Debate Now Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government

[Dante]

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.

Agreed.

Especially in today's world where our judiciary is anything but independent.

It does not directly compare law to the constitution.

It uses a variety of tools to determine the law to whatever end they feel is "right".

Roberts last minute reversal on Obamacare is a prime example.

There are others.

Our judiciary is a joke.

There was NO last minute reversal with Chief Justice Roberts and Obamacare. Please stop spreading myth as if it is fact

Even the unnamed bs sources claim Roberts changed his mind at least a month before the decision was announced. Many Justices especially Kennedy go back and forth ...it is called a deliberative process. Phrasing this as a switch with some kind of unnamed political intent is ridiculous

One does not need a source to tell you what happened.

Sorry........

That sounds Dopey, because a source would be who you rely on for events that happen outside your presence

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Having had an amicable argument with another member recently over the issue of Social Contract--I think it an essential component of a liberated society and he thinks it doesn't exist or, if it does, it is a progressive tool for mischief--I think some might enjoy a discussion of what Social Contract is and what it isn't. So let's discuss Social Contract.

More specifically, let's discuss whether Social Contract is the single most important guiding principle in what our laws and government should be?

The concept of Social Contract is almost as old as recorded history with...

...

"the contractual basis of society and government" - Bailyn


"Bailyn?" I hear people ask "Bailyin?" yet they consider themselves well read and informed on what went into the forming of the United States.

excerpt:

The pamphlets of the American Revolution rely most heavily on these country whig thinkers for their coherence. Bailyn writes:

Their key concepts – natural rights, the contractual basis of society and government, the uniqueness of England’s liberty-preserving “mixed” constitution – were commonplaces of the liberal thought of the time. But if the elements of their thought were ordinary, the emphasis placed upon them and the use made of them were not. ​

Religion the Founding Bailyn s Ideological Origins of the American Revolution National Catholic Reporter

In post #41 you, the OP wrote "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."

Government IS a social contract. I would think in a representative republic like ours any government action is done in the name of the people, the society. We are the government as it represents us. Us as a whole. Us as a society.

But that is the question. Has the government kept the social contract. Or has it taken the power that the people were intended to have?

We have an elected government and elections that have been fair. We have our problems, but our government is a representative one. Just because some people are never ever on the winning side does not equate unrepresentative government. Maybe they just dislike their fellow citizens? Government does NOT represent us as individuals. It would be unreasonable and irrational to think so.

Our government is not a far away foreign entity, nor is an abstract thing that we can attack without destroying the polity.

We can change anything we want with simple amendments. Seriously. We can change anything we want. We just have to convince others to go along with us.

It is the demagogues and populists who carry on about the electoral college, term limits, balance of power...

...and the Supreme Court being 'wrong.'

We're a Nation of laws, a people subject solely to the rule of law, and a Constitutional Republic that exists at the behest of the people – valid and legitimate because it is the creation of the people.

The supreme court is only "wrong" to someone when they don't agree with them.

There is no "right" or "wrong", only what is and what isn't.

And there is nothing beyond our government.

That does not mean that they can't be corrupt.

We can only hope that it not allowed to last.

That's how I feel about our court today.....it is corrupt.

That does not mean I would take the position of some and say that their decisions are not applicable because....

They are applicable and the day we try to selectively apply the law or it's interpretation is the day we are no longer a nation of laws.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Agreed.

Especially in today's world where our judiciary is anything but independent.

It does not directly compare law to the constitution.

It uses a variety of tools to determine the law to whatever end they feel is "right".

Roberts last minute reversal on Obamacare is a prime example.

There are others.

Our judiciary is a joke.

There was NO last minute reversal with Chief Justice Roberts and Obamacare. Please stop spreading myth as if it is fact

Even the unnamed bs sources claim Roberts changed his mind at least a month before the decision was announced. Many Justices especially Kennedy go back and forth ...it is called a deliberative process. Phrasing this as a switch with some kind of unnamed political intent is ridiculous

One does not need a source to tell you what happened.

Sorry........

That sounds Dopey, because a source would be who you rely on for events that happen outside your presence

Did you want to make a point ?

If so, please keep trying.

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.

Agreed.

Especially in today's world where our judiciary is anything but independent.

It does not directly compare law to the constitution.

It uses a variety of tools to determine the law to whatever end they feel is "right".

Roberts last minute reversal on Obamacare is a prime example.

There are others.

Our judiciary is a joke.

There was NO last minute reversal with Chief Justice Roberts and Obamacare. Please stop spreading myth as if it is fact

Even the unnamed bs sources claim Roberts changed his mind at least a month before the decision was announced. Many Justices especially Kennedy go back and forth ...it is called a deliberative process. Phrasing this as a switch with some kind of unnamed political intent is ridiculous

One does not need a source to tell you what happened.

Sorry........

That sounds Dopey, because a source would be who you rely on for events that happen outside your presence

Sure....I am sure you have to rely on a source to tell you that you were born and not hatched.

Or did you figure that out on your own ?

 

[Dante]

Having had an amicable argument with another member recently over the issue of Social Contract--I think it an essential component of a liberated society and he thinks it doesn't exist or, if it does, it is a progressive tool for mischief--I think some might enjoy a discussion of what Social Contract is and what it isn't. So let's discuss Social Contract.

More specifically, let's discuss whether Social Contract is the single most important guiding principle in what our laws and government should be?

The concept of Social Contract is almost as old as recorded history with...

...

"the contractual basis of society and government" - Bailyn


"Bailyn?" I hear people ask "Bailyin?" yet they consider themselves well read and informed on what went into the forming of the United States.

excerpt:

The pamphlets of the American Revolution rely most heavily on these country whig thinkers for their coherence. Bailyn writes:

Their key concepts – natural rights, the contractual basis of society and government, the uniqueness of England’s liberty-preserving “mixed” constitution – were commonplaces of the liberal thought of the time. But if the elements of their thought were ordinary, the emphasis placed upon them and the use made of them were not. ​

Religion the Founding Bailyn s Ideological Origins of the American Revolution National Catholic Reporter

In post #41 you, the OP wrote "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."

Government IS a social contract. I would think in a representative republic like ours any government action is done in the name of the people, the society. We are the government as it represents us. Us as a whole. Us as a society.

But that is the question. Has the government kept the social contract. Or has it taken the power that the people were intended to have?

We have an elected government and elections that have been fair. We have our problems, but our government is a representative one. Just because some people are never ever on the winning side does not equate unrepresentative government. Maybe they just dislike their fellow citizens? Government does NOT represent us as individuals. It would be unreasonable and irrational to think so.

Our government is not a far away foreign entity, nor is an abstract thing that we can attack without destroying the polity.

We can change anything we want with simple amendments. Seriously. We can change anything we want. We just have to convince others to go along with us.

It is the demagogues and populists who carry on about the electoral college, term limits, balance of power...

...and the Supreme Court being 'wrong.'

We're a Nation of laws, a people subject solely to the rule of law, and a Constitutional Republic that exists at the behest of the people – valid and legitimate because it is the creation of the people.

The supreme court is only "wrong" to someone when they don't agree with them.

There is no "right" or "wrong", only what is and what isn't.

And there is nothing beyond our government.

That does not mean that they can't be corrupt.

We can only hope that it not allowed to last.

That's how I feel about our court today.....it is corrupt.

That does not mean I would take the position of some and say that their decisions are not applicable because....

They are applicable and the day we try to selectively apply the law or it's interpretation is the day we are no longer a nation of laws.

The Court is not corrupt. You have a poor grasp of how to use the English language correctly

 

[Dante]

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.

Agreed.

Especially in today's world where our judiciary is anything but independent.

It does not directly compare law to the constitution.

It uses a variety of tools to determine the law to whatever end they feel is "right".

Roberts last minute reversal on Obamacare is a prime example.

There are others.

Our judiciary is a joke.

There was NO last minute reversal with Chief Justice Roberts and Obamacare. Please stop spreading myth as if it is fact

Even the unnamed bs sources claim Roberts changed his mind at least a month before the decision was announced. Many Justices especially Kennedy go back and forth ...it is called a deliberative process. Phrasing this as a switch with some kind of unnamed political intent is ridiculous

One does not need a source to tell you what happened.

Sorry........

That sounds Dopey, because a source would be who you rely on for events that happen outside your presence

Did you want to make a point ?

If so, please keep trying.

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.

Agreed.

Especially in today's world where our judiciary is anything but independent.

It does not directly compare law to the constitution.

It uses a variety of tools to determine the law to whatever end they feel is "right".

Roberts last minute reversal on Obamacare is a prime example.

There are others.

Our judiciary is a joke.

There was NO last minute reversal with Chief Justice Roberts and Obamacare. Please stop spreading myth as if it is fact

Even the unnamed bs sources claim Roberts changed his mind at least a month before the decision was announced. Many Justices especially Kennedy go back and forth ...it is called a deliberative process. Phrasing this as a switch with some kind of unnamed political intent is ridiculous

One does not need a source to tell you what happened.

Sorry........

That sounds Dopey, because a source would be who you rely on for events that happen outside your presence

Sure....I am sure you have to rely on a source to tell you that you were born and not hatched.

Or did you figure that out on your own ?

stuttering John, is it really you?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"the contractual basis of society and government" - Bailyn


"Bailyn?" I hear people ask "Bailyin?" yet they consider themselves well read and informed on what went into the forming of the United States.

excerpt:

The pamphlets of the American Revolution rely most heavily on these country whig thinkers for their coherence. Bailyn writes:

Their key concepts – natural rights, the contractual basis of society and government, the uniqueness of England’s liberty-preserving “mixed” constitution – were commonplaces of the liberal thought of the time. But if the elements of their thought were ordinary, the emphasis placed upon them and the use made of them were not. ​

Religion the Founding Bailyn s Ideological Origins of the American Revolution National Catholic Reporter

In post #41 you, the OP wrote "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."

Government IS a social contract. I would think in a representative republic like ours any government action is done in the name of the people, the society. We are the government as it represents us. Us as a whole. Us as a society.

But that is the question. Has the government kept the social contract. Or has it taken the power that the people were intended to have?

We have an elected government and elections that have been fair. We have our problems, but our government is a representative one. Just because some people are never ever on the winning side does not equate unrepresentative government. Maybe they just dislike their fellow citizens? Government does NOT represent us as individuals. It would be unreasonable and irrational to think so.

Our government is not a far away foreign entity, nor is an abstract thing that we can attack without destroying the polity.

We can change anything we want with simple amendments. Seriously. We can change anything we want. We just have to convince others to go along with us.

It is the demagogues and populists who carry on about the electoral college, term limits, balance of power...

...and the Supreme Court being 'wrong.'

We're a Nation of laws, a people subject solely to the rule of law, and a Constitutional Republic that exists at the behest of the people – valid and legitimate because it is the creation of the people.

The supreme court is only "wrong" to someone when they don't agree with them.

There is no "right" or "wrong", only what is and what isn't.

And there is nothing beyond our government.

That does not mean that they can't be corrupt.

We can only hope that it not allowed to last.

That's how I feel about our court today.....it is corrupt.

That does not mean I would take the position of some and say that their decisions are not applicable because....

They are applicable and the day we try to selectively apply the law or it's interpretation is the day we are no longer a nation of laws.

The Court is not corrupt. You have a poor grasp of how to use the English language correctly

Oh, I feel so much better.

You are such a good source.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Agreed.

Especially in today's world where our judiciary is anything but independent.

It does not directly compare law to the constitution.

It uses a variety of tools to determine the law to whatever end they feel is "right".

Roberts last minute reversal on Obamacare is a prime example.

There are others.

Our judiciary is a joke.

There was NO last minute reversal with Chief Justice Roberts and Obamacare. Please stop spreading myth as if it is fact

Even the unnamed bs sources claim Roberts changed his mind at least a month before the decision was announced. Many Justices especially Kennedy go back and forth ...it is called a deliberative process. Phrasing this as a switch with some kind of unnamed political intent is ridiculous

One does not need a source to tell you what happened.

Sorry........

That sounds Dopey, because a source would be who you rely on for events that happen outside your presence

Did you want to make a point ?

If so, please keep trying.

Agreed.

Especially in today's world where our judiciary is anything but independent.

It does not directly compare law to the constitution.

It uses a variety of tools to determine the law to whatever end they feel is "right".

Roberts last minute reversal on Obamacare is a prime example.

There are others.

Our judiciary is a joke.

There was NO last minute reversal with Chief Justice Roberts and Obamacare. Please stop spreading myth as if it is fact

Even the unnamed bs sources claim Roberts changed his mind at least a month before the decision was announced. Many Justices especially Kennedy go back and forth ...it is called a deliberative process. Phrasing this as a switch with some kind of unnamed political intent is ridiculous

One does not need a source to tell you what happened.

Sorry........

That sounds Dopey, because a source would be who you rely on for events that happen outside your presence

Sure....I am sure you have to rely on a source to tell you that you were born and not hatched.

Or did you figure that out on your own ?

stuttering John, is it really you?

I'll take that as a no.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

To your last point, about invalidating the laws and governments that impose them.

The answer is, of course, no.

The following quote is often ascribed to George Washington, although it can't be proven....nevertheless.....it rings true to my point of view....

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Which says that any government that is violating the social contract is probably not going to be anxious to step aside on the question of laws.

But, before we reach that point, it seems that "We The People" ought to have a pretty good feel for who is violating what. If that conversation is taking place, it hardly seems that the government will reach that point.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Because the members of congress are too responsive to public reaction. They vote not on what they think is best for the country but on what they think will please enough voters to keep them in office.

There is no consensus of the American people. There will never be consensus without some massive issue, like WWII. The entire point of a representative democracy is you have people with the time to evaluate the facts and make decisions for the benefit of the society. Of course, that assume the human beings elected cease to act like human beings. Since they don't, you get narrow votes.

IMO, too many of those elected to office these days seek election for purely self-serving reasons. They are a permanent political class who are first and foremost interested in increased their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. And they do throw the people just enough bones or make empty promises or tell flat out lies to keep the people voting for them to stay in power. So I agree that the lie and bribe and buy themselves safe seats. I don't think it is bowing to public conscience though as it is just knowing what will assure them those safe seats.

It is a fact of human nature that it takes huge strength of ones convictions to give up a benefit or privilege we are receiving from government in favor of some higher or more noble goal--most especially when we might make of ourselves a martyr without making a difference.

But the Founders did just that. They risked everything. Their rank. Their privilege. Their property. Their fortunes. Their very lives. And they did it to accomplish a higher goal of liberty and the ability to govern themselves.

Are there any such Americans left?

IMO, all of those elected to office do it for self-serving reasons. The only people who would put themselves and their families through the nonsense in order to get elected are the people who want the power. Our system of elections eliminates any other type. And if the process doesn't do it, the voters certainly will. No one not willing to lie will ever get elected. Being honest with the average American is the quickest way to lose.

You ask if there are any such American left. I doubt there were ever any such Americans at all. I am grateful they had a clear enough understanding of our nature that they created a government destined to be in a constant state of warfare with itself. But I don't believe they were anything but men with all of the failings of men.

then you have to doubt there were ever any such human beings.

The framers did NOT create "a government destined to be in a constant state of warfare with itself" That was the law of unintended consequences. They abhorred political parties as they were known historically, yet almost immediately set out to create a political party system out of an inevitable need...

I disagree it was unintended. Political parties have nothing to do with it. The Founders created a government with three distinct branches - legislative, executive and judicial. None of them can hold total power and are in constant conflict with each other. That is what I meant by a government in warfare with itself.

 

[Dante]

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.

Because the members of congress are too responsive to public reaction. They vote not on what they think is best for the country but on what they think will please enough voters to keep them in office.

There is no consensus of the American people. There will never be consensus without some massive issue, like WWII. The entire point of a representative democracy is you have people with the time to evaluate the facts and make decisions for the benefit of the society. Of course, that assume the human beings elected cease to act like human beings. Since they don't, you get narrow votes.

IMO, too many of those elected to office these days seek election for purely self-serving reasons. They are a permanent political class who are first and foremost interested in increased their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. And they do throw the people just enough bones or make empty promises or tell flat out lies to keep the people voting for them to stay in power. So I agree that the lie and bribe and buy themselves safe seats. I don't think it is bowing to public conscience though as it is just knowing what will assure them those safe seats.

It is a fact of human nature that it takes huge strength of ones convictions to give up a benefit or privilege we are receiving from government in favor of some higher or more noble goal--most especially when we might make of ourselves a martyr without making a difference.

But the Founders did just that. They risked everything. Their rank. Their privilege. Their property. Their fortunes. Their very lives. And they did it to accomplish a higher goal of liberty and the ability to govern themselves.

Are there any such Americans left?

IMO, all of those elected to office do it for self-serving reasons. The only people who would put themselves and their families through the nonsense in order to get elected are the people who want the power. Our system of elections eliminates any other type. And if the process doesn't do it, the voters certainly will. No one not willing to lie will ever get elected. Being honest with the average American is the quickest way to lose.

You ask if there are any such American left. I doubt there were ever any such Americans at all. I am grateful they had a clear enough understanding of our nature that they created a government destined to be in a constant state of warfare with itself. But I don't believe they were anything but men with all of the failings of men.

then you have to doubt there were ever any such human beings.

The framers did NOT create "a government destined to be in a constant state of warfare with itself" That was the law of unintended consequences. They abhorred political parties as they were known historically, yet almost immediately set out to create a political party system out of an inevitable need...

I disagree it was unintended. Political parties have nothing to do with it. The Founders created a government with three distinct branches - legislative, executive and judicial. None of them can hold total power and are in constant conflict with each other. That is what I meant by a government in warfare with itself.

The three branches were NEVER conceived as being hostile to each other. The current conflicts we have really stems from the party system. The framers conceived of a system that would share power.

The founding generation thought institutionalized conflict anathema to a free self governing system. The conflict we see is mostly party conflict with one party controlling one or two parts of the government. Of course there is always constitutional conflict over the prerogatives and powers of the Congress and the Executive, but those are usually technical issues that cross party lines.

 

[Dante]

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.

To your last point, about invalidating the laws and governments that impose them.

The answer is, of course, no.

The following quote is often ascribed to George Washington, although it can't be proven....nevertheless.....it rings true to my point of view....

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Which says that any government that is violating the social contract is probably not going to be anxious to step aside on the question of laws.

But, before we reach that point, it seems that "We The People" ought to have a pretty good feel for who is violating what. If that conversation is taking place, it hardly seems that the government will reach that point.

"We the people" not "We a paranoid and partisan sect of the people"

We have teh power to change any and all laws. All we have to do is convince others of the worthiness of our cause,. Attacking individuals and the abstraction of government itself is the only argument you seem to use.

Americans are always watching the government. We send representatives into the government every two years. For christs-sake wake up.

 

[PratchettFan]

Because the members of congress are too responsive to public reaction. They vote not on what they think is best for the country but on what they think will please enough voters to keep them in office.

There is no consensus of the American people. There will never be consensus without some massive issue, like WWII. The entire point of a representative democracy is you have people with the time to evaluate the facts and make decisions for the benefit of the society. Of course, that assume the human beings elected cease to act like human beings. Since they don't, you get narrow votes.

IMO, too many of those elected to office these days seek election for purely self-serving reasons. They are a permanent political class who are first and foremost interested in increased their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. And they do throw the people just enough bones or make empty promises or tell flat out lies to keep the people voting for them to stay in power. So I agree that the lie and bribe and buy themselves safe seats. I don't think it is bowing to public conscience though as it is just knowing what will assure them those safe seats.

It is a fact of human nature that it takes huge strength of ones convictions to give up a benefit or privilege we are receiving from government in favor of some higher or more noble goal--most especially when we might make of ourselves a martyr without making a difference.

But the Founders did just that. They risked everything. Their rank. Their privilege. Their property. Their fortunes. Their very lives. And they did it to accomplish a higher goal of liberty and the ability to govern themselves.

Are there any such Americans left?

IMO, all of those elected to office do it for self-serving reasons. The only people who would put themselves and their families through the nonsense in order to get elected are the people who want the power. Our system of elections eliminates any other type. And if the process doesn't do it, the voters certainly will. No one not willing to lie will ever get elected. Being honest with the average American is the quickest way to lose.

You ask if there are any such American left. I doubt there were ever any such Americans at all. I am grateful they had a clear enough understanding of our nature that they created a government destined to be in a constant state of warfare with itself. But I don't believe they were anything but men with all of the failings of men.

then you have to doubt there were ever any such human beings.

The framers did NOT create "a government destined to be in a constant state of warfare with itself" That was the law of unintended consequences. They abhorred political parties as they were known historically, yet almost immediately set out to create a political party system out of an inevitable need...

I disagree it was unintended. Political parties have nothing to do with it. The Founders created a government with three distinct branches - legislative, executive and judicial. None of them can hold total power and are in constant conflict with each other. That is what I meant by a government in warfare with itself.

The three branches were NEVER conceived as being hostile to each other. The current conflicts we have really stems from the party system. The framers conceived of a system that would share power.

The founding generation thought institutionalized conflict anathema to a free self governing system. The conflict we see is mostly party conflict with one party controlling one or two parts of the government. Of course there is always constitutional conflict over the prerogatives and powers of the Congress and the Executive, but those are usually technical issues that cross party lines.

While I don't think the FFs were saints, I also don't think they were fools. You could not create this system and think it wouldn't result in hostility. And if they did, they were certainly disabused of that idea very quickly.

 

[Dante]

IMO, too many of those elected to office these days seek election for purely self-serving reasons. They are a permanent political class who are first and foremost interested in increased their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. And they do throw the people just enough bones or make empty promises or tell flat out lies to keep the people voting for them to stay in power. So I agree that the lie and bribe and buy themselves safe seats. I don't think it is bowing to public conscience though as it is just knowing what will assure them those safe seats.

It is a fact of human nature that it takes huge strength of ones convictions to give up a benefit or privilege we are receiving from government in favor of some higher or more noble goal--most especially when we might make of ourselves a martyr without making a difference.

But the Founders did just that. They risked everything. Their rank. Their privilege. Their property. Their fortunes. Their very lives. And they did it to accomplish a higher goal of liberty and the ability to govern themselves.

Are there any such Americans left?

IMO, all of those elected to office do it for self-serving reasons. The only people who would put themselves and their families through the nonsense in order to get elected are the people who want the power. Our system of elections eliminates any other type. And if the process doesn't do it, the voters certainly will. No one not willing to lie will ever get elected. Being honest with the average American is the quickest way to lose.

You ask if there are any such American left. I doubt there were ever any such Americans at all. I am grateful they had a clear enough understanding of our nature that they created a government destined to be in a constant state of warfare with itself. But I don't believe they were anything but men with all of the failings of men.

then you have to doubt there were ever any such human beings.

The framers did NOT create "a government destined to be in a constant state of warfare with itself" That was the law of unintended consequences. They abhorred political parties as they were known historically, yet almost immediately set out to create a political party system out of an inevitable need...

I disagree it was unintended. Political parties have nothing to do with it. The Founders created a government with three distinct branches - legislative, executive and judicial. None of them can hold total power and are in constant conflict with each other. That is what I meant by a government in warfare with itself.

The three branches were NEVER conceived as being hostile to each other. The current conflicts we have really stems from the party system. The framers conceived of a system that would share power.

The founding generation thought institutionalized conflict anathema to a free self governing system. The conflict we see is mostly party conflict with one party controlling one or two parts of the government. Of course there is always constitutional conflict over the prerogatives and powers of the Congress and the Executive, but those are usually technical issues that cross party lines.

While I don't think the FFs were saints, I also don't think they were fools. You could not create this system and think it wouldn't result in hostility. And if they did, they were certainly disabused of that idea very quickly.

Quickly?

You use a terms "quickly" that is so relative as to be useless here. Jefferson was NOT even part of the party he was to lead until after it was forming. The need presented itself in the years following the election of Adams, but their idea of a party was totally different than what you know of as a aprty

I KNOW as much as anyone can know, that the ff did not consider themselves either saintly or saints.

Your problem with understanding is your imprinting our times onto theirs, our knowledge onto the past. The ff viewed opposition as healthy, but viewed factionalism and parties as we know them as hostile to the system they put into place.

I am interested in the party system and it's development in American politics. I have read a little bit on this. Every single reading so far agrees on what I am suggesting. We today even acknowledge this by framing discussions of the party system in America by dividing it up into two phases: The party system of Jefferson/Madison leading into Monroe's years and the later system involving the Jackson/Van Buren years. The party systems we see are distinctly separate animals. Most people would DOUBT the founding generation would have recognized the second system: UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Without the party system the form of government instituted by the founding generation and the Constitution would have become history -- fallen apart.

 

[Dante]

While I don't think the FFs were saints, I also don't think they were fools. You could not create this system and think it wouldn't result in hostility. And if they did, they were certainly disabused of that idea very quickly.

btw, I mean no disrespect. I used to think like you do, until I decided to pursue an interest further. Your views are commonly held and actually quite logical if the issue is approached looking back at the past through the lens of the present

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Because the members of congress are too responsive to public reaction. They vote not on what they think is best for the country but on what they think will please enough voters to keep them in office.

There is no consensus of the American people. There will never be consensus without some massive issue, like WWII. The entire point of a representative democracy is you have people with the time to evaluate the facts and make decisions for the benefit of the society. Of course, that assume the human beings elected cease to act like human beings. Since they don't, you get narrow votes.

IMO, too many of those elected to office these days seek election for purely self-serving reasons. They are a permanent political class who are first and foremost interested in increased their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. And they do throw the people just enough bones or make empty promises or tell flat out lies to keep the people voting for them to stay in power. So I agree that the lie and bribe and buy themselves safe seats. I don't think it is bowing to public conscience though as it is just knowing what will assure them those safe seats.

It is a fact of human nature that it takes huge strength of ones convictions to give up a benefit or privilege we are receiving from government in favor of some higher or more noble goal--most especially when we might make of ourselves a martyr without making a difference.

But the Founders did just that. They risked everything. Their rank. Their privilege. Their property. Their fortunes. Their very lives. And they did it to accomplish a higher goal of liberty and the ability to govern themselves.

Are there any such Americans left?

IMO, all of those elected to office do it for self-serving reasons. The only people who would put themselves and their families through the nonsense in order to get elected are the people who want the power. Our system of elections eliminates any other type. And if the process doesn't do it, the voters certainly will. No one not willing to lie will ever get elected. Being honest with the average American is the quickest way to lose.

You ask if there are any such American left. I doubt there were ever any such Americans at all. I am grateful they had a clear enough understanding of our nature that they created a government destined to be in a constant state of warfare with itself. But I don't believe they were anything but men with all of the failings of men.

then you have to doubt there were ever any such human beings.

The framers did NOT create "a government destined to be in a constant state of warfare with itself" That was the law of unintended consequences. They abhorred political parties as they were known historically, yet almost immediately set out to create a political party system out of an inevitable need...

I disagree it was unintended. Political parties have nothing to do with it. The Founders created a government with three distinct branches - legislative, executive and judicial. None of them can hold total power and are in constant conflict with each other. That is what I meant by a government in warfare with itself.

But IMO that has not been the case until a segment of society decided to destroy the social contract and use government for its own purposes.

The House was intended to be closest to and most representative of the the people who elected people to represent them. The Senate was supposed to be further removed from specific obligation to a relatively small group of society and would represent the interests of their respective states. And the Court was intended to settle differences in interpretation of the laws that the combined chambers of Congress passed. And meanwhile the President was to have in mind the best interest of the entire country and administer the various departments of government under his authority for that purpose.

When it was working, of course there would be disagreements and what was deemed beneficial for one state or group was opposed as detrimental to another state or group. That is where the social contract came in--achieving compromise and finding what would work for the mutual benefit of all. That is not 'war with each other' but the art of politics at its finest--finding ways to get it done with the least detriment and maximum benefit for all.

 

[PratchettFan]

IMO, all of those elected to office do it for self-serving reasons. The only people who would put themselves and their families through the nonsense in order to get elected are the people who want the power. Our system of elections eliminates any other type. And if the process doesn't do it, the voters certainly will. No one not willing to lie will ever get elected. Being honest with the average American is the quickest way to lose.

You ask if there are any such American left. I doubt there were ever any such Americans at all. I am grateful they had a clear enough understanding of our nature that they created a government destined to be in a constant state of warfare with itself. But I don't believe they were anything but men with all of the failings of men.

then you have to doubt there were ever any such human beings.

The framers did NOT create "a government destined to be in a constant state of warfare with itself" That was the law of unintended consequences. They abhorred political parties as they were known historically, yet almost immediately set out to create a political party system out of an inevitable need...

I disagree it was unintended. Political parties have nothing to do with it. The Founders created a government with three distinct branches - legislative, executive and judicial. None of them can hold total power and are in constant conflict with each other. That is what I meant by a government in warfare with itself.

The three branches were NEVER conceived as being hostile to each other. The current conflicts we have really stems from the party system. The framers conceived of a system that would share power.

The founding generation thought institutionalized conflict anathema to a free self governing system. The conflict we see is mostly party conflict with one party controlling one or two parts of the government. Of course there is always constitutional conflict over the prerogatives and powers of the Congress and the Executive, but those are usually technical issues that cross party lines.

While I don't think the FFs were saints, I also don't think they were fools. You could not create this system and think it wouldn't result in hostility. And if they did, they were certainly disabused of that idea very quickly.

Quickly?

You use a terms "quickly" that is so relative as to be useless here. Jefferson was NOT even part of the party he was to lead until after it was forming. The need presented itself in the years following the election of Adams, but their idea of a party was totally different than what you know of as a aprty

I KNOW as much as anyone can know, that the ff did not consider themselves either saintly or saints.

Your problem with understanding is your imprinting our times onto theirs, our knowledge onto the past. The ff viewed opposition as healthy, but viewed factionalism and parties as we know them as hostile to the system they put into place.

I am interested in the party system and it's development in American politics. I have read a little bit on this. Every single reading so far agrees on what I am suggesting. We today even acknowledge this by framing discussions of the party system in America by dividing it up into two phases: The party system of Jefferson/Madison leading into Monroe's years and the later system involving the Jackson/Van Buren years. The party systems we see are distinctly separate animals. Most people would DOUBT the founding generation would have recognized the second system: UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Without the party system the form of government instituted by the founding generation and the Constitution would have become history -- fallen apart.

I don't know you think I'm talking about political parties. I am talking about the basic structure of the government, which was designed to be in a constant state of conflict for the purpose of insuring no one branch was able to monopolize power.

 

[Foxfyre]

then you have to doubt there were ever any such human beings.

The framers did NOT create "a government destined to be in a constant state of warfare with itself" That was the law of unintended consequences. They abhorred political parties as they were known historically, yet almost immediately set out to create a political party system out of an inevitable need...

I disagree it was unintended. Political parties have nothing to do with it. The Founders created a government with three distinct branches - legislative, executive and judicial. None of them can hold total power and are in constant conflict with each other. That is what I meant by a government in warfare with itself.

The three branches were NEVER conceived as being hostile to each other. The current conflicts we have really stems from the party system. The framers conceived of a system that would share power.

The founding generation thought institutionalized conflict anathema to a free self governing system. The conflict we see is mostly party conflict with one party controlling one or two parts of the government. Of course there is always constitutional conflict over the prerogatives and powers of the Congress and the Executive, but those are usually technical issues that cross party lines.

While I don't think the FFs were saints, I also don't think they were fools. You could not create this system and think it wouldn't result in hostility. And if they did, they were certainly disabused of that idea very quickly.

Quickly?

You use a terms "quickly" that is so relative as to be useless here. Jefferson was NOT even part of the party he was to lead until after it was forming. The need presented itself in the years following the election of Adams, but their idea of a party was totally different than what you know of as a aprty

I KNOW as much as anyone can know, that the ff did not consider themselves either saintly or saints.

Your problem with understanding is your imprinting our times onto theirs, our knowledge onto the past. The ff viewed opposition as healthy, but viewed factionalism and parties as we know them as hostile to the system they put into place.

I am interested in the party system and it's development in American politics. I have read a little bit on this. Every single reading so far agrees on what I am suggesting. We today even acknowledge this by framing discussions of the party system in America by dividing it up into two phases: The party system of Jefferson/Madison leading into Monroe's years and the later system involving the Jackson/Van Buren years. The party systems we see are distinctly separate animals. Most people would DOUBT the founding generation would have recognized the second system: UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Without the party system the form of government instituted by the founding generation and the Constitution would have become history -- fallen apart.

I don't know you think I'm talking about political parties. I am talking about the basic structure of the government, which was designed to be in a constant state of conflict for the purpose of insuring no one branch was able to monopolize power.

But again I think the intent was not conflict. But you are correct that it was intended to be a system of checks and balances so that when competing interests existed, no one side would have undue power over the other. Everybody would have to be equally considered.

And, IMO, it is that aspect of social contract that has broken down.

 

[PratchettFan]

While I don't think the FFs were saints, I also don't think they were fools. You could not create this system and think it wouldn't result in hostility. And if they did, they were certainly disabused of that idea very quickly.

btw, I mean no disrespect. I used to think like you do, until I decided to pursue an interest further. Your views are commonly held and actually quite logical if the issue is approached looking back at the past through the lens of the present

I have no other lens to look through. However, I am not passing judgment on them. Quite the opposite. I think their solution to the natural tendency of governments (and private enterprises for that matter) towards oppression was eloquent and amazingly effective.

 

[PratchettFan]

I disagree it was unintended. Political parties have nothing to do with it. The Founders created a government with three distinct branches - legislative, executive and judicial. None of them can hold total power and are in constant conflict with each other. That is what I meant by a government in warfare with itself.

The three branches were NEVER conceived as being hostile to each other. The current conflicts we have really stems from the party system. The framers conceived of a system that would share power.

The founding generation thought institutionalized conflict anathema to a free self governing system. The conflict we see is mostly party conflict with one party controlling one or two parts of the government. Of course there is always constitutional conflict over the prerogatives and powers of the Congress and the Executive, but those are usually technical issues that cross party lines.

While I don't think the FFs were saints, I also don't think they were fools. You could not create this system and think it wouldn't result in hostility. And if they did, they were certainly disabused of that idea very quickly.

Quickly?

You use a terms "quickly" that is so relative as to be useless here. Jefferson was NOT even part of the party he was to lead until after it was forming. The need presented itself in the years following the election of Adams, but their idea of a party was totally different than what you know of as a aprty

I KNOW as much as anyone can know, that the ff did not consider themselves either saintly or saints.

Your problem with understanding is your imprinting our times onto theirs, our knowledge onto the past. The ff viewed opposition as healthy, but viewed factionalism and parties as we know them as hostile to the system they put into place.

I am interested in the party system and it's development in American politics. I have read a little bit on this. Every single reading so far agrees on what I am suggesting. We today even acknowledge this by framing discussions of the party system in America by dividing it up into two phases: The party system of Jefferson/Madison leading into Monroe's years and the later system involving the Jackson/Van Buren years. The party systems we see are distinctly separate animals. Most people would DOUBT the founding generation would have recognized the second system: UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Without the party system the form of government instituted by the founding generation and the Constitution would have become history -- fallen apart.

I don't know you think I'm talking about political parties. I am talking about the basic structure of the government, which was designed to be in a constant state of conflict for the purpose of insuring no one branch was able to monopolize power.

But again I think the intent was not conflict. But you are correct that it was intended to be a system of checks and balances so that when competing interests existed, no one side would have undue power over the other. Everybody would have to be equally considered.

And, IMO, it is that aspect of social contract that has broken down.

I am not seeing the break down.

 

[Dante]

But IMO that has not been the case until a segment of society decided to destroy the social contract and use government for its own purposes.

Hmm...

name it please

then name how and why and could you list a source or two?