Debate Now Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government

[Foxfyre]

May I ask what you are trying to prove with this discussion? These word arguments have purposes that are often hidden behind piles of BS. Tell us where you'd like to take us. That would be the interesting and telling point - the rest is just words and subterfuge.

The opportunity is offered those with the interest and intellect or curiosity to accept it to discuss concepts of social contract as related to laws and government. The direction is takes is up to those discussing it.

I get that, but I want to know where you want to take us. For instance you write:

"Where the issue becomes sticky, however, is when somebody in government arbitrarily puts up a light that the citizens see as intrusive, unnecessary, and restrictive. Who should have the power to demand that the light stay or go?"

Which kinda gives away your motives. Does it simply come down to quibbling over some subjective aspect of government regulation? Using your example, we have lots of lights (Philly PA) and sometimes they are removed as they serve no real purpose. Give us something concrete, something big, not trivial examples. I want something we can bite on. Later I'll reference a piece that touches on the topic of social contract.

My motives are not the topic of this discussion please.

If you don't like the simple example of the traffic light, what would you consider sufficiently important to discuss?

Personally I think the traffic light is an excellent non controversial and non partisan illustration to consider the principle of whether government action is social contract or violates social contract.

 

[Foxfyre]

The government should have that power. That is the purpose of government.

In our particular form of government the populace does have an influence on government. A fairly significant influence. So they can certainly petition for a change. But the change is and should be entirely under the control of the government.

The social contract limits all liberties without exception. You cannot act independently without regard for others. You can speak your mind, to the extent it does not harm the society. You can move about, to the extent you do not infringe upon society and other individuals. But both of those exist only because of government.

But government did not materialize out of thin air. In the USA the government was organized and given its authority by the people who formed it, with careful attention and specific intention to restrict the authority that was authorized.

And they were of one mind that should that government exceed the authority assigned to it by the people, that the people were justified and even morally required to overthrow it and replace it with the government of the people's choosing.

Government is a natural aspect of any human society. Ours is in no way unique. Nor were the people who formed the government of one mind. Not even close. As to overthrowing the government, I would refer you to the only crime actually mentioned in the Constitution. Treason. That is what the Founding Fathers thought of replacing the government.

It becomes a bit more difficult to discuss when one in the discussion does not recognize or believe in natural or inalienable rights as you have indicated.

But I disagree that our government is in no way unique. There has never been a government in the history of the world in which the people assigned the government the power it would have and the purpose of that government was to recognize and and secure the rights of the people and then leave them alone to govern themselves.

In all other cases the government was taken by force by somebody powerful enough to do that or the people raised up a king or ruler to govern them. In both cases those in power could assign and take away the rights the people would have. The U.S. government was never intended to have that power.

I think the operative word in that first sentence is "believe". Because belief is the only thing which demonstrates such rights exist. If I shoot you, where is your inalienable right to live? If the government incarcerates you, where is your inalienable right to liberty. In fact, where was the inalienable right to liberty of the human beings owned by Jefferson? Rights exist only because the society in which you live say they exist. They disappear the second the society no longer does so. They are not natural nor inalienable. They are a myth we happen to pretend is true and I don't accept myths.

Ours is merely the first of a particular form, and really just a variation of an ongoing theme at that. All governments operate under the authority of the people governed. Even authoritarian ones. Once they lose that authority, they go away. If you don't believe me, ask the French kings. A small minority cannot control a large majority unless that majority is willing to be controlled.

That's the reasons for The Bill of Rights.Without them we could have anarchy.

Not necessarily I think. The Bill of Rights were actually a compromise by about half of the Constitutional Convention.

The Federalists thought a Bill of Rights would be a dangerous thing. They thought limitations on the powers of the federal government established by the Constitution were sufficient, and if there was a Bill of Rights naming specific protected rights, there would be an assumption on the part of some that anything not included in the Bill of Rights was not protected.

The Anti-federalists however were extremely wary of powers given to a central authority in the first place, and wanted an iron clad guarantee that certain basic rights could never be infringed by the federal government. They refused to agree to a Constitution without that protection.

The compromise came with the promise that if the Anti-federalists would agree to the basic Constitution, that a Bill of Rights would be added post haste.

 

[PratchettFan]

The government should have that power. That is the purpose of government.

In our particular form of government the populace does have an influence on government. A fairly significant influence. So they can certainly petition for a change. But the change is and should be entirely under the control of the government.

The social contract limits all liberties without exception. You cannot act independently without regard for others. You can speak your mind, to the extent it does not harm the society. You can move about, to the extent you do not infringe upon society and other individuals. But both of those exist only because of government.

But government did not materialize out of thin air. In the USA the government was organized and given its authority by the people who formed it, with careful attention and specific intention to restrict the authority that was authorized.

And they were of one mind that should that government exceed the authority assigned to it by the people, that the people were justified and even morally required to overthrow it and replace it with the government of the people's choosing.

Government is a natural aspect of any human society. Ours is in no way unique. Nor were the people who formed the government of one mind. Not even close. As to overthrowing the government, I would refer you to the only crime actually mentioned in the Constitution. Treason. That is what the Founding Fathers thought of replacing the government.

It becomes a bit more difficult to discuss when one in the discussion does not recognize or believe in natural or inalienable rights as you have indicated.

But I disagree that our government is in no way unique. There has never been a government in the history of the world in which the people assigned the government the power it would have and the purpose of that government was to recognize and and secure the rights of the people and then leave them alone to govern themselves.

In all other cases the government was taken by force by somebody powerful enough to do that or the people raised up a king or ruler to govern them. In both cases those in power could assign and take away the rights the people would have. The U.S. government was never intended to have that power.

I think the operative word in that first sentence is "believe". Because belief is the only thing which demonstrates such rights exist. If I shoot you, where is your inalienable right to live? If the government incarcerates you, where is your inalienable right to liberty. In fact, where was the inalienable right to liberty of the human beings owned by Jefferson? Rights exist only because the society in which you live say they exist. They disappear the second the society no longer does so. They are not natural nor inalienable. They are a myth we happen to pretend is true and I don't accept myths.

Ours is merely the first of a particular form, and really just a variation of an ongoing theme at that. All governments operate under the authority of the people governed. Even authoritarian ones. Once they lose that authority, they go away. If you don't believe me, ask the French kings. A small minority cannot control a large majority unless that majority is willing to be controlled.

I think it is important to understand the concept of 'natural rights' as opposed to 'legal rights'. Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, all the Founders understood the difference between those two things. "Legal" rights are indeed assigned by government or society. But they are a different thing. The right to be seated in a restaurant is not a 'natural right' but a 'legal right.' There is no 'natural right' to require another to provide you with a meal.

The concept is not whether somebody can deny a person the ability to exercise his/her natural or unalienable rights. Of course in a world of survival of the fittest or the strong and/or ruthless requiring the weak and/or timid to submit, natural rights will be neither recognized nor respected. Both a state of anarchy and all power placed in government take away the people's ability to benefit from natural rights.

The Founders rightly knew that if recognition and security of natural rights were not the sole function of government, then there could be no liberty. Natural rights are to think, say, believe, act, and possess that which requires no participation or contribution by any other and that does not infringe on anybody else's rights.

I understand the concept. This is the reason I say they do not exist. They are purely mythical. Or perhaps a better word is meaningless.

You may sit in your own living room and snort cocaine, but just because you are not caught does not mean you have a natural right to do it. You have no right at all to do it because society says you don't. If society were to change its collective mind (such as the pot laws in Colorado) then suddenly you have a right you did not have before. But that right is not natural, it derives entirely from society and exists only so long as society says it exists.

The only way to have a right absent the agreement of society is to not be in a society. Then you have the right to do whatever you please, but calling it a right is meaningless. It is like saying something is legal in the total absence of any laws at all.

While the FFs were certainly intelligent and eloquent men, I think they were far more practical than philosophical. This is why you won't find the phrase inalienable or natural rights anywhere in the Constitution. You find it in the DOI, which was pure propaganda.

 

[PratchettFan]

The government should have that power. That is the purpose of government.

In our particular form of government the populace does have an influence on government. A fairly significant influence. So they can certainly petition for a change. But the change is and should be entirely under the control of the government.

The social contract limits all liberties without exception. You cannot act independently without regard for others. You can speak your mind, to the extent it does not harm the society. You can move about, to the extent you do not infringe upon society and other individuals. But both of those exist only because of government.

But government did not materialize out of thin air. In the USA the government was organized and given its authority by the people who formed it, with careful attention and specific intention to restrict the authority that was authorized.

And they were of one mind that should that government exceed the authority assigned to it by the people, that the people were justified and even morally required to overthrow it and replace it with the government of the people's choosing.

Government is a natural aspect of any human society. Ours is in no way unique. Nor were the people who formed the government of one mind. Not even close. As to overthrowing the government, I would refer you to the only crime actually mentioned in the Constitution. Treason. That is what the Founding Fathers thought of replacing the government.

It becomes a bit more difficult to discuss when one in the discussion does not recognize or believe in natural or inalienable rights as you have indicated.

But I disagree that our government is in no way unique. There has never been a government in the history of the world in which the people assigned the government the power it would have and the purpose of that government was to recognize and and secure the rights of the people and then leave them alone to govern themselves.

In all other cases the government was taken by force by somebody powerful enough to do that or the people raised up a king or ruler to govern them. In both cases those in power could assign and take away the rights the people would have. The U.S. government was never intended to have that power.

I think the operative word in that first sentence is "believe". Because belief is the only thing which demonstrates such rights exist. If I shoot you, where is your inalienable right to live? If the government incarcerates you, where is your inalienable right to liberty. In fact, where was the inalienable right to liberty of the human beings owned by Jefferson? Rights exist only because the society in which you live say they exist. They disappear the second the society no longer does so. They are not natural nor inalienable. They are a myth we happen to pretend is true and I don't accept myths.

Ours is merely the first of a particular form, and really just a variation of an ongoing theme at that. All governments operate under the authority of the people governed. Even authoritarian ones. Once they lose that authority, they go away. If you don't believe me, ask the French kings. A small minority cannot control a large majority unless that majority is willing to be controlled.

That's the reasons for The Bill of Rights.Without them we could have anarchy.

I doubt it. We might well have a less free society, but the vast majority of people really don't care about that.

 

[Foxfyre]

But government did not materialize out of thin air. In the USA the government was organized and given its authority by the people who formed it, with careful attention and specific intention to restrict the authority that was authorized.

And they were of one mind that should that government exceed the authority assigned to it by the people, that the people were justified and even morally required to overthrow it and replace it with the government of the people's choosing.

Government is a natural aspect of any human society. Ours is in no way unique. Nor were the people who formed the government of one mind. Not even close. As to overthrowing the government, I would refer you to the only crime actually mentioned in the Constitution. Treason. That is what the Founding Fathers thought of replacing the government.

It becomes a bit more difficult to discuss when one in the discussion does not recognize or believe in natural or inalienable rights as you have indicated.

But I disagree that our government is in no way unique. There has never been a government in the history of the world in which the people assigned the government the power it would have and the purpose of that government was to recognize and and secure the rights of the people and then leave them alone to govern themselves.

In all other cases the government was taken by force by somebody powerful enough to do that or the people raised up a king or ruler to govern them. In both cases those in power could assign and take away the rights the people would have. The U.S. government was never intended to have that power.

I think the operative word in that first sentence is "believe". Because belief is the only thing which demonstrates such rights exist. If I shoot you, where is your inalienable right to live? If the government incarcerates you, where is your inalienable right to liberty. In fact, where was the inalienable right to liberty of the human beings owned by Jefferson? Rights exist only because the society in which you live say they exist. They disappear the second the society no longer does so. They are not natural nor inalienable. They are a myth we happen to pretend is true and I don't accept myths.

Ours is merely the first of a particular form, and really just a variation of an ongoing theme at that. All governments operate under the authority of the people governed. Even authoritarian ones. Once they lose that authority, they go away. If you don't believe me, ask the French kings. A small minority cannot control a large majority unless that majority is willing to be controlled.

I think it is important to understand the concept of 'natural rights' as opposed to 'legal rights'. Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, all the Founders understood the difference between those two things. "Legal" rights are indeed assigned by government or society. But they are a different thing. The right to be seated in a restaurant is not a 'natural right' but a 'legal right.' There is no 'natural right' to require another to provide you with a meal.

The concept is not whether somebody can deny a person the ability to exercise his/her natural or unalienable rights. Of course in a world of survival of the fittest or the strong and/or ruthless requiring the weak and/or timid to submit, natural rights will be neither recognized nor respected. Both a state of anarchy and all power placed in government take away the people's ability to benefit from natural rights.

The Founders rightly knew that if recognition and security of natural rights were not the sole function of government, then there could be no liberty. Natural rights are to think, say, believe, act, and possess that which requires no participation or contribution by any other and that does not infringe on anybody else's rights.

I understand the concept. This is the reason I say they do not exist. They are purely mythical. Or perhaps a better word is meaningless.

You may sit in your own living room and snort cocaine, but just because you are not caught does not mean you have a natural right to do it. You have no right at all to do it because society says you don't. If society were to change its collective mind (such as the pot laws in Colorado) then suddenly you have a right you did not have before. But that right is not natural, it derives entirely from society and exists only so long as society says it exists.

The only way to have a right absent the agreement of society is to not be in a society. Then you have the right to do whatever you please, but calling it a right is meaningless. It is like saying something is legal in the total absence of any laws at all.

While the FFs were certainly intelligent and eloquent men, I think they were far more practical than philosophical. This is why you won't find the phrase inalienable or natural rights anywhere in the Constitution. You find it in the DOI, which was pure propaganda.

"Natural/unalienable" rights is implied in the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

Even a cursory reading of the Founding documents they left for us can provide no other conclusion than "Blessings of Liberty" are meant as the God-given natural rights we are intended to have.

The Declaration of Independence was not "pure propaganda." It is the ultimate founding document--the basis on which the U.S. Constitution was written, debated, defended, and signed.

. . .while most other nations also have foundation myths and national heroes, our Founders were not only war heroes or colonial liberators. In addition, they invented the core truths that underlie our politics - truths expressed in the Declaration and the Constitution. . .
FindLaw s Writ - Mylchreest The Influence Of The Declaration Of Independence Through History

I don't agree with this writer's characterization of the Founders 'inventing' the core truths. I believe they recognized and implemented them. But otherwise the writer makes some good points.
​

Certainly it is reasonable to debate whether curtailment of one's right to use controlled substances is a legitimate function of government at any level.

Nobody is arguing that the government cannot infringe on our unalienable/natural rights.

The discussion is whether we the people should allow the government to do that. And if we do under the concept of social contract, do we then have the right to object and/or act and/or disobey when the government oversteps the social contract to which the people agreed.

 

[PratchettFan]

Government is a natural aspect of any human society. Ours is in no way unique. Nor were the people who formed the government of one mind. Not even close. As to overthrowing the government, I would refer you to the only crime actually mentioned in the Constitution. Treason. That is what the Founding Fathers thought of replacing the government.

It becomes a bit more difficult to discuss when one in the discussion does not recognize or believe in natural or inalienable rights as you have indicated.

But I disagree that our government is in no way unique. There has never been a government in the history of the world in which the people assigned the government the power it would have and the purpose of that government was to recognize and and secure the rights of the people and then leave them alone to govern themselves.

In all other cases the government was taken by force by somebody powerful enough to do that or the people raised up a king or ruler to govern them. In both cases those in power could assign and take away the rights the people would have. The U.S. government was never intended to have that power.

I think the operative word in that first sentence is "believe". Because belief is the only thing which demonstrates such rights exist. If I shoot you, where is your inalienable right to live? If the government incarcerates you, where is your inalienable right to liberty. In fact, where was the inalienable right to liberty of the human beings owned by Jefferson? Rights exist only because the society in which you live say they exist. They disappear the second the society no longer does so. They are not natural nor inalienable. They are a myth we happen to pretend is true and I don't accept myths.

Ours is merely the first of a particular form, and really just a variation of an ongoing theme at that. All governments operate under the authority of the people governed. Even authoritarian ones. Once they lose that authority, they go away. If you don't believe me, ask the French kings. A small minority cannot control a large majority unless that majority is willing to be controlled.

I think it is important to understand the concept of 'natural rights' as opposed to 'legal rights'. Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, all the Founders understood the difference between those two things. "Legal" rights are indeed assigned by government or society. But they are a different thing. The right to be seated in a restaurant is not a 'natural right' but a 'legal right.' There is no 'natural right' to require another to provide you with a meal.

The concept is not whether somebody can deny a person the ability to exercise his/her natural or unalienable rights. Of course in a world of survival of the fittest or the strong and/or ruthless requiring the weak and/or timid to submit, natural rights will be neither recognized nor respected. Both a state of anarchy and all power placed in government take away the people's ability to benefit from natural rights.

The Founders rightly knew that if recognition and security of natural rights were not the sole function of government, then there could be no liberty. Natural rights are to think, say, believe, act, and possess that which requires no participation or contribution by any other and that does not infringe on anybody else's rights.

I understand the concept. This is the reason I say they do not exist. They are purely mythical. Or perhaps a better word is meaningless.

You may sit in your own living room and snort cocaine, but just because you are not caught does not mean you have a natural right to do it. You have no right at all to do it because society says you don't. If society were to change its collective mind (such as the pot laws in Colorado) then suddenly you have a right you did not have before. But that right is not natural, it derives entirely from society and exists only so long as society says it exists.

The only way to have a right absent the agreement of society is to not be in a society. Then you have the right to do whatever you please, but calling it a right is meaningless. It is like saying something is legal in the total absence of any laws at all.

While the FFs were certainly intelligent and eloquent men, I think they were far more practical than philosophical. This is why you won't find the phrase inalienable or natural rights anywhere in the Constitution. You find it in the DOI, which was pure propaganda.

"Natural/unalienable" rights is implied in the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

Even a cursory reading of the Founding documents they left for us can provide no other conclusion than "Blessings of Liberty" are meant as the God-given natural rights we are intended to have.

The Declaration of Independence was not "pure propaganda." It is the ultimate founding document--the basis on which the U.S. Constitution was written, debated, defended, and signed.

. . .while most other nations also have foundation myths and national heroes, our Founders were not only war heroes or colonial liberators. In addition, they invented the core truths that underlie our politics - truths expressed in the Declaration and the Constitution. . .
FindLaw s Writ - Mylchreest The Influence Of The Declaration Of Independence Through History

I don't agree with this writer's characterization of the Founders 'inventing' the core truths. I believe they recognized and implemented them. But otherwise the writer makes some good points.
​

Certainly it is reasonable to debate whether curtailment of one's right to use controlled substances is a legitimate function of government at any level.

Nobody is arguing that the government cannot infringe on our unalienable/natural rights.

The discussion is whether we the people should allow the government to do that. And if we do under the concept of social contract, do we then have the right to object and/or act and/or disobey when the government oversteps the social contract to which the people agreed.

You can argue what the wording implies, but I point out that it is not there. If the FFs wanted it there, they could have put it there. They did not.

The purpose of the DOI was to gear the masses up for a war. It was pure propaganda.

If a right can be infringed upon, if it can be limited or removed, it if can be modified, if it can be granted or taken away, then it is neither natural nor inalienable. Those two words are meaningless adjectives which add nothing.

 

[Foxfyre]

It becomes a bit more difficult to discuss when one in the discussion does not recognize or believe in natural or inalienable rights as you have indicated.

But I disagree that our government is in no way unique. There has never been a government in the history of the world in which the people assigned the government the power it would have and the purpose of that government was to recognize and and secure the rights of the people and then leave them alone to govern themselves.

In all other cases the government was taken by force by somebody powerful enough to do that or the people raised up a king or ruler to govern them. In both cases those in power could assign and take away the rights the people would have. The U.S. government was never intended to have that power.

I think the operative word in that first sentence is "believe". Because belief is the only thing which demonstrates such rights exist. If I shoot you, where is your inalienable right to live? If the government incarcerates you, where is your inalienable right to liberty. In fact, where was the inalienable right to liberty of the human beings owned by Jefferson? Rights exist only because the society in which you live say they exist. They disappear the second the society no longer does so. They are not natural nor inalienable. They are a myth we happen to pretend is true and I don't accept myths.

Ours is merely the first of a particular form, and really just a variation of an ongoing theme at that. All governments operate under the authority of the people governed. Even authoritarian ones. Once they lose that authority, they go away. If you don't believe me, ask the French kings. A small minority cannot control a large majority unless that majority is willing to be controlled.

I think it is important to understand the concept of 'natural rights' as opposed to 'legal rights'. Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, all the Founders understood the difference between those two things. "Legal" rights are indeed assigned by government or society. But they are a different thing. The right to be seated in a restaurant is not a 'natural right' but a 'legal right.' There is no 'natural right' to require another to provide you with a meal.

The concept is not whether somebody can deny a person the ability to exercise his/her natural or unalienable rights. Of course in a world of survival of the fittest or the strong and/or ruthless requiring the weak and/or timid to submit, natural rights will be neither recognized nor respected. Both a state of anarchy and all power placed in government take away the people's ability to benefit from natural rights.

The Founders rightly knew that if recognition and security of natural rights were not the sole function of government, then there could be no liberty. Natural rights are to think, say, believe, act, and possess that which requires no participation or contribution by any other and that does not infringe on anybody else's rights.

I understand the concept. This is the reason I say they do not exist. They are purely mythical. Or perhaps a better word is meaningless.

You may sit in your own living room and snort cocaine, but just because you are not caught does not mean you have a natural right to do it. You have no right at all to do it because society says you don't. If society were to change its collective mind (such as the pot laws in Colorado) then suddenly you have a right you did not have before. But that right is not natural, it derives entirely from society and exists only so long as society says it exists.

The only way to have a right absent the agreement of society is to not be in a society. Then you have the right to do whatever you please, but calling it a right is meaningless. It is like saying something is legal in the total absence of any laws at all.

While the FFs were certainly intelligent and eloquent men, I think they were far more practical than philosophical. This is why you won't find the phrase inalienable or natural rights anywhere in the Constitution. You find it in the DOI, which was pure propaganda.

"Natural/unalienable" rights is implied in the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

Even a cursory reading of the Founding documents they left for us can provide no other conclusion than "Blessings of Liberty" are meant as the God-given natural rights we are intended to have.

The Declaration of Independence was not "pure propaganda." It is the ultimate founding document--the basis on which the U.S. Constitution was written, debated, defended, and signed.

. . .while most other nations also have foundation myths and national heroes, our Founders were not only war heroes or colonial liberators. In addition, they invented the core truths that underlie our politics - truths expressed in the Declaration and the Constitution. . .
FindLaw s Writ - Mylchreest The Influence Of The Declaration Of Independence Through History

I don't agree with this writer's characterization of the Founders 'inventing' the core truths. I believe they recognized and implemented them. But otherwise the writer makes some good points.
​

Certainly it is reasonable to debate whether curtailment of one's right to use controlled substances is a legitimate function of government at any level.

Nobody is arguing that the government cannot infringe on our unalienable/natural rights.

The discussion is whether we the people should allow the government to do that. And if we do under the concept of social contract, do we then have the right to object and/or act and/or disobey when the government oversteps the social contract to which the people agreed.

You can argue what the wording implies, but I point out that it is not there. If the FFs wanted it there, they could have put it there. They did not.

The purpose of the DOI was to gear the masses up for a war. It was pure propaganda.

If a right can be infringed upon, if it can be limited or removed, it if can be modified, if it can be granted or taken away, then it is neither natural nor inalienable. Those two words are meaningless adjectives which add nothing.

We'll just have to disagree on that point I suppose. Because I very definitely understand what the Founders meant and intended with the phrase 'natural' or 'unalienable' rights and why we cannot have liberty unless they are recognized and secured.

Perhaps we can disagree on that and still discuss social contract?

 

[PratchettFan]

I think the operative word in that first sentence is "believe". Because belief is the only thing which demonstrates such rights exist. If I shoot you, where is your inalienable right to live? If the government incarcerates you, where is your inalienable right to liberty. In fact, where was the inalienable right to liberty of the human beings owned by Jefferson? Rights exist only because the society in which you live say they exist. They disappear the second the society no longer does so. They are not natural nor inalienable. They are a myth we happen to pretend is true and I don't accept myths.

Ours is merely the first of a particular form, and really just a variation of an ongoing theme at that. All governments operate under the authority of the people governed. Even authoritarian ones. Once they lose that authority, they go away. If you don't believe me, ask the French kings. A small minority cannot control a large majority unless that majority is willing to be controlled.

I think it is important to understand the concept of 'natural rights' as opposed to 'legal rights'. Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, all the Founders understood the difference between those two things. "Legal" rights are indeed assigned by government or society. But they are a different thing. The right to be seated in a restaurant is not a 'natural right' but a 'legal right.' There is no 'natural right' to require another to provide you with a meal.

The concept is not whether somebody can deny a person the ability to exercise his/her natural or unalienable rights. Of course in a world of survival of the fittest or the strong and/or ruthless requiring the weak and/or timid to submit, natural rights will be neither recognized nor respected. Both a state of anarchy and all power placed in government take away the people's ability to benefit from natural rights.

The Founders rightly knew that if recognition and security of natural rights were not the sole function of government, then there could be no liberty. Natural rights are to think, say, believe, act, and possess that which requires no participation or contribution by any other and that does not infringe on anybody else's rights.

I understand the concept. This is the reason I say they do not exist. They are purely mythical. Or perhaps a better word is meaningless.

You may sit in your own living room and snort cocaine, but just because you are not caught does not mean you have a natural right to do it. You have no right at all to do it because society says you don't. If society were to change its collective mind (such as the pot laws in Colorado) then suddenly you have a right you did not have before. But that right is not natural, it derives entirely from society and exists only so long as society says it exists.

The only way to have a right absent the agreement of society is to not be in a society. Then you have the right to do whatever you please, but calling it a right is meaningless. It is like saying something is legal in the total absence of any laws at all.

While the FFs were certainly intelligent and eloquent men, I think they were far more practical than philosophical. This is why you won't find the phrase inalienable or natural rights anywhere in the Constitution. You find it in the DOI, which was pure propaganda.

"Natural/unalienable" rights is implied in the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

Even a cursory reading of the Founding documents they left for us can provide no other conclusion than "Blessings of Liberty" are meant as the God-given natural rights we are intended to have.

The Declaration of Independence was not "pure propaganda." It is the ultimate founding document--the basis on which the U.S. Constitution was written, debated, defended, and signed.

. . .while most other nations also have foundation myths and national heroes, our Founders were not only war heroes or colonial liberators. In addition, they invented the core truths that underlie our politics - truths expressed in the Declaration and the Constitution. . .
FindLaw s Writ - Mylchreest The Influence Of The Declaration Of Independence Through History

I don't agree with this writer's characterization of the Founders 'inventing' the core truths. I believe they recognized and implemented them. But otherwise the writer makes some good points.
​

Certainly it is reasonable to debate whether curtailment of one's right to use controlled substances is a legitimate function of government at any level.

Nobody is arguing that the government cannot infringe on our unalienable/natural rights.

The discussion is whether we the people should allow the government to do that. And if we do under the concept of social contract, do we then have the right to object and/or act and/or disobey when the government oversteps the social contract to which the people agreed.

You can argue what the wording implies, but I point out that it is not there. If the FFs wanted it there, they could have put it there. They did not.

The purpose of the DOI was to gear the masses up for a war. It was pure propaganda.

If a right can be infringed upon, if it can be limited or removed, it if can be modified, if it can be granted or taken away, then it is neither natural nor inalienable. Those two words are meaningless adjectives which add nothing.

We'll just have to disagree on that point I suppose. Because I very definitely understand what the Founders meant and intended with the phrase 'natural' or 'unalienable' rights and why we cannot have liberty unless they are recognized and secured.

Perhaps we can disagree on that and still discuss social contract?

Certainly. Although I expect we agree on that issue, which tends to make a short discussion.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think it is important to understand the concept of 'natural rights' as opposed to 'legal rights'. Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, all the Founders understood the difference between those two things. "Legal" rights are indeed assigned by government or society. But they are a different thing. The right to be seated in a restaurant is not a 'natural right' but a 'legal right.' There is no 'natural right' to require another to provide you with a meal.

The concept is not whether somebody can deny a person the ability to exercise his/her natural or unalienable rights. Of course in a world of survival of the fittest or the strong and/or ruthless requiring the weak and/or timid to submit, natural rights will be neither recognized nor respected. Both a state of anarchy and all power placed in government take away the people's ability to benefit from natural rights.

The Founders rightly knew that if recognition and security of natural rights were not the sole function of government, then there could be no liberty. Natural rights are to think, say, believe, act, and possess that which requires no participation or contribution by any other and that does not infringe on anybody else's rights.

I understand the concept. This is the reason I say they do not exist. They are purely mythical. Or perhaps a better word is meaningless.

You may sit in your own living room and snort cocaine, but just because you are not caught does not mean you have a natural right to do it. You have no right at all to do it because society says you don't. If society were to change its collective mind (such as the pot laws in Colorado) then suddenly you have a right you did not have before. But that right is not natural, it derives entirely from society and exists only so long as society says it exists.

The only way to have a right absent the agreement of society is to not be in a society. Then you have the right to do whatever you please, but calling it a right is meaningless. It is like saying something is legal in the total absence of any laws at all.

While the FFs were certainly intelligent and eloquent men, I think they were far more practical than philosophical. This is why you won't find the phrase inalienable or natural rights anywhere in the Constitution. You find it in the DOI, which was pure propaganda.

"Natural/unalienable" rights is implied in the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

Even a cursory reading of the Founding documents they left for us can provide no other conclusion than "Blessings of Liberty" are meant as the God-given natural rights we are intended to have.

The Declaration of Independence was not "pure propaganda." It is the ultimate founding document--the basis on which the U.S. Constitution was written, debated, defended, and signed.

. . .while most other nations also have foundation myths and national heroes, our Founders were not only war heroes or colonial liberators. In addition, they invented the core truths that underlie our politics - truths expressed in the Declaration and the Constitution. . .
FindLaw s Writ - Mylchreest The Influence Of The Declaration Of Independence Through History

I don't agree with this writer's characterization of the Founders 'inventing' the core truths. I believe they recognized and implemented them. But otherwise the writer makes some good points.
​

Certainly it is reasonable to debate whether curtailment of one's right to use controlled substances is a legitimate function of government at any level.

Nobody is arguing that the government cannot infringe on our unalienable/natural rights.

The discussion is whether we the people should allow the government to do that. And if we do under the concept of social contract, do we then have the right to object and/or act and/or disobey when the government oversteps the social contract to which the people agreed.

You can argue what the wording implies, but I point out that it is not there. If the FFs wanted it there, they could have put it there. They did not.

The purpose of the DOI was to gear the masses up for a war. It was pure propaganda.

If a right can be infringed upon, if it can be limited or removed, it if can be modified, if it can be granted or taken away, then it is neither natural nor inalienable. Those two words are meaningless adjectives which add nothing.

We'll just have to disagree on that point I suppose. Because I very definitely understand what the Founders meant and intended with the phrase 'natural' or 'unalienable' rights and why we cannot have liberty unless they are recognized and secured.

Perhaps we can disagree on that and still discuss social contract?

Certainly. Although I expect we agree on that issue, which tends to make a short discussion.

Oh come on. It's a very big issue. Surely we can find something to squabble a bit about.

It's late now and I need to head for bed, but I'll think of something tomorrow.

 

[PratchettFan]

I understand the concept. This is the reason I say they do not exist. They are purely mythical. Or perhaps a better word is meaningless.

You may sit in your own living room and snort cocaine, but just because you are not caught does not mean you have a natural right to do it. You have no right at all to do it because society says you don't. If society were to change its collective mind (such as the pot laws in Colorado) then suddenly you have a right you did not have before. But that right is not natural, it derives entirely from society and exists only so long as society says it exists.

The only way to have a right absent the agreement of society is to not be in a society. Then you have the right to do whatever you please, but calling it a right is meaningless. It is like saying something is legal in the total absence of any laws at all.

While the FFs were certainly intelligent and eloquent men, I think they were far more practical than philosophical. This is why you won't find the phrase inalienable or natural rights anywhere in the Constitution. You find it in the DOI, which was pure propaganda.

"Natural/unalienable" rights is implied in the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

Even a cursory reading of the Founding documents they left for us can provide no other conclusion than "Blessings of Liberty" are meant as the God-given natural rights we are intended to have.

The Declaration of Independence was not "pure propaganda." It is the ultimate founding document--the basis on which the U.S. Constitution was written, debated, defended, and signed.

. . .while most other nations also have foundation myths and national heroes, our Founders were not only war heroes or colonial liberators. In addition, they invented the core truths that underlie our politics - truths expressed in the Declaration and the Constitution. . .
FindLaw s Writ - Mylchreest The Influence Of The Declaration Of Independence Through History

I don't agree with this writer's characterization of the Founders 'inventing' the core truths. I believe they recognized and implemented them. But otherwise the writer makes some good points.
​

Certainly it is reasonable to debate whether curtailment of one's right to use controlled substances is a legitimate function of government at any level.

Nobody is arguing that the government cannot infringe on our unalienable/natural rights.

The discussion is whether we the people should allow the government to do that. And if we do under the concept of social contract, do we then have the right to object and/or act and/or disobey when the government oversteps the social contract to which the people agreed.

You can argue what the wording implies, but I point out that it is not there. If the FFs wanted it there, they could have put it there. They did not.

The purpose of the DOI was to gear the masses up for a war. It was pure propaganda.

If a right can be infringed upon, if it can be limited or removed, it if can be modified, if it can be granted or taken away, then it is neither natural nor inalienable. Those two words are meaningless adjectives which add nothing.

We'll just have to disagree on that point I suppose. Because I very definitely understand what the Founders meant and intended with the phrase 'natural' or 'unalienable' rights and why we cannot have liberty unless they are recognized and secured.

Perhaps we can disagree on that and still discuss social contract?

Certainly. Although I expect we agree on that issue, which tends to make a short discussion.

Oh come on. It's a very big issue. Surely we can find something to squabble a bit about.

It's late now and I need to head for bed, but I'll think of something tomorrow.

Ok. We both agree the social contract is a vital aspect of any society. I think you believe it to be more philosophical and I see it as more biological - or perhaps instinctual is a better word.

The contract is a two way street. The society has to provide an environment in which the individual can exist without undue uncertainty. Individuals will accept quite a bit of infringement of their options, but they need to know they can depend upon tomorrow being pretty much like today. If you look at a dictatorship, such as Iraq under Saddam, you did not have any indication of revolution or terrorist activities. People were not blowing up neighborhoods. Yet the level of actual freedom was limited. Remove the dictator and that certainty went away. Now the power could not be depended upon, the laws were flaky, the government in chaos. Enter terrorism as the people revolted. Not against the suppression of their rights but the loss of certainty.

In the other direction is the obligation of the individual to the society. Any freedoms or certainty an individual might have is the result of the stability of the society. By enjoying those benefits, the individual has an obligation to see to insuring that stability. So they can't just rob a bank because they need money, or kick their neighbor out of their house. They must comply with the rules of the society. This means their personal liberty must be limited. The extent to which it is limited is directly dependent upon how stable the society is. Push personal liberty to the point where it destabilizes society and those liberties will very quickly be curtailed or eliminated.

This is why I said that not only would Americans accept a totalitarian government but would wave flags at the parade. Americans are human beings, no different than anyone else. Remove the certainty from their lives and they will flock to totalitarianism to get it back.

 

[midcan5]

Firefox wrote, 'My motives are not the topic of this discussion please.

If you don't like the simple example of the traffic light, what would you consider sufficiently important to discuss?

Personally I think the traffic light is an excellent non controversial and non partisan illustration to consider the principle of whether government action is social contract or violates social contract.

I asked for something we can discuss on its merits, I only used traffic lights because you used them, way too simple. When was the last time the scotus argued over a missing traffic light? If you can't give us something we can disagree on then there is no debate.

But I understand your tactic as then you can claim pertinence in other areas, it is a simple debate deflection pretending it is saying something. You've heard of apples and oranges I'm sure. This is where the conservative misses as life is not so simple as a few words.

 

[Foxfyre]

Firefox wrote, 'My motives are not the topic of this discussion please.

If you don't like the simple example of the traffic light, what would you consider sufficiently important to discuss?

Personally I think the traffic light is an excellent non controversial and non partisan illustration to consider the principle of whether government action is social contract or violates social contract.

I asked for something we can discuss on its merits, I only used traffic lights because you used them, way too simple. When was the last time the scotus argued over a missing traffic light? If you can't give us something we can disagree on then there is no debate.

But I understand your tactic as then you can claim pertinence in other areas, it is a simple debate deflection pretending it is saying something. You've heard of apples and oranges I'm sure. This is where the conservative misses as life is not so simple as a few words.

Once again my motives or tactics are not the subject of this discussion. What I have heard of or what the conservative misses are also not the subject of this discussion. Nor is SCOTUS or its rulings the subject of this discussion other than to the extent that they create or change social contract.

If you don't like the example I chose to discuss as illustration, then choose something else less simple more to your liking and offer that for discussion.

Here again is the topic for discussion. I will insist that the discussion relate to that topic as much as possible:

Is Social Contract as defined above a valid concept?

1. If so, is the U.S. Constitution social contract? State and local governments?
   
   If so, has the spirit and intent of social contract been preserved in current times?
   
   Do you agree with Locke that laws and policies that violate social contract invalidates the law and the government that imposes them? That social contract should be the single most guiding principle in what government and laws should be?
   And who should get to decide that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I would agree that laws are thought out, but not the social contract. That is really just an observation of natural human behavior.

The US was a compromise by people who understood the consequences of not forming a government after the revolution. If it were truly Lockean we would have seen universal sufferage and certainly not slavery. Yet only a minority was allowed the vote and an entire segment of the population was deemed property.

I hate to be cynical, but I think not only would Americans submit to a totalitarian power, they would wave flags at the parade.

The original Constitution did not specify who could vote and left that up to the states to decide. Most of the states originally limited voting rights to heads of households, presumed to be males, who were landowners or who produced taxable income. Some of the states extended the vote to women who were head of households; one or two extended the vote to freed slaves who were head of households.

After that it became a matter of custom and culture more than anything else and for a long time, outside of a few militant feminists--militant groups had little power in those days--it just wasn't important enough to women to care all that much. Most adult women were married and most agreed with their husbands in matters of politics, so one vote per household still seemed reasonable.

When women decided they did care and there was sufficient support for a correction of policy, the 19th Amendment gave women the vote in 1920. And that too was accomplished via social contract. It took 40 years to accomplish from the time it was first introduced until it finally passed Congress and was ratified by all 48 states existing that that time. But because it was accomplished by consent of the states and the people, it created barely a ripple and little or no resentment and was implemented seamlessly and painlessly. That is how social contract is supposed to work.

As to seamlessly and painlessly, I think you need to familiarize yourself with the history. However, I think you just demonstrated my point. The Founding Fathers themselves were content to limited freedom for most and the use of force to impose the will of the state. Those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion I am sure had very clear opinions on totalitarian government.

Well I would prefer to keep this discussion on social contract.

I disagree with your characterization of what the Founders were content with.

Social Contract, does limit certain liberties as a trade off to accomplish a desirable mutual goal, but the the operative word is mutual. Such as okay, the majority is willing to vote to have their right to drive unimpeded through a particular intersection restricted by installation of a traffic light that will make it much safer for both motorists and pedestrians and will facilitate a more orderly flow of traffic--mutual benefit to all. In order for the traffic light to accomplish its desired effect, it will be necessary to enforce some consequence for failure to obey the light.

Where the issue becomes sticky, however, is when somebody in government arbitrarily puts up a light that the citizens see as intrusive, unnecessary, and restrictive. Who should have the power to demand that the light stay or go?

The government should have that power. That is the purpose of government.

In our particular form of government the populace does have an influence on government. A fairly significant influence. So they can certainly petition for a change. But the change is and should be entirely under the control of the government.

The social contract limits all liberties without exception. You cannot act independently without regard for others. You can speak your mind, to the extent it does not harm the society. You can move about, to the extent you do not infringe upon society and other individuals. But both of those exist only because of government.

But government did not materialize out of thin air. In the USA the government was organized and given its authority by the people who formed it, with careful attention and specific intention to restrict the authority that was authorized.

And they were of one mind that should that government exceed the authority assigned to it by the people, that the people were justified and even morally required to overthrow it and replace it with the government of the people's choosing.

I would like some support for the assertions in the last pararaph about "one mind". A solid minority refused to sign the Constitution because it was considered too powerful. The ratification fights in the big states -- VA, Mass, NY -- reflected those differences with very narrow majorities for the Constitution. No, the American people never are of one mind, and that is why we the independent judiciary to try to find the right way.

 

[Foxfyre]

"Natural/unalienable" rights is implied in the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

Even a cursory reading of the Founding documents they left for us can provide no other conclusion than "Blessings of Liberty" are meant as the God-given natural rights we are intended to have.

The Declaration of Independence was not "pure propaganda." It is the ultimate founding document--the basis on which the U.S. Constitution was written, debated, defended, and signed.

. . .while most other nations also have foundation myths and national heroes, our Founders were not only war heroes or colonial liberators. In addition, they invented the core truths that underlie our politics - truths expressed in the Declaration and the Constitution. . .
FindLaw s Writ - Mylchreest The Influence Of The Declaration Of Independence Through History

I don't agree with this writer's characterization of the Founders 'inventing' the core truths. I believe they recognized and implemented them. But otherwise the writer makes some good points.
​

Certainly it is reasonable to debate whether curtailment of one's right to use controlled substances is a legitimate function of government at any level.

Nobody is arguing that the government cannot infringe on our unalienable/natural rights.

The discussion is whether we the people should allow the government to do that. And if we do under the concept of social contract, do we then have the right to object and/or act and/or disobey when the government oversteps the social contract to which the people agreed.

You can argue what the wording implies, but I point out that it is not there. If the FFs wanted it there, they could have put it there. They did not.

The purpose of the DOI was to gear the masses up for a war. It was pure propaganda.

If a right can be infringed upon, if it can be limited or removed, it if can be modified, if it can be granted or taken away, then it is neither natural nor inalienable. Those two words are meaningless adjectives which add nothing.

We'll just have to disagree on that point I suppose. Because I very definitely understand what the Founders meant and intended with the phrase 'natural' or 'unalienable' rights and why we cannot have liberty unless they are recognized and secured.

Perhaps we can disagree on that and still discuss social contract?

Certainly. Although I expect we agree on that issue, which tends to make a short discussion.

Oh come on. It's a very big issue. Surely we can find something to squabble a bit about.

It's late now and I need to head for bed, but I'll think of something tomorrow.

Ok. We both agree the social contract is a vital aspect of any society. I think you believe it to be more philosophical and I see it as more biological - or perhaps instinctual is a better word.

The contract is a two way street. The society has to provide an environment in which the individual can exist without undue uncertainty. Individuals will accept quite a bit of infringement of their options, but they need to know they can depend upon tomorrow being pretty much like today. If you look at a dictatorship, such as Iraq under Saddam, you did not have any indication of revolution or terrorist activities. People were not blowing up neighborhoods. Yet the level of actual freedom was limited. Remove the dictator and that certainty went away. Now the power could not be depended upon, the laws were flaky, the government in chaos. Enter terrorism as the people revolted. Not against the suppression of their rights but the loss of certainty.

In the other direction is the obligation of the individual to the society. Any freedoms or certainty an individual might have is the result of the stability of the society. By enjoying those benefits, the individual has an obligation to see to insuring that stability. So they can't just rob a bank because they need money, or kick their neighbor out of their house. They must comply with the rules of the society. This means their personal liberty must be limited. The extent to which it is limited is directly dependent upon how stable the society is. Push personal liberty to the point where it destabilizes society and those liberties will very quickly be curtailed or eliminated.

This is why I said that not only would Americans accept a totalitarian government but would wave flags at the parade. Americans are human beings, no different than anyone else. Remove the certainty from their lives and they will flock to totalitarianism to get it back.

I wonder. Certainly many Americans have accepted the current government which is about as close to a totalitarian government as we have ever had.

I am not at all convinced that most American people would embrace totalitarianism to obtain certainty. I think many Americans embrace the Founders' vision of liberty and would be willing to put their lives on the line to defend it.

The problem we Americans have is that we have been conditioned for generations now to accept loss of our liberties and more and more authoritarian government by virtue of a thousand tiny cuts imposed over time so everybody gets accustomed to the new pain before the next one is inflicted. And because we're busy with buying and selling and living our lives, we just swallow hard and go on with our own business. Just as the early Americans did before the Revolution.

Once you enjoy living peacefully, it is really tough to upset that by engaging in intentional conflict.

But at some point there was the last straw. Nothing more onerous or more terrible than other 'offenses' imposed on the people by an overreaching government. But enough of the American people did rebel and overthrew an unacceptable government.

Can it happen again? Do Americans still have the balls to demand that the unnecessary and irritating traffic light be removed?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Motives are relevant to the discussion, of course, and saying it is not so means nothing.

 

[Foxfyre]

A social contract is inherent in all societies. Those who violate the contract typically end up in prison, banished or dead. Governments which ignore it tend to be overthrown. It isn't so much philosophy as a fact of life.

Well that is close to how John Locke would have looked at it I think.

So do you see our government at federal, state, and social levels as living within the social contract? Or violating it? If the latter, how close are we to one or more of those governments being overthrown?

Disclaimer: This is a theoretical question please. I do not wish to have sinister looking guys in trench coats at my door or black helicopters hovering over my house.

Certainly living with the social contract. We are not even vaguely close to any sort of revolution. Our government is very responsive to public reaction. Perhaps too responsive.

Is it? How do you account for the fact that we have such narrow Congressional votes on laws that profoundly affect us all? Or that such laws are passed without a strong consensus of the American people? I think that does not square with a concept of social contract.

 

[Foxfyre]

The original Constitution did not specify who could vote and left that up to the states to decide. Most of the states originally limited voting rights to heads of households, presumed to be males, who were landowners or who produced taxable income. Some of the states extended the vote to women who were head of households; one or two extended the vote to freed slaves who were head of households.

After that it became a matter of custom and culture more than anything else and for a long time, outside of a few militant feminists--militant groups had little power in those days--it just wasn't important enough to women to care all that much. Most adult women were married and most agreed with their husbands in matters of politics, so one vote per household still seemed reasonable.

When women decided they did care and there was sufficient support for a correction of policy, the 19th Amendment gave women the vote in 1920. And that too was accomplished via social contract. It took 40 years to accomplish from the time it was first introduced until it finally passed Congress and was ratified by all 48 states existing that that time. But because it was accomplished by consent of the states and the people, it created barely a ripple and little or no resentment and was implemented seamlessly and painlessly. That is how social contract is supposed to work.

As to seamlessly and painlessly, I think you need to familiarize yourself with the history. However, I think you just demonstrated my point. The Founding Fathers themselves were content to limited freedom for most and the use of force to impose the will of the state. Those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion I am sure had very clear opinions on totalitarian government.

Well I would prefer to keep this discussion on social contract.

I disagree with your characterization of what the Founders were content with.

Social Contract, does limit certain liberties as a trade off to accomplish a desirable mutual goal, but the the operative word is mutual. Such as okay, the majority is willing to vote to have their right to drive unimpeded through a particular intersection restricted by installation of a traffic light that will make it much safer for both motorists and pedestrians and will facilitate a more orderly flow of traffic--mutual benefit to all. In order for the traffic light to accomplish its desired effect, it will be necessary to enforce some consequence for failure to obey the light.

Where the issue becomes sticky, however, is when somebody in government arbitrarily puts up a light that the citizens see as intrusive, unnecessary, and restrictive. Who should have the power to demand that the light stay or go?

The government should have that power. That is the purpose of government.

In our particular form of government the populace does have an influence on government. A fairly significant influence. So they can certainly petition for a change. But the change is and should be entirely under the control of the government.

The social contract limits all liberties without exception. You cannot act independently without regard for others. You can speak your mind, to the extent it does not harm the society. You can move about, to the extent you do not infringe upon society and other individuals. But both of those exist only because of government.

But government did not materialize out of thin air. In the USA the government was organized and given its authority by the people who formed it, with careful attention and specific intention to restrict the authority that was authorized.

And they were of one mind that should that government exceed the authority assigned to it by the people, that the people were justified and even morally required to overthrow it and replace it with the government of the people's choosing.

I would like some support for the assertions in the last pararaph about "one mind". A solid minority refused to sign the Constitution because it was considered too powerful. The ratification fights in the big states -- VA, Mass, NY -- reflected those differences with very narrow majorities for the Constitution. No, the American people never are of one mind, and that is why we the independent judiciary to try to find the right way.

Only three people refused to sign the Constitution and those three refused only because the Bill of Rights had not yet been included or because they were so strongly anti-federalist they thought the government should be more severely limited. Some other delegates didn't show up for the signing because they were otherwise occupied, but they did not object to the final document.

In the concept of social contract, an 'independent judiciary' is not to be trusted any more than anybody else is trusted to get it right.

 

[Foxfyre]

Motives are relevant to the discussion, of course, and saying it is not so means nothing.

The motives of the members engaging in this discussion are not relevent to the discussion and it is against the thread rules to bring them up.

 

[Foxfyre]

Now to pull the thread back on track, my point of view re the topic:

Is Social Contract as defined above a valid concept? I say yes. I believe we see it at work in many cases from our social groups, churches, civic clubs, communities, etc.

If so, is the U.S. Constitution social contract? State and local governments? Again yes. The Constitution at the federal and state level and the charters under which cities are incorporated are all accomplished by mutual agreement of people who organize themselves for mutual benefit.

If so, has the spirit and intent of social contract been preserved in current times? In my opinion we have some state governments and we have a federal government and some city governments who increasingly act well outside the parameters of social contract and against the will of the majority of the people and too often contrary to the benefit of the people.

Do you agree with Locke that laws and policies that violate social contract invalidates the law and the government that imposes them? That social contract should be the single most guiding principle in what government and laws should be?
And who should get to decide that? And that brings us to the most difficult question to address. At what point is civil disobedience justified morally and ethically. And how is that decided? I am still struggling with that one, but I believe it needs to be addressed or we will lose our ability to have social contract.

And if you believe that the early Americans were justified in overthrowing the English crown and instituting the government they wanted, then you do believe that civil disobedience can be justified morally and ethically.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Motives are relevant to the discussion, of course, and saying it is not so means nothing.

The motives of the members engaging in this discussion are not relevent to the discussion and it is against the thread rules to bring them up.

So you say.