Debate Now Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government

[Foxfyre]

It has been pretty successful in expanding the power of government and dismissing all concepts of individual liberty and social contract.

That is just nonsense.

Perhaps nonsense to you and anybody who has said they are very supportive of Obamacare. But none of you can rebut the statement.

--You can't show how it did not increase the power of government.

--You can't show how it did not take away some of our liberties.

--You can't show how it constituted social contract or how it did not violate the concept of social contract.

I don't need to. Nor am I willing to be drawn into a pointless debate over silliness. You are free to think what you like and say what you like, because of the incredible level of personal liberty you have and don't appreciate.

I have come to realize you really don't understand what the social contract is.

What I think or what I appreciate or what I understand is not the topic of this thread and is off limits per Rule #1 for this thread. What I have specifically argued is fair game for criticism or critique if you have the ammo to do it.

So either explain why my argument for the definition of social contract is wrong and why it is silly or don't comment on it at all. Or make your own argument that is better than mine if you can.

I really see no point in continuing with you on it.

Thank you. Circular arguments, especially when one side has no ammo to use and can't rebut the argument of the other, get really tedious for me too.

 

[dblack]

The "not far enough" was the compromise which kept the insurance industry in the mix.

First, it didn't keep insurance companies in the mix, it cemented them in place as the only legal means of financing our health care. It expanded their role.

That was a bone to the Republicans, even though the Republicans scream about it.

I don't really buy that. No Republicans voted for it. It was a bone to the Democrats in bed with the insurance industry.

No Republicans voted for it because it was being put forth by a Democrat. If McCain had won the election and presented the very same bill, it would have been the Democrats who would not have voted for it.

I have no doubt. I was just saying I found the claim that the compromises to the claimed goals of Democrats were because of Republicans. The Democrats, as a party, made their own bed when it came to ACA.

What other means of financing was available prior to ACA which is not available now?

Anything anyone wanted to try.

The compromises were an attempt to get the Republicans involved. Initially they were going for single payer. It just didn't work.

Do you know of anything anyone wanted to try and how are they prevented from trying now?

Lots of things. Small communities were forming health co-ops. Doctors were exploring pre-paid medical services. People were free to decide for themselves how much insurance they needed, if any.

Now, we're forced to give our money to the insurance industry instead, and hope that we can control them via government. An utterly vain hope, in my view. The entire plan was created for them to control us.

 

[PratchettFan]

The "not far enough" was the compromise which kept the insurance industry in the mix.

First, it didn't keep insurance companies in the mix, it cemented them in place as the only legal means of financing our health care. It expanded their role.

That was a bone to the Republicans, even though the Republicans scream about it.

I don't really buy that. No Republicans voted for it. It was a bone to the Democrats in bed with the insurance industry.

No Republicans voted for it because it was being put forth by a Democrat. If McCain had won the election and presented the very same bill, it would have been the Democrats who would not have voted for it.

I have no doubt. I was just saying I found the claim that the compromises to the claimed goals of Democrats were because of Republicans. The Democrats, as a party, made their own bed when it came to ACA.

What other means of financing was available prior to ACA which is not available now?

Anything anyone wanted to try.

The compromises were an attempt to get the Republicans involved. Initially they were going for single payer. It just didn't work.

Do you know of anything anyone wanted to try and how are they prevented from trying now?

Lots of things. Small communities were forming health co-ops. Doctors were exploring pre-paid medical services. People were free to decide for themselves how much insurance they needed, if any.

Now, we're forced to give our money to the insurance industry instead, and hope that we can control them via government. An utterly vain hope, in my view. The entire plan was created for them to control us.

The plan was created because there was a massive crisis in health care building. People were losing their homes, going into bankruptcy and hospital ERs were being overwhelmed by people who had no other recourse. Prior to ACA, no one was saying there wasn't a problem, it just turned into a political football. I personally don't think it was the best solution, but it was the best one we could come up with given the situation.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think there has always been disagreement--a free people given unalienable rights to express their opinions and convictions freely will always disagree on this or that. But there is healthy and unhealthy disagreement. Social contract does not require all to agree on every point, but only that compromise be achieved so everybody feels they were heard, reasonably accommodated, and can live comfortably with it. It took the Founders eleven years of airing their strong disagreements and working out compromises all could live with to achieve the Constitution that we have. Had one side or the other seized the power and forced it on the others, it would not have resulted in the magnificent document we got.

The unhealthy rancor I see these days is a direct result of government overreach and violation of the social contract. But overindulgence of democratic power? Is that what you meant by that comment? If not, could you elaborate on what you meant by that?

The level of rancor today is no greater than it has been in the past. What is different today is the technical capacity to express that rancor.

There is no government overreach, no violation of the social contract. We are living in one of the highest levels of personal freedom in our history and certainly the highest level of ability for the individual to make himself heard.

I strongly disagree. I think we are living with the worst violations of social contract since the Constitution was ratified in 1789.

I agree. And, to repeat myself, it IS a direct result of expanding the scope and reach of democratic power over our lives. When we eliminate limits on government power, democracy becomes unstable. The more power government has to dictate how you live, the more important it is to control it. And the more frightening it is to see those who don't share your values gain control.

I disagree in part and agree in part. I disagree with part 1 (the tyranny nonsense), yet agree with most of your statement except when you mention 'democracy' as being what becomes unstable. Our system was NOT set up as a popular democracy.

I was referencing representative democracy.

Do you think we have a representative democracy? Does your representative and senators represent you? Mine do not. They ignore my mail, and do not solicit my opinion on anything except maybe put on a pretense of caring with town hall meetings or polls during campaign season. And they only do that if they have a serious challenger for their seat.

I have maintained for some time now that most of those holding high office in Washington, both elected and appointed, are there for the primary purpose of increasing their own personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth. They throw just enough bones to the constuency they need to keep their campaign coffers filled and voting for them, and the rest of their efforts are primarily self-serving. And even those who go into the process with visionary hopes of making a positive difference quickly get sucked into that permanent political class that serves mostly itself.

I don't know for certain, but I would bet a good steak dinner that if you follow the money, those who voted for a program like Obamacare did so because a) it will benefit them financially in some way or b) it keeps them in valuable roles in Congress that benefit them financially in some way. Some 33 Democrats who were in the most vulnerable seats and were more likely to lose those seats if they voted yes, were allowed to vote no. So, the legislation passed by a mere four votes in the House.

The vote didn't save enough of the Democrats for them to hold the House in the very next election, but it probably did help some.

But that isn't representative democracy.

 

[RKMBrown]

Congress pass a constitutional amendment making sale and purchase of alcohol illegal. This was so much in violation of and offensive to the people that the law was almost universally disobeyed providing a huge market for illegal operations trafficking in alcohol.

It became so flagrant that the government was forced to repeal that amendment.

Were the people wrong to do that? Or within their unalienable rights as they saw it? And if the will of people prevailed then, why not now?

Breaking moronic laws is a time honored tradition. When our government becomes lawless, tyrannical, and otherwise too big for it's own britches, the people most certainly do have the right to rebel. Then again, there are those among us who are submissive to a fault. For these, no matter what is being done to them, they prefer to just whimper in anguish under said oppression. See hundreds of passengers lining up to have their bodies scanned, all for the .0001 percent chance that someone might be carrying a dangerous pen knife or... shock, a bottle of water.

THANK YOU (and also Sun Devil) for at last addressing the question in the OP.

The topic is not the pros and cons of Obamacare or any other such issue--there are a gazillion other threads out there to discuss that. Whether or not Obamacare is 'good law' is not the issue. Obamacare is just a real life example that is being used to illustrate the question of whether we the people are required to accept and endure a law when it violates the social contract and is forced on us against our will.

And yes, people do tend to become timid, most especially as the government becomes more and more authoritarian and less and less submissive to and/or representative of the people. There is real fear that the government will retaliate in serious ways via IRS audits or other unpleasantries. There is a growing sense that the government can and will do whatever it wants to whomever it wants and, unless you have a whole boatload of money, you have almost no defense against that.

And then there is human nature that makes most people unwilling to be a martyr. The government has made most Americans dependent on government in some way, and even those receiving a small benefit are reluctant to risk it or voluntarily give it up or risk it without some assurance that nothing will change for the better.

And there is no clear picture yet--to me anyway--as to what the most constructive solution is.

But for sure nobody is going to gain courage and those who deplore the breach of social contract are not going to find a solution if we do not talk about it or even acknowledge it.

Fox, "whether we the people are required to accept and endure a law when it violates the social contract and is forced on us against our will" is a decision that each of us makes individually. I for example come from the view that I'm a free man and this is my country. I see government employees, elected or not, as employees who are also free men living in this country. I see the laws of this land from this very simple perspective. I see laws that are designed by some simple majority to arbitrarily harm my family as bad laws that I will not put up with in any shape, fashion, or form. I see laws that are designed to defend people from harm as good laws that I will defend with my life.

I'm good with constructive tools to fix bad laws, but after a time my patience wears thin and my rhetoric... well you know.

I agree each person must search his/her own conscience as to whether he/she will choose to obey the law.

If we believe in unalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and if we believed that the Constitution was social contract to recognize and defend those unalienable rights, then nobody can quarrel with laws that provide consequences for those who violate the rights of others. Laws prohibiting and providing consequence for murder, theft, burglary, assault, battery, rape, extortion, kidnapping, and other crimes that violate the rights of people are considered necessary and just laws and nobody, liberal or conservative, have a problem with those laws. We give up our right to commit such acts with impunity in return for personal protection from such acts.

But then you get into the area of 'blue laws' or prohbition against sale or publc consumption of alcohol, strip clubs, adult bookstores, et al and we aren't really dealing with prevention of violation of anybody's rights but rather what we as a society will be. Here is where social contract requires agreement and sometimes compromise. Those who want a more open and tolerant society that allows such things can choose to have them. Those who want a different kind of society and aesthetics can choose not to have them. But as long as the people agree and have the right to choose, then social contract works quite well.

But then when government imposes a law on the people that restricts their liberties in an area they see as their business alone, and they were given no opportunity to agree or disagree with the law, there is resentment. And if the law turns out to be damaging or destructive to those who resent it, I wonder how much will there is left among we the less free people to resist?

Our healthcare certainly is a matter in which we should have free choice. And when much of our choice is taken away from us to our detriment, I certainly resent it. Single payer would pretty well take away all of our choice and I do hope the people will continue to push back against that.

But if the push back isn't sufficient to resist it, won't we then have returned to totalitarianism that gives government complete power to do anything it wants to us all?

Or are we already there?

To a certain "degree" we are already there. You are already at the mercy of the tyranny of the majority with respect to pretty much every action you take. Busy bodies have managed to entangle government regulations into even the smallest of activities. You can't even take a shit without running into hundreds of laws on the topic.

 

[Foxfyre]

Congress pass a constitutional amendment making sale and purchase of alcohol illegal. This was so much in violation of and offensive to the people that the law was almost universally disobeyed providing a huge market for illegal operations trafficking in alcohol.

It became so flagrant that the government was forced to repeal that amendment.

Were the people wrong to do that? Or within their unalienable rights as they saw it? And if the will of people prevailed then, why not now?

Breaking moronic laws is a time honored tradition. When our government becomes lawless, tyrannical, and otherwise too big for it's own britches, the people most certainly do have the right to rebel. Then again, there are those among us who are submissive to a fault. For these, no matter what is being done to them, they prefer to just whimper in anguish under said oppression. See hundreds of passengers lining up to have their bodies scanned, all for the .0001 percent chance that someone might be carrying a dangerous pen knife or... shock, a bottle of water.

THANK YOU (and also Sun Devil) for at last addressing the question in the OP.

The topic is not the pros and cons of Obamacare or any other such issue--there are a gazillion other threads out there to discuss that. Whether or not Obamacare is 'good law' is not the issue. Obamacare is just a real life example that is being used to illustrate the question of whether we the people are required to accept and endure a law when it violates the social contract and is forced on us against our will.

And yes, people do tend to become timid, most especially as the government becomes more and more authoritarian and less and less submissive to and/or representative of the people. There is real fear that the government will retaliate in serious ways via IRS audits or other unpleasantries. There is a growing sense that the government can and will do whatever it wants to whomever it wants and, unless you have a whole boatload of money, you have almost no defense against that.

And then there is human nature that makes most people unwilling to be a martyr. The government has made most Americans dependent on government in some way, and even those receiving a small benefit are reluctant to risk it or voluntarily give it up or risk it without some assurance that nothing will change for the better.

And there is no clear picture yet--to me anyway--as to what the most constructive solution is.

But for sure nobody is going to gain courage and those who deplore the breach of social contract are not going to find a solution if we do not talk about it or even acknowledge it.

Fox, "whether we the people are required to accept and endure a law when it violates the social contract and is forced on us against our will" is a decision that each of us makes individually. I for example come from the view that I'm a free man and this is my country. I see government employees, elected or not, as employees who are also free men living in this country. I see the laws of this land from this very simple perspective. I see laws that are designed by some simple majority to arbitrarily harm my family as bad laws that I will not put up with in any shape, fashion, or form. I see laws that are designed to defend people from harm as good laws that I will defend with my life.

I'm good with constructive tools to fix bad laws, but after a time my patience wears thin and my rhetoric... well you know.

I agree each person must search his/her own conscience as to whether he/she will choose to obey the law.

If we believe in unalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and if we believed that the Constitution was social contract to recognize and defend those unalienable rights, then nobody can quarrel with laws that provide consequences for those who violate the rights of others. Laws prohibiting and providing consequence for murder, theft, burglary, assault, battery, rape, extortion, kidnapping, and other crimes that violate the rights of people are considered necessary and just laws and nobody, liberal or conservative, have a problem with those laws. We give up our right to commit such acts with impunity in return for personal protection from such acts.

But then you get into the area of 'blue laws' or prohbition against sale or publc consumption of alcohol, strip clubs, adult bookstores, et al and we aren't really dealing with prevention of violation of anybody's rights but rather what we as a society will be. Here is where social contract requires agreement and sometimes compromise. Those who want a more open and tolerant society that allows such things can choose to have them. Those who want a different kind of society and aesthetics can choose not to have them. But as long as the people agree and have the right to choose, then social contract works quite well.

But then when government imposes a law on the people that restricts their liberties in an area they see as their business alone, and they were given no opportunity to agree or disagree with the law, there is resentment. And if the law turns out to be damaging or destructive to those who resent it, I wonder how much will there is left among we the less free people to resist?

Our healthcare certainly is a matter in which we should have free choice. And when much of our choice is taken away from us to our detriment, I certainly resent it. Single payer would pretty well take away all of our choice and I do hope the people will continue to push back against that.

But if the push back isn't sufficient to resist it, won't we then have returned to totalitarianism that gives government complete power to do anything it wants to us all?

Or are we already there?

To a certain "degree" we are already there. You are already at the mercy of the tyranny of the majority with respect to pretty much every action you take. Busy bodies have managed to entangle government regulations into even the smallest of activities. You can't even take a shit without running into hundreds of laws on the topic.

My fear is that you are right. But I don't think it is a tyranny of the majority. I think it is a tyranny of a fairly small minority that has fortified itself as a permanent political class in government.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The plan was created because there was a massive crisis in health care building. People were losing their homes, going into bankruptcy and hospital ERs were being overwhelmed by people who had no other recourse. Prior to ACA, no one was saying there wasn't a problem, it just turned into a political football. I personally don't think it was the best solution, but it was the best one we could come up with given the situation.

First of all, Obamacare did little to aleviate the issues you describe.

Second of all, this thread isn't about debating Obamacare.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That is just nonsense.

Perhaps nonsense to you and anybody who has said they are very supportive of Obamacare. But none of you can rebut the statement.

--You can't show how it did not increase the power of government.

--You can't show how it did not take away some of our liberties.

--You can't show how it constituted social contract or how it did not violate the concept of social contract.

I don't need to. Nor am I willing to be drawn into a pointless debate over silliness. You are free to think what you like and say what you like, because of the incredible level of personal liberty you have and don't appreciate.

I have come to realize you really don't understand what the social contract is.

What I think or what I appreciate or what I understand is not the topic of this thread and is off limits per Rule #1 for this thread. What I have specifically argued is fair game for criticism or critique if you have the ammo to do it.

So either explain why my argument for the definition of social contract is wrong and why it is silly or don't comment on it at all. Or make your own argument that is better than mine if you can.

I really see no point in continuing with you on it.

Thank you. Circular arguments, especially when one side has no ammo to use and can't rebut the argument of the other, get really tedious for me too.

An observation:

You are talking at or around each other.

For those of us who have tried to keep up...it's been a real slog.

 

[PratchettFan]

The plan was created because there was a massive crisis in health care building. People were losing their homes, going into bankruptcy and hospital ERs were being overwhelmed by people who had no other recourse. Prior to ACA, no one was saying there wasn't a problem, it just turned into a political football. I personally don't think it was the best solution, but it was the best one we could come up with given the situation.

First of all, Obamacare did little to aleviate the issues you describe.

Second of all, this thread isn't about debating Obamacare.

I didn't bring it up, only responded to claims about it. And it has done quite a lot to alleviate those problems, it just doesn't go far enough. If we shouldn't discuss the subject in this thread, then let's stop.

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps nonsense to you and anybody who has said they are very supportive of Obamacare. But none of you can rebut the statement.

--You can't show how it did not increase the power of government.

--You can't show how it did not take away some of our liberties.

--You can't show how it constituted social contract or how it did not violate the concept of social contract.

I don't need to. Nor am I willing to be drawn into a pointless debate over silliness. You are free to think what you like and say what you like, because of the incredible level of personal liberty you have and don't appreciate.

I have come to realize you really don't understand what the social contract is.

What I think or what I appreciate or what I understand is not the topic of this thread and is off limits per Rule #1 for this thread. What I have specifically argued is fair game for criticism or critique if you have the ammo to do it.

So either explain why my argument for the definition of social contract is wrong and why it is silly or don't comment on it at all. Or make your own argument that is better than mine if you can.

I really see no point in continuing with you on it.

Thank you. Circular arguments, especially when one side has no ammo to use and can't rebut the argument of the other, get really tedious for me too.

An observation:

You are talking at or around each other.

For those of us who have tried to keep up...it's been a real slog.

It becomes a real slog when some try to debate the examples on the merits of those examples rather than debating why those examples are or are not social contract.

You were correct earlier when you said that the topic is not Obamacare. I would prefer to use simpler examples such as that traffic light but Obamacare can certainly be used as an example.

As I see it though, to discuss it within the framework of social contract, it has to be discussed as:

--Does it assume government power that the people did not agree it should have?

--Does it take away liberties that the people did not voluntarily agree to give up?

--Is it beneficial to some while detrimental to others?

If the answer is 'yes' to any or all of those questions, then Obamacare is not social contract but, IMO, is a misuse of and overreach of government power.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I don't need to. Nor am I willing to be drawn into a pointless debate over silliness. You are free to think what you like and say what you like, because of the incredible level of personal liberty you have and don't appreciate.

I have come to realize you really don't understand what the social contract is.

What I think or what I appreciate or what I understand is not the topic of this thread and is off limits per Rule #1 for this thread. What I have specifically argued is fair game for criticism or critique if you have the ammo to do it.

So either explain why my argument for the definition of social contract is wrong and why it is silly or don't comment on it at all. Or make your own argument that is better than mine if you can.

I really see no point in continuing with you on it.

Thank you. Circular arguments, especially when one side has no ammo to use and can't rebut the argument of the other, get really tedious for me too.

An observation:

You are talking at or around each other.

For those of us who have tried to keep up...it's been a real slog.

It becomes a real slog when some try to debate the examples on the merits of those examples rather than debating why those examples are or are not social contract.

You were correct earlier when you said that the topic is not Obamacare. I would prefer to use simpler examples such as that traffic light but Obamacare can certainly be used as an example.

As I see it though, to discuss it within the framework of social contract, it has to be discussed as:

--Does it assume government power that the people did not agree it should have?

--Does it take away liberties that the people did not voluntarily agree to give up?

--Is it beneficial to some while detrimental to others?

If the answer is 'yes' to any or all of those questions, then Obamacare is not social contract but, IMO, is a misuse of and overreach of government power.

To really evaluate these questions, I believe you have to be specific about which governing body you are referencing.

Most of us are very aware of our U.S. Constitution, our federal legislature/executive office/SCOTUS.

A great deal gets debated these days regarding their activities (i.e. Obamacare).

There is what Obamacare is (one debate) and there is the fact that there is Obamacare at all.

Some would argue that the federal government should not be engaged in Obamacare even if half the country is dying because they don't have health insurance (an extreme example...but true). They would say that the 10th amendment prevents this from happening, but that the 9th amendment allows people to created Obamacare outside of the federal government. The argument continues that Obamacare represents a violation of that social contract and should be defeated. The violation of that social contract takes the form of the federal government requiring you to purchase insurance or face a penalty for failing to do so.

So what are your options ?

You can go to the state level where the state government has no restrictions against making you buy health insurance (at least none that I am aware of in the states I know about (which is not all of them).

So.....if they require it.....is that a failure of a social contract ?

When the states were formed did they create the equivalent of the 10th amendment for counties....or did they anticipate the powers called out in the 10th amendment as being theirs to administer and manage as they saw fit ? If so, what was the nature of that social contract and is it different from the one that is defined by the federal government ?

All of this assumes that you are using the wording of the Federal Constitution as the your basis for the contract you've defined (and I am going from memory that this is the case). If so......then it seems the answer to my above question is yes.

If you need to weight those contracts against a common standard...what would that be ? They are not the same thing in the estimation of some.

I don't know that I totally agree with the what I've described above.

While I don't agree with the "General Welfare" argument of the left, I don't necessarily agree with the total "hands off" approach of the right.

 

[Foxfyre]

What I think or what I appreciate or what I understand is not the topic of this thread and is off limits per Rule #1 for this thread. What I have specifically argued is fair game for criticism or critique if you have the ammo to do it.

So either explain why my argument for the definition of social contract is wrong and why it is silly or don't comment on it at all. Or make your own argument that is better than mine if you can.

I really see no point in continuing with you on it.

Thank you. Circular arguments, especially when one side has no ammo to use and can't rebut the argument of the other, get really tedious for me too.

An observation:

You are talking at or around each other.

For those of us who have tried to keep up...it's been a real slog.

It becomes a real slog when some try to debate the examples on the merits of those examples rather than debating why those examples are or are not social contract.

You were correct earlier when you said that the topic is not Obamacare. I would prefer to use simpler examples such as that traffic light but Obamacare can certainly be used as an example.

As I see it though, to discuss it within the framework of social contract, it has to be discussed as:

--Does it assume government power that the people did not agree it should have?

--Does it take away liberties that the people did not voluntarily agree to give up?

--Is it beneficial to some while detrimental to others?

If the answer is 'yes' to any or all of those questions, then Obamacare is not social contract but, IMO, is a misuse of and overreach of government power.

To really evaluate these questions, I believe you have to be specific about which governing body you are referencing.

Most of us are very aware of our U.S. Constitution, our federal legislature/executive office/SCOTUS.

A great deal gets debated these days regarding their activities (i.e. Obamacare).

There is what Obamacare is (one debate) and there is the fact that there is Obamacare at all.

Some would argue that the federal government should not be engaged in Obamacare even if half the country is dying because they don't have health insurance (an extreme example...but true). They would say that the 10th amendment prevents this from happening, but that the 9th amendment allows people to created Obamacare outside of the federal government. The argument continues that Obamacare represents a violation of that social contract and should be defeated. The violation of that social contract takes the form of the federal government requiring you to purchase insurance or face a penalty for failing to do so.

So what are your options ?

You can go to the state level where the state government has no restrictions against making you buy health insurance (at least none that I am aware of in the states I know about (which is not all of them).

So.....if they require it.....is that a failure of a social contract ?

When the states were formed did they create the equivalent of the 10th amendment for counties....or did they anticipate the powers called out in the 10th amendment as being theirs to administer and manage as they saw fit ? If so, what was the nature of that social contract and is it different from the one that is defined by the federal government ?

All of this assumes that you are using the wording of the Federal Constitution as the your basis for the contract you've defined (and I am going from memory that this is the case). If so......then it seems the answer to my above question is yes.

If you need to weight those contracts against a common standard...what would that be ? They are not the same thing in the estimation of some.

I don't know that I totally agree with the what I've described above.

While I don't agree with the "General Welfare" argument of the left, I don't necessarily agree with the total "hands off" approach of the right.

It doesn't really matter what level of government we are talking about. Social contract is agreement of the people to a process that is mutualy beneficial for all, not dictates of government. The people can choose to assign the authority locally, at the state level, or at the federal level, or leave it up to the private sector, but if it is not the people assigning the authority, then it is not social contract.

In my opinion, the federal government is given no authority to do ANYTHING that is not in the interest of the general welfare meaning that it is mutually beneficial to all without respect to demographics or socioeconomic circumstances.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It doesn't really matter what level of government we are talking about. Social contract is agreement of the people to a process that is mutualy beneficial for all, not dictates of government. The people can choose to assign the authority locally, at the state level, or at the federal level, or leave it up to the private sector, but if it is not the people assigning the authority, then it is not social contract.

In my opinion, the federal government is given no authority to do ANYTHING that is not in the interest of the general welfare meaning that it is mutually beneficial to all without respect to demographics or socioeconomic circumstances.

Can you name any government that is given authority to do anything that is not mutually beneficial to all (within it's authority) ?

I can't think of anything. If they tried, they'd get the boot real fast.

That assumes people know they are being screwed. Big money can do a lot to sway that.

And let's be clear.....the people can't just arbitrarily assign authority. There are clear delineations in our constitution that requires a rather lengthy process to assign that authority.

My point being that it just does not happen.

But, back to your opinion.....and you've never answered my question.....

What you believe does not matter...unless a whole bunch of people believe the same way.

So, we don't just get to nullify laws....we can only come out in open rebellion.

Can you tell me or show me where conservatives have come out in open rebellion against Obamacare ?

 

[Foxfyre]

It doesn't really matter what level of government we are talking about. Social contract is agreement of the people to a process that is mutualy beneficial for all, not dictates of government. The people can choose to assign the authority locally, at the state level, or at the federal level, or leave it up to the private sector, but if it is not the people assigning the authority, then it is not social contract.

In my opinion, the federal government is given no authority to do ANYTHING that is not in the interest of the general welfare meaning that it is mutually beneficial to all without respect to demographics or socioeconomic circumstances.

Can you name any government that is given authority to do anything that is not mutually beneficial to all (within it's authority) ?

I can't think of anything. If they tried, they'd get the boot real fast.

That assumes people know they are being screwed. Big money can do a lot to sway that.

And let's be clear.....the people can't just arbitrarily assign authority. There are clear delineations in our constitution that requires a rather lengthy process to assign that authority.

My point being that it just does not happen.

But, back to your opinion.....and you've never answered my question.....

What you believe does not matter...unless a whole bunch of people believe the same way.

So, we don't just get to nullify laws....we can only come out in open rebellion.

Can you tell me or show me where conservatives have come out in open rebellion against Obamacare ?

Other than being apparently 100% opposed to Obamacare, Conservatives have not come out in open rebellion against Obamacare. But the question in the OP is not whether anybody has,

The question is whether anybody should.

The very rich are not being hurt by it because they can afford to bypass Obamacare. And so has the President and members of Congress bypassed Obamacare for themselves even as they forced it onto the rest of us.

And from what I have been reading, and seeing happen locally, more and more doctors are going into concierge kinds of practices that bypass the insurance industry entirely and many are allowing monthly payments of $135 to $200 a month which puts it into affordable range for many and, because these doctors limit the number of patients they will take, the patient who need to see a doctor can see their doctor immediately. This I suppose is a rebellion of sorts. But it will increase the difficulty of others to be able to see a doctor anywhere other than the urgent care centers and emergency rooms which is already happening almost everywhere.

Most conservatives are too busy working jobs and living their lives to be government activists. As a result we have allowed this monstrosity of a government program and mandate to be forced upon us.

If Congress won't fix it, I don't know how we should fix it ourselves. But I sure hope we figure it out and refuse this kind of unconscionable breach of social contract.

The Constitution was intended to severely limit the authority given to a central government. That concept has been completely stood on its head. We the people can reassign the authority by demanding that this policy be re-implemented. But do we have the courage to do that? And are there enough Americans left who love liberty to get it done at all?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Most conservatives are too busy working jobs and living their lives to be government activists. As a result we have allowed this monstrosity of a government program and mandate to be forced upon us.

I've heard this before and I call bullcrap.

Most conservatives are to lazy to put up anyting but yapping.

They say they care about their children but seem disinclined to do anything to avoid the mess they've help create.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It doesn't really matter what level of government we are talking about. Social contract is agreement of the people to a process that is mutualy beneficial for all, not dictates of government. The people can choose to assign the authority locally, at the state level, or at the federal level, or leave it up to the private sector, but if it is not the people assigning the authority, then it is not social contract.

In my opinion, the federal government is given no authority to do ANYTHING that is not in the interest of the general welfare meaning that it is mutually beneficial to all without respect to demographics or socioeconomic circumstances.

Can you name any government that is given authority to do anything that is not mutually beneficial to all (within it's authority) ?

I can't think of anything. If they tried, they'd get the boot real fast.

That assumes people know they are being screwed. Big money can do a lot to sway that.

And let's be clear.....the people can't just arbitrarily assign authority. There are clear delineations in our constitution that requires a rather lengthy process to assign that authority.

My point being that it just does not happen.

But, back to your opinion.....and you've never answered my question.....

What you believe does not matter...unless a whole bunch of people believe the same way.

So, we don't just get to nullify laws....we can only come out in open rebellion.

Can you tell me or show me where conservatives have come out in open rebellion against Obamacare ?

Other than being apparently 100% opposed to Obamacare, Conservatives have not come out in open rebellion against Obamacare. But the question in the OP is not whether anybody has,

The question is whether anybody should.

The very rich are not being hurt by it because they can afford to bypass Obamacare. And so has the President and members of Congress bypassed Obamacare for themselves even as they forced it onto the rest of us.

And from what I have been reading, and seeing happen locally, more and more doctors are going into concierge kinds of practices that bypass the insurance industry entirely and many are allowing monthly payments of $135 to $200 a month which puts it into affordable range for many and, because these doctors limit the number of patients they will take, the patient who need to see a doctor can see their doctor immediately. This I suppose is a rebellion of sorts. But it will increase the difficulty of others to be able to see a doctor anywhere other than the urgent care centers and emergency rooms which is already happening almost everywhere.

Most conservatives are too busy working jobs and living their lives to be government activists. As a result we have allowed this monstrosity of a government program and mandate to be forced upon us.

If Congress won't fix it, I don't know how we should fix it ourselves. But I sure hope we figure it out and refuse this kind of unconscionable breach of social contract.

The Constitution was intended to severely limit the authority given to a central government. That concept has been completely stood on its head. We the people can reassign the authority by demanding that this policy be re-implemented. But do we have the courage to do that? And are there enough Americans left who love liberty to get it done at all?

You don't need to make excuses for anyone.

A simple no will do.

As to...whether they should....I am still wondering what form it would take.

 

[Foxfyre]

It doesn't really matter what level of government we are talking about. Social contract is agreement of the people to a process that is mutualy beneficial for all, not dictates of government. The people can choose to assign the authority locally, at the state level, or at the federal level, or leave it up to the private sector, but if it is not the people assigning the authority, then it is not social contract.

In my opinion, the federal government is given no authority to do ANYTHING that is not in the interest of the general welfare meaning that it is mutually beneficial to all without respect to demographics or socioeconomic circumstances.

Can you name any government that is given authority to do anything that is not mutually beneficial to all (within it's authority) ?

I can't think of anything. If they tried, they'd get the boot real fast.

That assumes people know they are being screwed. Big money can do a lot to sway that.

And let's be clear.....the people can't just arbitrarily assign authority. There are clear delineations in our constitution that requires a rather lengthy process to assign that authority.

My point being that it just does not happen.

But, back to your opinion.....and you've never answered my question.....

What you believe does not matter...unless a whole bunch of people believe the same way.

So, we don't just get to nullify laws....we can only come out in open rebellion.

Can you tell me or show me where conservatives have come out in open rebellion against Obamacare ?

Other than being apparently 100% opposed to Obamacare, Conservatives have not come out in open rebellion against Obamacare. But the question in the OP is not whether anybody has,

The question is whether anybody should.

The very rich are not being hurt by it because they can afford to bypass Obamacare. And so has the President and members of Congress bypassed Obamacare for themselves even as they forced it onto the rest of us.

And from what I have been reading, and seeing happen locally, more and more doctors are going into concierge kinds of practices that bypass the insurance industry entirely and many are allowing monthly payments of $135 to $200 a month which puts it into affordable range for many and, because these doctors limit the number of patients they will take, the patient who need to see a doctor can see their doctor immediately. This I suppose is a rebellion of sorts. But it will increase the difficulty of others to be able to see a doctor anywhere other than the urgent care centers and emergency rooms which is already happening almost everywhere.

Most conservatives are too busy working jobs and living their lives to be government activists. As a result we have allowed this monstrosity of a government program and mandate to be forced upon us.

If Congress won't fix it, I don't know how we should fix it ourselves. But I sure hope we figure it out and refuse this kind of unconscionable breach of social contract.

The Constitution was intended to severely limit the authority given to a central government. That concept has been completely stood on its head. We the people can reassign the authority by demanding that this policy be re-implemented. But do we have the courage to do that? And are there enough Americans left who love liberty to get it done at all?

You don't need to make excuses for anyone.

A simple no will do.

As to...whether they should....I am still wondering what form it would take.

A simple 'no' doesn't always work without understanding why the answer is 'no' though.

And I thought my post suggested one form rebellion would take.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It doesn't really matter what level of government we are talking about. Social contract is agreement of the people to a process that is mutualy beneficial for all, not dictates of government. The people can choose to assign the authority locally, at the state level, or at the federal level, or leave it up to the private sector, but if it is not the people assigning the authority, then it is not social contract.

In my opinion, the federal government is given no authority to do ANYTHING that is not in the interest of the general welfare meaning that it is mutually beneficial to all without respect to demographics or socioeconomic circumstances.

Can you name any government that is given authority to do anything that is not mutually beneficial to all (within it's authority) ?

I can't think of anything. If they tried, they'd get the boot real fast.

That assumes people know they are being screwed. Big money can do a lot to sway that.

And let's be clear.....the people can't just arbitrarily assign authority. There are clear delineations in our constitution that requires a rather lengthy process to assign that authority.

My point being that it just does not happen.

But, back to your opinion.....and you've never answered my question.....

What you believe does not matter...unless a whole bunch of people believe the same way.

So, we don't just get to nullify laws....we can only come out in open rebellion.

Can you tell me or show me where conservatives have come out in open rebellion against Obamacare ?

Other than being apparently 100% opposed to Obamacare, Conservatives have not come out in open rebellion against Obamacare. But the question in the OP is not whether anybody has,

The question is whether anybody should.

The very rich are not being hurt by it because they can afford to bypass Obamacare. And so has the President and members of Congress bypassed Obamacare for themselves even as they forced it onto the rest of us.

And from what I have been reading, and seeing happen locally, more and more doctors are going into concierge kinds of practices that bypass the insurance industry entirely and many are allowing monthly payments of $135 to $200 a month which puts it into affordable range for many and, because these doctors limit the number of patients they will take, the patient who need to see a doctor can see their doctor immediately. This I suppose is a rebellion of sorts. But it will increase the difficulty of others to be able to see a doctor anywhere other than the urgent care centers and emergency rooms which is already happening almost everywhere.

Most conservatives are too busy working jobs and living their lives to be government activists. As a result we have allowed this monstrosity of a government program and mandate to be forced upon us.

If Congress won't fix it, I don't know how we should fix it ourselves. But I sure hope we figure it out and refuse this kind of unconscionable breach of social contract.

The Constitution was intended to severely limit the authority given to a central government. That concept has been completely stood on its head. We the people can reassign the authority by demanding that this policy be re-implemented. But do we have the courage to do that? And are there enough Americans left who love liberty to get it done at all?

You don't need to make excuses for anyone.

A simple no will do.

As to...whether they should....I am still wondering what form it would take.

A simple 'no' doesn't always work without understanding why the answer is 'no' though.

And I thought my post suggested one form rebellion would take.

Let me get more to the point.

I piss off a lot of conservatives with my positoins on certain issues.

I piss off a lot of liberals with my positions on certain issues.

I am always looking for the proof that things are the way people claim.

I personally, hate Obamacare. Set aside the constitutional argument.

The government is a pretty much a failure compared to what could and should be.....my opinion.

I hear conservatives scream about it.

But I don't see it still being visible. I don't see conservatives talking about a concerted plan to get rid of it. I don't see them addressing the issues it was supposed to address.

It is pretty much dead in the public discourse.

To me, people should be rioting about it. It should not be allowed to pass from the public concious.

There should be open discussions about what we "owe each other" via the social contract (if we owe anythikng).

There should be prominent websites collecting data and broadcasting that data.

 

[Foxfyre]

It doesn't really matter what level of government we are talking about. Social contract is agreement of the people to a process that is mutualy beneficial for all, not dictates of government. The people can choose to assign the authority locally, at the state level, or at the federal level, or leave it up to the private sector, but if it is not the people assigning the authority, then it is not social contract.

In my opinion, the federal government is given no authority to do ANYTHING that is not in the interest of the general welfare meaning that it is mutually beneficial to all without respect to demographics or socioeconomic circumstances.

Can you name any government that is given authority to do anything that is not mutually beneficial to all (within it's authority) ?

I can't think of anything. If they tried, they'd get the boot real fast.

That assumes people know they are being screwed. Big money can do a lot to sway that.

And let's be clear.....the people can't just arbitrarily assign authority. There are clear delineations in our constitution that requires a rather lengthy process to assign that authority.

My point being that it just does not happen.

But, back to your opinion.....and you've never answered my question.....

What you believe does not matter...unless a whole bunch of people believe the same way.

So, we don't just get to nullify laws....we can only come out in open rebellion.

Can you tell me or show me where conservatives have come out in open rebellion against Obamacare ?

Other than being apparently 100% opposed to Obamacare, Conservatives have not come out in open rebellion against Obamacare. But the question in the OP is not whether anybody has,

The question is whether anybody should.

The very rich are not being hurt by it because they can afford to bypass Obamacare. And so has the President and members of Congress bypassed Obamacare for themselves even as they forced it onto the rest of us.

And from what I have been reading, and seeing happen locally, more and more doctors are going into concierge kinds of practices that bypass the insurance industry entirely and many are allowing monthly payments of $135 to $200 a month which puts it into affordable range for many and, because these doctors limit the number of patients they will take, the patient who need to see a doctor can see their doctor immediately. This I suppose is a rebellion of sorts. But it will increase the difficulty of others to be able to see a doctor anywhere other than the urgent care centers and emergency rooms which is already happening almost everywhere.

Most conservatives are too busy working jobs and living their lives to be government activists. As a result we have allowed this monstrosity of a government program and mandate to be forced upon us.

If Congress won't fix it, I don't know how we should fix it ourselves. But I sure hope we figure it out and refuse this kind of unconscionable breach of social contract.

The Constitution was intended to severely limit the authority given to a central government. That concept has been completely stood on its head. We the people can reassign the authority by demanding that this policy be re-implemented. But do we have the courage to do that? And are there enough Americans left who love liberty to get it done at all?

You don't need to make excuses for anyone.

A simple no will do.

As to...whether they should....I am still wondering what form it would take.

A simple 'no' doesn't always work without understanding why the answer is 'no' though.

And I thought my post suggested one form rebellion would take.

Let me get more to the point.

I piss off a lot of conservatives with my positoins on certain issues.

I piss off a lot of liberals with my positions on certain issues.

I am always looking for the proof that things are the way people claim.

I personally, hate Obamacare. Set aside the constitutional argument.

The government is a pretty much a failure compared to what could and should be.....my opinion.

I hear conservatives scream about it.

But I don't see it still being visible. I don't see conservatives talking about a concerted plan to get rid of it. I don't see them addressing the issues it was supposed to address.

It is pretty much dead in the public discourse.

To me, people should be rioting about it. It should not be allowed to pass from the public concious.

There should be open discussions about what we "owe each other" via the social contract (if we owe anythikng).

There should be prominent websites collecting data and broadcasting that data.

I'll answer with the question put to you in the Obamacare thread. What do you think this thread is all about then?

Identifying the problem is necessary before a solution can be determined. What is a thread like this other than consciousness raising? Offering an opportunity for something to be discussed openly and publicly. Perhaps inspiring people to take notice and become sufficient concerned or angry or motivated to act in proactive ways. It takes a bit of time and effort, but personally, I think if we can't discuss such things in a medium like this, we're pretty screwed when it comes to making a difference anywhere else.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Can you name any government that is given authority to do anything that is not mutually beneficial to all (within it's authority) ?

I can't think of anything. If they tried, they'd get the boot real fast.

That assumes people know they are being screwed. Big money can do a lot to sway that.

And let's be clear.....the people can't just arbitrarily assign authority. There are clear delineations in our constitution that requires a rather lengthy process to assign that authority.

My point being that it just does not happen.

But, back to your opinion.....and you've never answered my question.....

What you believe does not matter...unless a whole bunch of people believe the same way.

So, we don't just get to nullify laws....we can only come out in open rebellion.

Can you tell me or show me where conservatives have come out in open rebellion against Obamacare ?

Other than being apparently 100% opposed to Obamacare, Conservatives have not come out in open rebellion against Obamacare. But the question in the OP is not whether anybody has,

The question is whether anybody should.

The very rich are not being hurt by it because they can afford to bypass Obamacare. And so has the President and members of Congress bypassed Obamacare for themselves even as they forced it onto the rest of us.

And from what I have been reading, and seeing happen locally, more and more doctors are going into concierge kinds of practices that bypass the insurance industry entirely and many are allowing monthly payments of $135 to $200 a month which puts it into affordable range for many and, because these doctors limit the number of patients they will take, the patient who need to see a doctor can see their doctor immediately. This I suppose is a rebellion of sorts. But it will increase the difficulty of others to be able to see a doctor anywhere other than the urgent care centers and emergency rooms which is already happening almost everywhere.

Most conservatives are too busy working jobs and living their lives to be government activists. As a result we have allowed this monstrosity of a government program and mandate to be forced upon us.

If Congress won't fix it, I don't know how we should fix it ourselves. But I sure hope we figure it out and refuse this kind of unconscionable breach of social contract.

The Constitution was intended to severely limit the authority given to a central government. That concept has been completely stood on its head. We the people can reassign the authority by demanding that this policy be re-implemented. But do we have the courage to do that? And are there enough Americans left who love liberty to get it done at all?

You don't need to make excuses for anyone.

A simple no will do.

As to...whether they should....I am still wondering what form it would take.

A simple 'no' doesn't always work without understanding why the answer is 'no' though.

And I thought my post suggested one form rebellion would take.

Let me get more to the point.

I piss off a lot of conservatives with my positoins on certain issues.

I piss off a lot of liberals with my positions on certain issues.

I am always looking for the proof that things are the way people claim.

I personally, hate Obamacare. Set aside the constitutional argument.

The government is a pretty much a failure compared to what could and should be.....my opinion.

I hear conservatives scream about it.

But I don't see it still being visible. I don't see conservatives talking about a concerted plan to get rid of it. I don't see them addressing the issues it was supposed to address.

It is pretty much dead in the public discourse.

To me, people should be rioting about it. It should not be allowed to pass from the public concious.

There should be open discussions about what we "owe each other" via the social contract (if we owe anythikng).

There should be prominent websites collecting data and broadcasting that data.

I'll answer with the question put to you in the Obamacare thread. What do you think this thread is all about then?

This was one of your topics of discussion:

And who should get to decide that?

And I am working to understand what it means to "decide".