guy explains social contract, accidentally invents tyranny, gets dunked on by own logic

Someone tries explaining contractualism from a philosophy book but immediately gets sidetracked by a Lake House movie plot involving Jude Law and a ghost, then pivots to a hypothetical about Uber drivers and fair rules, before concluding that their first instinct would be to make themselves exempt from all rules—which their imaginary debate opponent correctly identifies as tyranny. Vibe: Philosophy student who watched one pretentious film and now thinks they're an intellectual, getting roasted in real-time by their own thought experiment Key topics: contractualism theory, Lake House (2006) but make it philosophical, Uber driver etiquette as social contract, accidentally describing autocracy while trying to sound clever Transcript: Here. Actually, it's being a pain in the ass. Right here. It's easily understandable concept. Nope, in this book about the theory of contractualism. What we owe to each other. I saw this movie. Laura Linney cries in a lake house because Jude Law left her for his ex-wife's ghost. No, with some regular contractualism. Imagine a group of reasonable people are coming up with a rule for a new society. Like if your Uber driver talks to you, the ride should be free. Sure. But anyone can veto any rule that they think is unfair. So if you said we should be able to break our promises without any repercussions, someone would veto that rule. Well, my first rule would be that no one can veto my rules. Well, that's called tyranny and it's generally frowned upon.