Tag Archives: Social contract

Red Pill Logic: Future of a Blue Pill Illusion

optical-illusions-pointillismI was recently involved in a discussion with a few blue pill acquaintances, that highlighted some of the clear distinctions between a blue pill and a red pill framework. While the red pill can on occasion step into the domain of extremist cynicism, the blue pill in many ways depart from reality in profound ways. This lead me to consult “Future of an Illusion“ by Sigmund Freud, that deals with the illusions that humanity accept in order to avoid seeing reality.

One of the definitions for “illusion” by Merriam-Webster is:

“perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature (2) :  hallucination”  [1]

The red pill metaphor that we utilize to illustrate a person’s awakening from the hallucination, aims to draw a distinction between the framework for interpreting reality that most men in the Western World are educated in throughout their childhood as part of socialization and the true nature of reality. In this manner, the term “Red Pill” is often co-opted by other groups, for instance the recent use of the term to signify a person’s awakening to the various narratives within our society that shape our perception of reality. A person has been “red pilled” when they start to question and reject the narrative that seeks to influence and control their behavior. Continue reading →

The Social Breach of Contract

social-contractThe social contract is a concept that symbolizes the agreement between the individual and the collective. It protects the rights of the individual and the outlines the duties each individual must accept in order to gain the benefits of the collective. In a sense, this is a case of risk management on a very high level, wherein each individual who opts in gains a way to normalize risk through the law of large numbers. The concept of the social contract comes from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and is Rousseau’s idea on how to best form a community in lieu of the problems he identified in his discourse on inequality. One of the fundamental principles within the theory is that force does not create right, and humans are only obliged to submit to legitimate powers. Therefore, a human has no duty to submit to coercion.

Furthermore, it makes no sense for a human to voluntarily submit to slavery, therefore to accept a rule in which they accept a lesser amount of rights or higher amount of duties than others makes little sense. Thus, as individuals gather intro steadily larger tribes, unless their rights and duties are equal and identical, one group or multiple groups will be enslaving the other(s).

In exchange for each member of his tribe or group pledging to protect his rights, he also pledges to protect theirs, thus he gains protection and he gains duties. This forms the basis for most of the Western democracies that we have today. Many countries have such principles outlined within their constitutions, drawing limits for both individual rights and behaviors, along with the rights and behaviors of the collective.

However, as with most deals that are struck, this has tended to somewhat breach against the original terms over time, wherein the collective Leviathan of the state slowly take away the rights of their population, while seeking more rights for itself. This is merely a function of incentive theory, that leads the individuals chosen to represent the people to act in their own best short-term interest, at the expense of the population. Continue reading →