Why does a social contract need to be hypothetical, to be fair and just?
Including each human being on the planet equally in a globally standard process of money creation is valuable, passive, participation. Social contract can’t be voluntary if it doesn’t actually exist. Having choice between all local deposit banks as non-governmental global economic representation, provides a just structure.
Your unsupported opposition, refusal to consider, doesn’t make any logical sense.
What is your actual motivation?
Thanks again for your kind indulgence,
Referring to mandatory participation:
“This chapter does not take issue with that way of looking at the economy or with most aspects of liberal-egalitarianism; it merely argues that an organized social democracy has as much responsibility as a disorganized ownership class to avoid dominating resources in a way that limits personal independence, the point of this chapter is to argue that liberal-egalitarianism would be stronger if it included respect for personal independence not to criticize any particular method of enforcement or against any particular theorist.” — KW
So, why do you disregard the clear domination of the money creation resource? It is the largest, most important, resource, because it is access to human labor. It’s also the source of global control, hegemony, and yeah, the funding of White Supremacy, Empire, Wealth.
“A society that protects individuals from making a forced contribution must be closer to the first-best ideal of a free society, and it must better protect the vulnerable against the tyranny of the majority.” — KW
So, why oppose compensation of valuable passive participation? Why support the continued forced contribution of human labor to buy money for Wealth? Why not protect society from theft by the few?
“Therefore, society is an effort by people to come together to produce an outcome that is mutual benefit as they see it themselves; if it achieves that goal everyone has an interest in its success, thus an ‘identity of interests’.” -KW
Structural inclusion as equal financiers of our global economic system, is a mutual benefit to each human being on the planet. Everyone has a significant interest in its success.
Our ethical equal inclusion in the process and profit produces ideal money, instead of the corrupt and unstable stuff we currently produce.
“The difference principle is an important expansion of a basic idea from social contract theory. Not only must all people be better off in society than they could be living by their own efforts, the least advantaged among them must be better off than the least advantaged person could be under any other social structure. Therefore, Rawlsianism would seem to be the most egalitarian feasible economic system.” — KW
Our equal inclusion in a globally standard process of money creation meets that demand. Regardless of social structure, and in support of any devised social structure acceptable to any population.
“Although hypothetical agreement is centrally important to Rawlsian theory, in practice, the theory does not stress literal agreement. It is enough for democratic decision makers to imagine what that agreement would be. The requirement that people do not know who they are in original position requires the agreement to be hypothetical.” — KW
Equal structural inclusion, requires no veil. All positions are the same. Imaginary social contracts are helpful to Empire, as Empire can’t be held to account. That’s why the rule of inclusion requires actual local social contracts.
“According to Leif Wenar account, a property owning democracy does not merely redistribute income through a traditional welfare state; the government, ‘takes steps to encourage widespread ownership of productive assets’ to enable all citizens, even the least advantaged, to manage their own affairs within a context of significant social and economic equality.” — KW
Our equal inclusion in the global money creation process is widespread individual ownership of productive assets, and as sovereign individuals, access to sovereign rate money creation loans for home, farm, or secure interest in employment. That is a context of significant social and economic equality.
I’m not considered a peer
Got no letters
So I get no answers
I’m thinking they’re assholes
Not nearly as smart as they act/think