarchism or whether he backs off and runs away like a madman. "Contemlate" is the key word here -- I respect those non-anarchist libertarians who actually reason out the idea.) </p>
<p>Anyway, I don't see how rights get third party get unjustly restricted here. What situations and contexts are you talking about? Is it the problem of the "contract" idea (the problem of, "Can you consent to a contract by virtue of conforming to society you were born in?"; I actually have two lines of argument for this)? Do you somehow disagree with the framework? Individuals cannot cooperate for mutual benefit and establish a rule of law among themselves?</p>
<p>
[quote]
But that's strange, because social contract arguments have been anarcho-capitalism's strongest arguments [that explain why anarchism != chaos]. Initially finding right libertarianism quite misguided, it's because of my exposure to the "contractual society" of anarcho-capitalism that I actually found myself to be content with anarcho-capitalists and right-libertarians [speaking as a left-libertarian].
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never said I was against contracts. In this case, I may not even be against your social contract. BUT, the social contract most people talk about are vague, undefined terms which are wholly inconsistent with other norms (e.g. violence is bad except when I do it to you).</p>
<p>As I said before, when you propose a moral rule, you should be willing to have that rule applied to yourself as well. When people make explicit contracts, there are implicit reasonable assumptions made about the nature of this contract (e.g. buying a "car" from you at a car store is not a contract to obtain a CAR rifle), but the social contract most often cited (to justify the State) is anything but reasonable or implicit.</p>
<p>If you want to call "being consistent in the application of moral rules" a "social contract", be my guest. Just make these definitions clearer for further discussion.</p>
<p>As for the violence against a third party, I was referring to consequentialist modes of argument. For example, person A poses a great danger to person B. Therefore it is justifiable to enslave person C to prevent person B from dying. This sort of argumentation is what I abhor (but I guess you might have figured that out since this moral proposition does not fit the aforementioned consistency requirements I mentioned).</p>
<p>Hobbesian contracts justify the State -- which is why I'm not a fan of him. Curiously, I don't know many debate judges who are a fan of him either. </p>
<p>Rousseaunian contracts show why the State arrangement creates a social contract indeed, but an inferior one. Rousseau even goes so far to call representative democracy (as opposed to direct democracy) an "illegal" social contract, because the ability to withdraw from the contract has been taken away. (In contrast, Hobbes' basic argument is, "Once a social contract forms, the Sovereign State takes over and cannot be disbanded.")</p>
<p>You can use social contract theory in multiple ways -- in the broadest sense they are just theories for why certain types of government exist. In the narrowest sense you can use the theory to argue what kind of government <em>should</em> exist. When I use social contract theory for a "should" argument, you can bet I won't make any imperatives that cannot be applied categorically. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If you want to call "being consistent in the application of moral rules" a "social contract", be my guest.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not quite what I meant.</p>
<p>Rather, to achieve a philosophical and mathematical optimum of liberty and self-interest, people form social contract arrangements. Why this happens can be explained through moral ideas and principles like the categorical imperative.</p>
<p>So what social contract theory "should" exist? That should better discern exactly what we disagree/agree upon?</p>
<p>To me, libertarian/anarchist social contract theory (and its predecessors in classical liberalism such as Locke, and quasi-anarchists / direct-democrats such as Rousseau) is (should be?) the only valid social contract theory there is. :)</p>
<p>That is my personal evaluation of all social contract arguments I've come across so far of course -- this will be one of my rare moral statements [of purely personal taste] that will be framed in consequentialist rather than deontological ethics. Of course, due to freedom of expression, it's not like we can prescribe what theories should be allowed to exist. ;) </p>
<p>And to me "fsgsdfosf" is the only valid social contract theory there is.</p>
<p>My point is: you are very vague in your assertions and need to be more precise. What should a person refrain from doing? What should they HAVE to do? I'd hate to generalize, but I often have this problem of vagueness with left-libertarians.</p>
<p>Don't tell me you're not familiar with the contractual arguments of even your own camp?</p>
<p>
[quote]
but I often have this problem of vagueness with left-libertarians.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You know that many?</p>
<p>I would normally consider that great I suppose, and I hate to be all People's Front of Judaea here, but I wonder how many of them are rigourous adherents. Anyway ... ;) </p>
<p>It's just that certain self-labelled libertarians have given the public the impression that it's a "rich man's" philosophy (again, not so much as the income of the "adherent" in particular, since that would defeat the point of the philosophy, but rather the economic and cultural attitude that high-income adherents <em>often</em> bear). So you can have a right-libertarian and a left-libertarian society at the same time -- left-libertarianism simply excludes certain scenarios of what libertarianism should <em>not</em> be.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My point is: you are very vague in your assertions and need to be more precise. What should a person refrain from doing? What should they HAVE to do?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It can be summarised in a single principle: one you are very familiar with? </p>
<p>A person should be allowed to do anything that does not infringe upon the abilities of others to have that same freedom. </p>
<p>This allowance is formed by social contract -- cultural agreement. Tada! Libertarian social contract, with maximum optimisation of liberty (by deontological means), which can be mathematically proven.</p>
<p>This itself is a universal principle, but it is not axiomatic -- it is further derived from the principle of maximising self-interest.</p>
<p>As you can see, there is a rather striking similarity between the (deontological) libertarian social contract and the Kantian categorical imperative. </p>
<p>The only arguments I do oppose concerning libertarianism are arguments that are arrived at via consequentialist means. [Which is why I'm not an especially big fan of Hayek or Friedman, though I'll begrudgingly give them their due.] It is the consequentialist philosophies that are vague and dangerous. The deontological-consequentialist split is the most fundamental split IMO, whereas as far as libertarianism is concerned, the left-right split is more bridgeable.</p>
<p>As an addition addressed to others in my thread: please note I was almost prepared to go to a state school because of nearly unresolved financial aid issues myself....</p>
<p>The FA process was a nightmare. It had a happy result, but you. do. not. want. to. go. through. the. same. thing. I. did. I was far from being guaranteed anything. To the more affluent students who think that we're "advantaged" in the process, I ask you -- who filled out the majority of your financial documents? I ask you whether you've had to sit down in front of an Immigration Services officer while you pour out every detail of your family's destitution to her while she gives you this strange condescending look, or whether you carried around your mother's W-2 in your notebook along with the Physics C formula sheet and your debate constructions while the school's counselor got back to you to resolve the various items that were delaying your application. </p>
<p>It's funny the sheer amount of privileged individuals (I'm not judging based on just income -- but on attitude and culture as well) that have the convenience of using consequentialist ethics. :) </p>
<p>I'm not blanket-labelling the affluent. I highly admire the self-made man (or woman). But I do resent the entrenched culture they contribute to.</p>
<p>Fine then do something about it, just stop complaining on a message board, you're not changing anyone's mind!</p>
<p>
[quote]
I ask you -- who filled out the majority of your financial documents?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That'll be me in a few months. We're too stingy to pay someone good money we can do ourselves :p</p>
<p>" also think the folks in parts of Queens, Staten Island, the South Bronx, Harlem or Washington Heights would more than welcome 100K"</p>
<p>No. We pay the same taxes.</p>
<p>"I'm not blanket-labelling the affluent. I highly admire the self-made man (or woman). But I do resent the entrenched culture they contribute to."</p>
<p>Just another way of saying that you're envious and want what they have. I hope life works out so that you get it.</p>
<p>People need to learn that "median income" and "middle class" describe totally different things. "Median income" is a figure, a lifeless numerical value; "middle class" is a lifestyle, the cost of which varies by region.</p>
<p>Galoisien - Sorry to interrupt the intellectual posturing here, but you say "I'm not blanket-labelling the affluent. I highly admire the self-made man (or woman). But I do resent the entrenched culture they contribute to."</p>
<p>I notice that you have a blog on which you've posted the details of your financial aid package at U.Va. You have $2,854 of unmet need, with $6,000 in low-interest loans in order to attend one of the top 25 universities in the country. It would be hard to afford a place to live and food to eat on $8,854 a year, so you're basically paying your normal living expenses and getting the U.Va. education for free. This is the case because you're receiving an "AccessUVA" grant of $26,651 - funds that former U.Va. graduates - some privileged, some self-made - contributed back to your university to assist an unnamed future student - you. So if you're inclined to resent that to which they contribute, you might look in the mirror; they've contributed to you in the hope that they could help you expand your prospects and your family's prospects for the future.</p>
<p>i wonder what's middle class..honestly. girl here that i know whose parents make around 500k-600k a year thinks that she is "upper middle class" so idk about you but i dont feel very upper class :p</p>