Jophiel wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
One does not decide to be born into a society; one may, if they have the means (big if), decide to leave it, but there's no choice to live in the state of nature. In the original, of course, there is no actual choice, it's just a rhetorical device to justify monarchy. The argument is 'obviously you'd choose this because this is better than chaos, which is the alternative' not 'you have chosen to accept this restriction, legitimating it'. This has the advantage of actually making sense. You can use a social contract as a metaphor to justify society based on necessity, but not based on consent. The trick is, of course, that it seems as though it does both, even though the latter is utterly senseless. That's where the rhetorical power comes from.
This is one of the worst written pseudo-intellectual paragraphs I've ever tried to parse and I've read stuff by Gbaji, Alma and Shadowrelm.
I refuse to be outdone...
You don't deserve to be born into society, society is born unto you. See, if (and only if), society has given you the choice to live, then you may live and/or leave society. Of course, that choice is prudent among rhetorical and chaotic men to justify their restrictions, only to legitimize it. The advantage of actually somewhat making logical sense to the man born into society is that it is similar to a contractual metaphor to justify the necessity of society, but not at the decision made by opinion. The solution is, most obviously, is that it appears to be a conglomerate of both, even though the either is not of any need. This, my friend, is where the rhetorical power comes from.