Life, Liberty, and Property?

[☭proletarian☭]

demonstrating that social systems (including forms of government) are formed through the social contract (which you've said yourself is th case) proves the social contract theory, which posits that demonstrating that social systems (including forms of government) are formed through the social contract.

They are NOT formed by the social contract. They are formed by force and consent of a majority.

Consent of the majority = the actions/will of the masses = the social contract

(consent of a majority is not a social contract)

Their agreement is the contract/compact between them. The socioal contract is nothing more than the collective will, actions, and consent of the masses to the systems they form among themselves (including ethical norms and recognition or non-recognition of any given power or authority)

The only way it's used is to justify the acts of the state.

It can do no such thing; nothing can other than the rhetoric ofthe supporters of the state. The social contract merely describes the way groups function and the manner in which people interact. It is descriptive only.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If you aren't going to fund government with taxes then how are you going to fund it?

You don't.

And when your neighbors attack you, you die. You have no public roadways, no libraries, no infrastructure... brilliant idea! We could be like Africa!

 

[☭proletarian☭]

What exactly is the contract?

Here's an example of how we codified our primary contract some time ago (changes to the agreement were reflected in codified changes to the record of the terms of the agreement; we call these 'amendments')

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Does your ability to leave it justify it's actions?

I'll refer you top Plato

If I'm opposed to the principal (and power) of voting why would I use it?

So you oppose democratic self-governance and you bitch about the influence of others.Of course, it's only because others let you that you can go live in a cave and be left alone; you still remain subject to the will of others.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I've read some Roussea and Locke. While they got a lot right they also got a lot wrong.

You should write a critique and post it.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You can do what you want with the power but you cannot stand there and say you are oppressed when you refuse to do anything about it. The oppressor in this case is yourself, not government.

This is the exact type of attitude that government schools and establishment thinking have established. This type of attitude is to their benefit.

The government can tax, destroy, make war, and destroy economies. Neighbors can take from each other legally with millage's. To everyone who believes and subscribes to social contract theory all these actions of government is justified because of voting.

It's scary and sad at the same time.

Your consent is implied by your lack of objection and your inaction. If you don't say anything or try to stop me when I am robbing your house, you've implied your permission

 

[☭proletarian☭]

While your boss does own your free actions while you work for him. This may seem that he owns you by definition but since you can reclaim your freedom at any time by quitting this means you are free because if the form can simply cease to be controlled by its own choosing then it is the form (aka employee) that is ultimately in control of their free actions and not the employer.

The slave may revolt at any time, reclaiming his actions. However, both have little choice but to comply with the system, if they are to propagate their own existence and welfare. Your argument applies to the American Negro in the 1700s just as it dos to the modern proletarian.

A slave may revolt but the law and the owner will feel that they can reclaim their property just like a dog that would run away. A worker can nullify the agreement without such complications. They are free to enter into the agreement and they are free to leave but you can not say the same thing about slavery.

The proletarian may choose another master. That is the only difference you have highlighted. He is still dependent on his usefulness to the capitalist to ensure he is given any means of sustaining his existence.

 

[ihopehefails]

The slave may revolt at any time, reclaiming his actions. However, both have little choice but to comply with the system, if they are to propagate their own existence and welfare. Your argument applies to the American Negro in the 1700s just as it dos to the modern proletarian.

A slave may revolt but the law and the owner will feel that they can reclaim their property just like a dog that would run away. A worker can nullify the agreement without such complications. They are free to enter into the agreement and they are free to leave but you can not say the same thing about slavery.

The proletarian may choose another master. That is the only difference you have highlighted. He is still dependent on his usefulness to the capitalist to ensure he is given any means of sustaining his existence.

He is still free to be a "proletariate" or a "capitalist" if he chose to because all he would have to do is to do the same thing the capitalist is doing (assuming that they have the means and ability). This happens in a free enterprise system where individuals can choose their own means of economic pursuits but in a corporaistist system or socialist system the worker will always remain a worker whether that is for the state controlled business or the state created "farm".

 

[2Parties]

Your consent is implied by your lack of objection and your inaction. If you don't say anything or try to stop me when I am robbing your house, you've implied your permission

It wouldn't be robbing and you would be doing nothing wrong if you had my permission dumb-ass. I'm sorry I tried to ever have a civilized discussion with you.

 

[Oddball]

Your consent is implied by your lack of objection and your inaction. If you don't say anything or try to stop me when I am robbing your house, you've implied your permission

Like hell, you fucking looter.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Your consent is implied by your lack of objection and your inaction. If you don't say anything or try to stop me when I am robbing your house, you've implied your permission

It wouldn't be robbing and you would be doing nothing wrong if you had my permission dumb-ass. I'm sorry I tried to ever have a civilized discussion with you.

So you were just being a dumbass when you said taxation was theft?

 

[PeterS]

How can it enforce this without taxes (which are nothing more than institutionalized theft)?

Taxes are a necessary evil just like government but I was talking about laws designed to protect the interest of another citizen such as laws against murder or tresspassing. These are good laws that protect citzens from the unwanted actions of other citzens such as someone involuntarily murdering me.

Our Founders put a great deal of thought into the U.S. Constitution and gave us an elegant document outlining what must be the responsibility of the government in order for us to be a people governed by social contract, but mostly it is a document intended to limit the power, scope, reach, and authority of the Federal government.

They rightfully knew that a strong military would be necessary as there would be enemies determined to take our freedom and self determination from us. And they knew that we would each need to contribute something to sustain the government including the military so that it could carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

But mostly their intent was for government to defend us and to put sufficient enforceable laws and regulation into place to discourage us from doing physical or economic violence to each other and/or treading on each other's unalienable, constitutional, legal, and civil rights. Otherwise government was intended to get out of our way and allow us to live our lives and prosper or not according to our own industry.

Wasn't Jefferson one of the founders? Didn't he virtually disband the military? The founders viewed a strong military as the hammer used to repress citizens. The US didn't become a world power militarily until WWII and no, FDR was not a founder.

You are reading into the constitution what you want not what the founders intended. From its inception we were split between big government federalists and small government democrats. The founders were never of one mind with respect to the form government should take so why is it you assume our constitution shows explicit intent?

 

[Foxfyre]

Taxes are a necessary evil just like government but I was talking about laws designed to protect the interest of another citizen such as laws against murder or tresspassing. These are good laws that protect citzens from the unwanted actions of other citzens such as someone involuntarily murdering me.

Our Founders put a great deal of thought into the U.S. Constitution and gave us an elegant document outlining what must be the responsibility of the government in order for us to be a people governed by social contract, but mostly it is a document intended to limit the power, scope, reach, and authority of the Federal government.

They rightfully knew that a strong military would be necessary as there would be enemies determined to take our freedom and self determination from us. And they knew that we would each need to contribute something to sustain the government including the military so that it could carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

But mostly their intent was for government to defend us and to put sufficient enforceable laws and regulation into place to discourage us from doing physical or economic violence to each other and/or treading on each other's unalienable, constitutional, legal, and civil rights. Otherwise government was intended to get out of our way and allow us to live our lives and prosper or not according to our own industry.

Wasn't Jefferson one of the founders? Didn't he virtually disband the military? The founders viewed a strong military as the hammer used to repress citizens. The US didn't become a world power militarily until WWII and no, FDR was not a founder.

You are reading into the constitution what you want not what the founders intended. From its inception we were split between big government federalists and small government democrats. The founders were never of one mind with respect to the form government should take so why is it you assume our constitution shows explicit intent?

You would be quite incorrect that I am reading into the Constitution what I want rather than what the Founders intended. You are quite correct that the Founders, being free spirits and men of deep thought and principle, did debate vigorously and were not always of one mind as to what went into the Constitution. Jefferson did not trust a too strong central government and he did not trust a powerful standing army under the authority of the government. Both, in the wrong hands, he saw as threats to the very principle of unalienable rights and freedom that he sought to write into the Constitution.

At the same time, while he would have preferred the focus to be on the militia instead of a standing Federal army, he had no quibble about the national defense being a constitutional requirement for the Federal government. The compromise came in the form of a constitutional provision that all military leadership would be under civilian authority and other checks and balance put into place that would allow those in government ability to rein in a rogue civilian executive or a rogue military.

If it had not been for Jefferson's strong hand in guidng the process, we most likely would not have had the Bill of Rights written into the initial Constitution. That alone should help clarify his motives. He did not oppose a strong standing army because he opposed the military. He opposed anything that could threaten in any way the God given rights that he was determined would be the foundation of our republic.