RE: Ideologically Undermining Society. [Part 1] Social Contracts.
What is referred to as 'social contract' is simply the demonstrable individual natural rights that we respect in others, so as to have ours respected, 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'.
I don't agree with this sentiment. I tolerate people I don't respect at all because it's beneficial for me not to infringe on them. That has nothing to do with respect, and everything to do with being able to function on my own apart from others, without having to be infringed upon by any other individual. This is what I would call the basis of the "social contract" persay; I would almost just call it a social interaction pact just like most libertarians and an-caps refer to it in the sense of the NAP (non-aggression pact) or ZAP (zero aggression principle). However it differs from those two in the sense that beneficiality takes precedence over aggression being taken out of the equation.
I don't adhere to any natural laws, only natural rights in that each individual has the rights to themselves and the measures that they require to maintain themselves. Anything beyond that aspect will require societal measures to answer what then comes beyond maintaining a persons self.
These are negative rights, where a contract would be positive rights.
Anything taken to a negative is not a right. Unless you're talking about unspoken agreements being "rights".
Feel free to disagree with the facts of reality all you want, but please do not mistake a fact for a sentiment. It is nothing of the kind. It is the same with your characterization of an unconscious, unspoken, and unwritten agreement as a contract, it is not, and can not be. A contract is an explicit agreement, entered into with knowledge and consent, or it doesn't and cannot exist.
It is clear from your interactions that you may want to learn what words mean before continuing to use them. Positive and negative rights is a clear and established dichotomy of concepts. Please inform yourself.
The problem is that it's not a "fact", it is very much so a sentiment. Just as my perspective is full of a multitude of different sentiments.
Philosophical positions are nothing more than subjective interpretations of reality. The term social contract is simply used to explain ths type of multi-conscious agreements we partake in (multi-conscious referring to conscious, subconscious, and unconscious).
As for negative and positive rights, I did not know they meant action and inaction when referred to rights. I don't use negative and positive in those regards, but I can understand the implications.
What is referred to as 'social contract' is simply the demonstrable individual natural rights that we respect in others, so as to have ours respected, 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. This remains a demonstrable fact, and calling it a sentiment does not make it so.
Creating a word salad out of several forms of the word 'conscious' does not make an unspoken and unwritten agreement a contract. It never has and never will, because it can not. It is an impossibility, as a contract requires knowledge and consent.
Positive and negative is the terminology. Communication requires use of common terminology.
"The beginning of wisdom is the defining of terms." Socrates
The point of that statement is individual natural rights, it's not about Tolerance or Respect outside that point.
Actually you couldn't function on your own, demonstrably and theoretically, and it goes counter with society, to function on your own, each interaction is based in mutual respect of these rights and not in respecting the person, or tolerating the person, but in the mutual respect of their rights and not in a Pact, as that is also a device used to explicit consent, not to imply it. And the P in NAP is not a PACT, it's a PRINCIPLE.
Aggression is implied in all interaction of the state and the oxymoron term social contract that is used to rationalize and defend the state aggression.