Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devicesincluding the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programscould fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.
The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage
Three points to make here:
- How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
- The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
- Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.
Really now. Maybe you just haven't been paying attention for the last 50 or 60 years? You certainly never took political science or philosophy at the community college you went to for a couple of years....
Social Contract Theory
Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. Socrates uses something quite like a social contract argument to explain to Crito why he must remain in prison and accept the death penalty. However, social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes.
After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory, which has been one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the modern West. In the twentieth century, moral and political theory regained philosophical momentum as a result of John Rawls Kantian version of social contract theory, and was followed by new analyses of the subject by David Gauthier and others.
More recently, philosophers from different perspectives have offered new criticisms of social contract theory. In particular, feminists and race-conscious philosophers have argued that social contract theory is at least an incomplete picture of our moral and political lives, and may in fact camouflage some of the ways in which the contract is itself parasitical upon the subjugations of classes of persons.
The myth of the social contract is the greatest con ever perpetrated on the human race. The idea that a few wealthy men 250 years ago created some document that obligates me in any way is utterly preposterous.
A valid contract has to be agreed to explicitly by all the parties involved. Your parents can't sign a contract that is binding on you in any way. This is basic legal theory, and it's based on indisputable logic. Allowing others to bind you to the terms of some contract is the road to tyranny, but that's precisely why libturds and every other form of statist is always waxing eloquently about the mythical "social contract."
The bottom line is that if you didn't personally and explicitly agree to it, you aren't bound by it.
And nowhere in our federal or states' constitutions does it even suggest such a thing?
All made up by lefties/liberals/socialists to increase their political power and has nothing to do with "helping" anyone but themselves.
if only you understood constitutional construction.
you should probably read the commerce clause. the general welfare clause would be helpful to you, too.
or do those parts not count because they don't suit your limited worldview?
Both of which the left-wing completely redefines in terms that was never intended when they were written. The welfare clause being the larger offender between the two. You actually define the welfare clause, in exactly the way the people who wrote it, warned us against. The irony is amazing.
no. hundreds of years of caselaw defines it.
read. learn.
If you know of a situation where someone doesn't have what they need, voluntarily provide it to them. If you can't or won't, tough shit for them. I don't owe them anything.
In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devicesincluding the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programscould fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.
The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage
Three points to make here:
- How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
- The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
- Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.
In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devicesincluding the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programscould fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.
The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage
Three points to make here:
- How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
- The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
- Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.
The Right has lost on virtually every social issue they care about .. and if you can't figure out why by now, then perhaps it's just over your head and beyond your capacity to discern.
In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devicesincluding the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programscould fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.
The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage
Three points to make here:
- How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
- The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
- Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.
Really now. Maybe you just haven't been paying attention for the last 50 or 60 years? You certainly never took political science or philosophy at the community college you went to for a couple of years....
Social Contract Theory
Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. Socrates uses something quite like a social contract argument to explain to Crito why he must remain in prison and accept the death penalty. However, social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes.
After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory, which has been one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the modern West. In the twentieth century, moral and political theory regained philosophical momentum as a result of John Rawls Kantian version of social contract theory, and was followed by new analyses of the subject by David Gauthier and others.
More recently, philosophers from different perspectives have offered new criticisms of social contract theory. In particular, feminists and race-conscious philosophers have argued that social contract theory is at least an incomplete picture of our moral and political lives, and may in fact camouflage some of the ways in which the contract is itself parasitical upon the subjugations of classes of persons.
The myth of the social contract is the greatest con ever perpetrated on the human race. The idea that a few wealthy men 250 years ago created some document that obligates me in any way is utterly preposterous.
A valid contract has to be agreed to explicitly by all the parties involved. Your parents can't sign a contract that is binding on you in any way. This is basic legal theory, and it's based on indisputable logic. Allowing others to bind you to the terms of some contract is the road to tyranny, but that's precisely why libturds and every other form of statist is always waxing eloquently about the mythical "social contract."
The bottom line is that if you didn't personally and explicitly agree to it, you aren't bound by it.
Yeah, you're right. Those guys 250 years ago didn't create it:
Plato on the social contract
The first known exposition of social contract theory was made by Plato in his short dialogue Crito.[wp] In the dialogue, Socrates is jailed and about to be executed, but when offered a chance to be sprung from jail, refuses it by saying, essentially, "I made my bed and now I have to lie in it."
The dialogue contains this description of social contract theory, in which Socrates assumes the voice of "the Laws":
We further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him.
In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devicesincluding the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programscould fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.
The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage
Three points to make here:
- How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
- The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
- Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.
The Right has lost on virtually every social issue they care about .. and if you can't figure out why by now, then perhaps it's just over your head and beyond your capacity to discern.
No doubt, but the country is worse off for it. After 8 years of Obama the left wing is bitchin' as if they have won nothing. As if for all that time it has been Republican in control. As if democrats can't do a damn thing without Republican approval.
The democrats have sold you a bill of goods. Why an intelligent person like yourself buys into the BS you have been sold is really not understandable. Should you become a Republican, hell no. Should you stay in the party that has historically done things to hurt the poor especially the black poor, I would say your conscience should say no.
But that is just me. I belong to neither party, I see little difference.
In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devicesincluding the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programscould fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.
The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage
Three points to make here:
- How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
- The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
- Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.
Really now. Maybe you just haven't been paying attention for the last 50 or 60 years? You certainly never took political science or philosophy at the community college you went to for a couple of years....
Social Contract Theory
Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. Socrates uses something quite like a social contract argument to explain to Crito why he must remain in prison and accept the death penalty. However, social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes.
After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory, which has been one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the modern West. In the twentieth century, moral and political theory regained philosophical momentum as a result of John Rawls Kantian version of social contract theory, and was followed by new analyses of the subject by David Gauthier and others.
More recently, philosophers from different perspectives have offered new criticisms of social contract theory. In particular, feminists and race-conscious philosophers have argued that social contract theory is at least an incomplete picture of our moral and political lives, and may in fact camouflage some of the ways in which the contract is itself parasitical upon the subjugations of classes of persons.
The myth of the social contract is the greatest con ever perpetrated on the human race. The idea that a few wealthy men 250 years ago created some document that obligates me in any way is utterly preposterous.
A valid contract has to be agreed to explicitly by all the parties involved. Your parents can't sign a contract that is binding on you in any way. This is basic legal theory, and it's based on indisputable logic. Allowing others to bind you to the terms of some contract is the road to tyranny, but that's precisely why libturds and every other form of statist is always waxing eloquently about the mythical "social contract."
The bottom line is that if you didn't personally and explicitly agree to it, you aren't bound by it.
Yeah, you're right. Those guys 250 years ago didn't create it:
Plato on the social contract
The first known exposition of social contract theory was made by Plato in his short dialogue Crito.[wp] In the dialogue, Socrates is jailed and about to be executed, but when offered a chance to be sprung from jail, refuses it by saying, essentially, "I made my bed and now I have to lie in it."
The dialogue contains this description of social contract theory, in which Socrates assumes the voice of "the Laws":
We further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him.
As you quoted twice already, there is no social contract, it's just a theory.
In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devicesincluding the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programscould fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.
The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage
Three points to make here:
- How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
- The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
- Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.
The Right has lost on virtually every social issue they care about .. and if you can't figure out why by now, then perhaps it's just over your head and beyond your capacity to discern.
No doubt, but the country is worse off for it. After 8 years of Obama the left wing is bitchin' as if they have won nothing. As if for all that time it has been Republican in control. As if democrats can't do a damn thing without Republican approval.
The democrats have sold you a bill of goods. Why an intelligent person like yourself buys into the BS you have been sold is really not understandable. Should you become a Republican, hell no. Should you stay in the party that has historically done things to hurt the poor especially the black poor, I would say your conscience should say no.
But that is just me. I belong to neither party, I see little difference.
With all due respect brother, I'm not a democrat and my posts clearly reflect that. This isn't about political parties, it's about ideology .. what is Left and what is Right .. and I'm decidedly on the Left. I didn't vote for Obama .. won't be voting for Clinton, but the 'bill of goods' that democrats sell is far superior to the hate that republicans sell .. and if you doubt that, just go look at the board topics on this site.
With regards to political party, there is little question that the Democratic Party has done FAR more for African-Americans and all non-white Americans than has the Republican Party .. which is virtually all-white. That's not an argument you can win. Republicans hate everybody .. which is their right to do, but it's an awfully unintelligent political strategy.
My conscience does say no .. to needless corporate-sponsored war and all who support it. It does say no to racism, sexism, and all the other and any other ism that oppresses and divides. It does say no to corporate control of the American government.
Both parties are corporate owned and operated .. but democrats have long understood that hate is not the best road for a political party to travel.
And nowhere in our federal or states' constitutions does it even suggest such a thing?
All made up by lefties/liberals/socialists to increase their political power and has nothing to do with "helping" anyone but themselves.
if only you understood constitutional construction.
you should probably read the commerce clause. the general welfare clause would be helpful to you, too.
or do those parts not count because they don't suit your limited worldview?
Both of which the left-wing completely redefines in terms that was never intended when they were written. The welfare clause being the larger offender between the two. You actually define the welfare clause, in exactly the way the people who wrote it, warned us against. The irony is amazing.
no. hundreds of years of caselaw defines it.
read. learn.
If you know of a situation where someone doesn't have what they need, voluntarily provide it to them. If you can't or won't, tough shit for them. I don't owe them anything.
that is your opinion. not a constitutional construct. that is the problem with the radical right....zero understanding of what the constitution actually provides.
again..... congress is charged to provide for the general welfare and has the right to regulate interstate commerce.
your personal preference is not mandatory.
In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devicesincluding the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programscould fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.
The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage
Three points to make here:
- How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
- The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
- Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.
Really now. Maybe you just haven't been paying attention for the last 50 or 60 years? You certainly never took political science or philosophy at the community college you went to for a couple of years....
Social Contract Theory
Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. Socrates uses something quite like a social contract argument to explain to Crito why he must remain in prison and accept the death penalty. However, social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes.
After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory, which has been one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the modern West. In the twentieth century, moral and political theory regained philosophical momentum as a result of John Rawls Kantian version of social contract theory, and was followed by new analyses of the subject by David Gauthier and others.
More recently, philosophers from different perspectives have offered new criticisms of social contract theory. In particular, feminists and race-conscious philosophers have argued that social contract theory is at least an incomplete picture of our moral and political lives, and may in fact camouflage some of the ways in which the contract is itself parasitical upon the subjugations of classes of persons.
The myth of the social contract is the greatest con ever perpetrated on the human race. The idea that a few wealthy men 250 years ago created some document that obligates me in any way is utterly preposterous.
A valid contract has to be agreed to explicitly by all the parties involved. Your parents can't sign a contract that is binding on you in any way. This is basic legal theory, and it's based on indisputable logic. Allowing others to bind you to the terms of some contract is the road to tyranny, but that's precisely why libturds and every other form of statist is always waxing eloquently about the mythical "social contract."
The bottom line is that if you didn't personally and explicitly agree to it, you aren't bound by it.
Yeah, you're right. Those guys 250 years ago didn't create it:
Plato on the social contract
The first known exposition of social contract theory was made by Plato in his short dialogue Crito.[wp] In the dialogue, Socrates is jailed and about to be executed, but when offered a chance to be sprung from jail, refuses it by saying, essentially, "I made my bed and now I have to lie in it."
The dialogue contains this description of social contract theory, in which Socrates assumes the voice of "the Laws":
We further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him.
As you quoted twice already, there is no social contract, it's just a theory.
Of course there is a social contract. Your inability to figure that out has no bearing on what government owes to its citizens .. ALL citizens.
In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devicesincluding the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programscould fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.
The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage
Three points to make here:
- How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
- The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
- Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.
Really now. Maybe you just haven't been paying attention for the last 50 or 60 years? You certainly never took political science or philosophy at the community college you went to for a couple of years....
Social Contract Theory
Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. Socrates uses something quite like a social contract argument to explain to Crito why he must remain in prison and accept the death penalty. However, social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes.
After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory, which has been one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the modern West. In the twentieth century, moral and political theory regained philosophical momentum as a result of John Rawls Kantian version of social contract theory, and was followed by new analyses of the subject by David Gauthier and others.
More recently, philosophers from different perspectives have offered new criticisms of social contract theory. In particular, feminists and race-conscious philosophers have argued that social contract theory is at least an incomplete picture of our moral and political lives, and may in fact camouflage some of the ways in which the contract is itself parasitical upon the subjugations of classes of persons.
The myth of the social contract is the greatest con ever perpetrated on the human race. The idea that a few wealthy men 250 years ago created some document that obligates me in any way is utterly preposterous.
A valid contract has to be agreed to explicitly by all the parties involved. Your parents can't sign a contract that is binding on you in any way. This is basic legal theory, and it's based on indisputable logic. Allowing others to bind you to the terms of some contract is the road to tyranny, but that's precisely why libturds and every other form of statist is always waxing eloquently about the mythical "social contract."
The bottom line is that if you didn't personally and explicitly agree to it, you aren't bound by it.
Yeah, you're right. Those guys 250 years ago didn't create it:
Plato on the social contract
The first known exposition of social contract theory was made by Plato in his short dialogue Crito.[wp] In the dialogue, Socrates is jailed and about to be executed, but when offered a chance to be sprung from jail, refuses it by saying, essentially, "I made my bed and now I have to lie in it."
The dialogue contains this description of social contract theory, in which Socrates assumes the voice of "the Laws":
We further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him.
As you quoted twice already, there is no social contract, it's just a theory.
Of course there is a social contract. Your inability to figure that out has no bearing on what government owes to its citizens .. ALL citizens.
In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devicesincluding the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programscould fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.
The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage
Three points to make here:
- How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
- The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
- Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.
The Right has lost on virtually every social issue they care about .. and if you can't figure out why by now, then perhaps it's just over your head and beyond your capacity to discern.
No doubt, but the country is worse off for it. After 8 years of Obama the left wing is bitchin' as if they have won nothing. As if for all that time it has been Republican in control. As if democrats can't do a damn thing without Republican approval.
The democrats have sold you a bill of goods. Why an intelligent person like yourself buys into the BS you have been sold is really not understandable. Should you become a Republican, hell no. Should you stay in the party that has historically done things to hurt the poor especially the black poor, I would say your conscience should say no.
But that is just me. I belong to neither party, I see little difference.
With all due respect brother, I'm not a democrat and my posts clearly reflect that. This isn't about political parties, it's about ideology .. what is Left and what is Right .. and I'm decidedly on the Left. I didn't vote for Obama .. won't be voting for Clinton, but the 'bill of goods' that democrats sell is far superior to the hate that republicans sell .. and if you doubt that, just go look at the board topics on this site.
With regards to political party, there is little question that the Democratic Party has done FAR more for African-Americans and all non-white Americans than has the Republican Party .. which is virtually all-white. That's not an argument you can win. Republicans hate everybody .. which is their right to do, but it's an awfully unintelligent political strategy.
My conscience does say no .. to needless corporate-sponsored war and all who support it. It does say no to racism, sexism, and all the other and any other ism that oppresses and divides. It does say no to corporate control of the American government.
Both parties are corporate owned and operated .. but democrats have long understood that hate is not the best road for a political party to travel.
Can you name what the Republican party has done to hurt the poor? Especially the black poor? Then name for me what the democrat party has done to help the poor, especially the black poor? I again say I am not a Republican. But I think it is not logical to blame a party which is too scared to harm the poor, especially the black poor for what they didn't do. As not logical for giving the Democrats credit for something they clearly have not done. Unless lip service is an aid to the poor, especially the black poor.
think about this. The educational system that is failing the poor is run largely by democrats. What is needed by the poor? Handouts? NO! They need jobs that will provide a living for them. What party is all for bring in ILLEGALLY people to do work that American's could be doing? A policy that not only gives jobs to illegals instead of Americans it dilutes the labor force which causes wages to be suppressed. So I am just not seeing how democrat policy has helped the poor.
I don't think anyone living today ever signed that one either.In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devicesincluding the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programscould fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.
The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage
Three points to make here:
- How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
- The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
- Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.
There is only one social contract. It's called the constitution. But they don't like that, so they ignore the constitution, and make up some mythical 'social contract' no one has ever seen.
In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devicesincluding the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programscould fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.
The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage
Three points to make here:
- How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
- The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
- Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.
The Right has lost on virtually every social issue they care about .. and if you can't figure out why by now, then perhaps it's just over your head and beyond your capacity to discern.
No doubt, but the country is worse off for it. After 8 years of Obama the left wing is bitchin' as if they have won nothing. As if for all that time it has been Republican in control. As if democrats can't do a damn thing without Republican approval.
The democrats have sold you a bill of goods. Why an intelligent person like yourself buys into the BS you have been sold is really not understandable. Should you become a Republican, hell no. Should you stay in the party that has historically done things to hurt the poor especially the black poor, I would say your conscience should say no.
But that is just me. I belong to neither party, I see little difference.
With all due respect brother, I'm not a democrat and my posts clearly reflect that. This isn't about political parties, it's about ideology .. what is Left and what is Right .. and I'm decidedly on the Left. I didn't vote for Obama .. won't be voting for Clinton, but the 'bill of goods' that democrats sell is far superior to the hate that republicans sell .. and if you doubt that, just go look at the board topics on this site.
With regards to political party, there is little question that the Democratic Party has done FAR more for African-Americans and all non-white Americans than has the Republican Party .. which is virtually all-white. That's not an argument you can win. Republicans hate everybody .. which is their right to do, but it's an awfully unintelligent political strategy.
My conscience does say no .. to needless corporate-sponsored war and all who support it. It does say no to racism, sexism, and all the other and any other ism that oppresses and divides. It does say no to corporate control of the American government.
Both parties are corporate owned and operated .. but democrats have long understood that hate is not the best road for a political party to travel.
Can you name what the Republican party has done to hurt the poor? Especially the black poor? Then name for me what the democrat party has done to help the poor, especially the black poor? I again say I am not a Republican. But I think it is not logical to blame a party which is too scared to harm the poor, especially the black poor for what they didn't do. As not logical for giving the Democrats credit for something they clearly have not done. Unless lip service is an aid to the poor, especially the black poor.
think about this. The educational system that is failing the poor is run largely by democrats. What is needed by the poor? Handouts? NO! They need jobs that will provide a living for them. What party is all for bring in ILLEGALLY people to do work that American's could be doing? A policy that not only gives jobs to illegals instead of Americans it dilutes the labor force which causes wages to be suppressed. So I am just not seeing how democrat policy has helped the poor.
I appreciate the conversation brother.
Start from here .. democrats elected more African-Americans to Congress in 1970 then republicans have elected COLLECTIVELY since Reconstruction .. while republicans have done everything they could to suppress the black vote. You simply have no argument when it comes to which party is best for African-Americans to support. None whatsoever .. but I'll be happy to discuss whatever you think may be an argument.
Please tell me exactly what the Republican Party has done to help the poor? Those on the Right are quick to talk about the real and perceived failures of democratic policy when it comes to the poor but can't demonstrate why republican policy helps the poor or anybody else. Republicans hate Affirmative Action .. which benefits white women more than anyone else .. and helps many to take another step up the economic ladder .. but republicans can't articulate a better policy .. because they don't want to help anyone up that ladder but themselves.
Start from there ..
Which oppressive totalitarian states do you think I admire?You're not going to make me define "is"? What a tool. Ok, list the anarchist countries you know of and let's see if we can detect a pattern.Empirical evidence? Show me one great nation that is anarchist.Now there's a thoughtful response.
Where I might disagree with you is that our society has evolved is size, scope, sophistication and mutual dependence to the point where small bands of people are nearly irrelevant. I think that certain aspects of our society such infrastructure, health care and defense require a national level initiative.
The problem with your theory is that the empirical evidence shows that none of those things require the national government to get involved.
First, define "great." Then define "nation."
One thing I will admit, the oppressive totalitarian states you admire are very good at invading their neighbours and slaughtering the opposition.
If you can't figure out that "social issues" violate the U.S. Constitution by now (after we've explained it to you dozens of times), then clearly it is just over your head and beyond your capacity to discern. But don't worry - we've got this. Like all liberals, you just sit back and let the adults run the country. Ok?In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devicesincluding the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programscould fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.
The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage
Three points to make here:
- How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
- The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
- Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.
The Right has lost on virtually every social issue they care about .. and if you can't figure out why by now, then perhaps it's just over your head and beyond your capacity to discern.
In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devicesincluding the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programscould fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.
The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage
Three points to make here:
- How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
- The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
- Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.
Really now. Maybe you just haven't been paying attention for the last 50 or 60 years? You certainly never took political science or philosophy at the community college you went to for a couple of years....
Social Contract Theory
Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. Socrates uses something quite like a social contract argument to explain to Crito why he must remain in prison and accept the death penalty. However, social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes.
After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory, which has been one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the modern West. In the twentieth century, moral and political theory regained philosophical momentum as a result of John Rawls Kantian version of social contract theory, and was followed by new analyses of the subject by David Gauthier and others.
More recently, philosophers from different perspectives have offered new criticisms of social contract theory. In particular, feminists and race-conscious philosophers have argued that social contract theory is at least an incomplete picture of our moral and political lives, and may in fact camouflage some of the ways in which the contract is itself parasitical upon the subjugations of classes of persons.
The myth of the social contract is the greatest con ever perpetrated on the human race. The idea that a few wealthy men 250 years ago created some document that obligates me in any way is utterly preposterous.
A valid contract has to be agreed to explicitly by all the parties involved. Your parents can't sign a contract that is binding on you in any way. This is basic legal theory, and it's based on indisputable logic. Allowing others to bind you to the terms of some contract is the road to tyranny, but that's precisely why libturds and every other form of statist is always waxing eloquently about the mythical "social contract."
The bottom line is that if you didn't personally and explicitly agree to it, you aren't bound by it.
Yeah, you're right. Those guys 250 years ago didn't create it:
Plato on the social contract
The first known exposition of social contract theory was made by Plato in his short dialogue Crito.[wp] In the dialogue, Socrates is jailed and about to be executed, but when offered a chance to be sprung from jail, refuses it by saying, essentially, "I made my bed and now I have to lie in it."
The dialogue contains this description of social contract theory, in which Socrates assumes the voice of "the Laws":
We further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him.
As you quoted twice already, there is no social contract, it's just a theory.
Of course there is a social contract. Your inability to figure that out has no bearing on what government owes to its citizens .. ALL citizens.
I appreciate the conversation brother.
Start from here .. democrats elected more African-Americans to Congress in 1970 then republicans have elected COLLECTIVELY since Reconstruction. While republicans have done everything they could to suppress the black vote, democrats have supported our right to vote and choose our own representation. You simply have no argument when it comes to which party is best for African-Americans to support. None whatsoever .. but I'll be happy to discuss whatever you think may be an argument.
Please tell me exactly what the Republican Party has done to help the poor? Those on the Right are quick to talk about the real and perceived failures of democratic policy when it comes to the poor but can't demonstrate why republican policy helps the poor or anybody else. Republicans hate Affirmative Action .. which benefits white women more than anyone else .. and helps many to take another step up the economic ladder .. but republicans can't articulate a better policy .. because they don't want to help anyone up that ladder but themselves.
Start from there ..
The government can't give anything to its citizens without taking it from them first. The government owes us nothing. We, intern, owe it nothing.In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devicesincluding the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programscould fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.
The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage
Three points to make here:
- How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
- The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
- Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.
Really now. Maybe you just haven't been paying attention for the last 50 or 60 years? You certainly never took political science or philosophy at the community college you went to for a couple of years....
Social Contract Theory
Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. Socrates uses something quite like a social contract argument to explain to Crito why he must remain in prison and accept the death penalty. However, social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes.
After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory, which has been one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the modern West. In the twentieth century, moral and political theory regained philosophical momentum as a result of John Rawls Kantian version of social contract theory, and was followed by new analyses of the subject by David Gauthier and others.
More recently, philosophers from different perspectives have offered new criticisms of social contract theory. In particular, feminists and race-conscious philosophers have argued that social contract theory is at least an incomplete picture of our moral and political lives, and may in fact camouflage some of the ways in which the contract is itself parasitical upon the subjugations of classes of persons.
The myth of the social contract is the greatest con ever perpetrated on the human race. The idea that a few wealthy men 250 years ago created some document that obligates me in any way is utterly preposterous.
A valid contract has to be agreed to explicitly by all the parties involved. Your parents can't sign a contract that is binding on you in any way. This is basic legal theory, and it's based on indisputable logic. Allowing others to bind you to the terms of some contract is the road to tyranny, but that's precisely why libturds and every other form of statist is always waxing eloquently about the mythical "social contract."
The bottom line is that if you didn't personally and explicitly agree to it, you aren't bound by it.
Yeah, you're right. Those guys 250 years ago didn't create it:
Plato on the social contract
The first known exposition of social contract theory was made by Plato in his short dialogue Crito.[wp] In the dialogue, Socrates is jailed and about to be executed, but when offered a chance to be sprung from jail, refuses it by saying, essentially, "I made my bed and now I have to lie in it."
The dialogue contains this description of social contract theory, in which Socrates assumes the voice of "the Laws":
We further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him.
As you quoted twice already, there is no social contract, it's just a theory.
Of course there is a social contract. Your inability to figure that out has no bearing on what government owes to its citizens .. ALL citizens.
