As a society our government is not created by us, but consented to. Our system is a social contract, where rights are given away in order to ensure protection of other rights. By voting we give consent to this system, in essence, by participating we give authority to the state. This occurs regardless of who wins, it is the participation in the system that allows for this consent. Therefore, by not voting, we deny consent and negate the system as a whole.
With this negation occurring, you refuse the present state of the social contract and instead force the current formation of government (the personification of the social contract) to have a.) No credibility and b.) No ability to function as a legitimate entity. With this in place, the social contract would as it currently stands dissolve, because of the lack of consent to its continual existence. In dissolving this, a new contract would be forced to be had. This contract would encompass a new set of values that would encompass the problems and concerns of the body that must consent to it in order for the contract to exist. All of this would be only be possible by a.) Not participating. b.) Enough of the plurality not participating,therefore, allowing for the system to be negated, (this percentage would have to be between 20-25% in order to be feasible.) c.) Having this action of negation dissolving the form and function of the system as a whole.
To explicate, it would negate the current form of the contract and the function that exists from the practice of it. This negation would eliminate power structures. This occurs by negating the system and the structures that support and rely on it. The "contract" protects this system and without consent, it would not be able to function. Resources would be reevaluated, refigured, and dispersed with an absence of hierarchal power. All of this would lead to a new social order and a greater and more profound equality.
-Mark Brinton
With this negation occurring, you refuse the present state of the social contract and instead force the current formation of government (the personification of the social contract) to have a.) No credibility and b.) No ability to function as a legitimate entity. With this in place, the social contract would as it currently stands dissolve, because of the lack of consent to its continual existence. In dissolving this, a new contract would be forced to be had. This contract would encompass a new set of values that would encompass the problems and concerns of the body that must consent to it in order for the contract to exist. All of this would be only be possible by a.) Not participating. b.) Enough of the plurality not participating,therefore, allowing for the system to be negated, (this percentage would have to be between 20-25% in order to be feasible.) c.) Having this action of negation dissolving the form and function of the system as a whole.
To explicate, it would negate the current form of the contract and the function that exists from the practice of it. This negation would eliminate power structures. This occurs by negating the system and the structures that support and rely on it. The "contract" protects this system and without consent, it would not be able to function. Resources would be reevaluated, refigured, and dispersed with an absence of hierarchal power. All of this would lead to a new social order and a greater and more profound equality.
-Mark Brinton
No comments:
Post a Comment