POLL:Social Contract On Trial...!!

A social contract need not involve majority rule; it may involve individuals voluntarily giving up some freedoms and "rights" to the impartiality of a legal system upon which all can agree. I appreciate the joke, though.

Something! I don't know why, but something always seems to happen!

This happens all the time in the U.S. Senate, and it is called a filabuster.

Usually what happens is that people get together and just start talking about it, until enough people get tired or leave, so that whoever is left makes a decision.

Or ...

They start fighting about it, until there are enough casualties to allow for either an agreement or someone taking control.

Human nature is very flexible and figures out how to resolve all problems and paradoxes.

Rich

This doesn't really say anything because couldn't those whom voted be a mixture of both the majority and the minority? It doesn't say whom the votes belong to. Yes of course the vote itself has created a majority and minority but ALL votes do this so it is absurd to use it as basis for categorizing peoples ideology.



Then how vague and indeterminate are these result possibles? It doesn't even say what everything encompasses because everything would include nothing or something, would it not? So if you answer everything, then all three results would happen. That is how ridiculous this resultant option is. I could point out that after a vote if nothing happens then what was the point in voting if nothing happened? Like Lily stated, something ALWAYS happens after a vote, no matter if it is in favor or a tie, there is always some kind of action other than nothing.

jgweed is correct. See Rawls.

Thank you all for your delightful answers.


But;am I supposed to do according to the "contract",according to the "contract"?!:popcorn:


Yours/"Blessed Lunatic Wiseman"