The "social contract" that doesn't exist

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
53,922
Reaction score
6,768
Points
1,860
Location
United States
In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devices—including the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programs—could fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.

The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage

Three points to make here:

  • How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.

  • The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).

  • Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.
 

Redfish

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
42,563
Reaction score
6,246
Points
1,870
Location
The Big Easy
In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devices—including the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programs—could fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.

The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage

Three points to make here:

  • How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.

  • The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).

  • Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.
great post and 100% accurate. I can't wait for bleeding heart libtards to weigh in and claim that "you just don't care about the "people". and "the govt owes everyone a 'living wage' "

liberalism is clearly a mental disease. the libs on USMB prove it every day
 

longknife

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
42,221
Reaction score
13,044
Points
2,250
Location
Sin City
And nowhere in our federal or states' constitutions does it even suggest such a thing?

All made up by lefties/liberals/socialists to increase their political power and has nothing to do with "helping" anyone but themselves.
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
44,389
Reaction score
7,493
Points
1,830
In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devices—including the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programs—could fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.

The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage

Three points to make here:

  • How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.

  • The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).

  • Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.
I am not in favor of minimum wage.
A burger flipper gets 20% more for flipping, let's say, 100+, or even 200+ burgers an hour.
How do you, with any so-called amount of intelligence, figure that raising the price of a burger 20% will absolutely equate the new wage?

The math is completely infantile.
 

NoTeaPartyPleez

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
11,826
Reaction score
1,912
Points
245
In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devices—including the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programs—could fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.

The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage

Three points to make here:

  • How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.

  • The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).

  • Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.

Really now. Maybe you just haven't been paying attention for the last 50 or 60 years? You certainly never took political science or philosophy at the community college you went to for a couple of years....



Social Contract Theory
Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. Socrates uses something quite like a social contract argument to explain to Crito why he must remain in prison and accept the death penalty. However, social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes.

After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory, which has been one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the modern West. In the twentieth century, moral and political theory regained philosophical momentum as a result of John Rawls’ Kantian version of social contract theory, and was followed by new analyses of the subject by David Gauthier and others.

More recently, philosophers from different perspectives have offered new criticisms of social contract theory. In particular, feminists and race-conscious philosophers have argued that social contract theory is at least an incomplete picture of our moral and political lives, and may in fact camouflage some of the ways in which the contract is itself parasitical upon the subjugations of classes of persons.
 

NoTeaPartyPleez

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
11,826
Reaction score
1,912
Points
245
And nowhere in our federal or states' constitutions does it even suggest such a thing?

All made up by lefties/liberals/socialists to increase their political power and has nothing to do with "helping" anyone but themselves.
Uh-huh....Right. It was originally referred to as the the Social Compact:

The Social Compact

The Social Compact
The First Principle of the Social Compact recognizes that governments are instituted by the people and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed

The Declaration of Independence recognizes as a self-evident truth that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . .”

There are two aspects to this First Principle of the Social Compact. First, that legitimate governments are instituted among the people; second, that the just powers of the government are derived from the consent of the people. The Founding Fathers derived much of their understanding of this First Principle from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and other like-minded philosophers.

The Founding Fathers believed that because conflict is inevitable in a state of nature, individuals united in civil societies and established government to secure the peace. James Madison reflected that “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” But men are not angels, Alexander Hamilton noted, and government becomes necessary to restrain “the passions of men.” Thus, paradoxically, legal restraints are necessary to preserve liberty. The alternative is vigilantism – which Hobbes aptly termed a “war of every one against every one.”

The second aspect of the Social Compact is that the people must consent to give the government its authority. Robert Bates, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, explained that “In every free government, the people must give their assent to the laws by which they are governed. This is the true criterion between a free government and an arbitrary one.”

Indeed, the American Revolution was strongly motivated by a defense of this First Principle. The cry of “no taxation without representation” was directly derived from the Social Compact.

The Social Compact is an indispensable First Principle of American freedom.
 

NoTeaPartyPleez

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
11,826
Reaction score
1,912
Points
245
In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devices—including the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programs—could fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.

But this (what you wrote above) is irrelevant now because of the monopolies that have seized control of American commerce. That combined with the 2008 economic crash has put the employer in the driver's seat and the employee in the trunk. So the social contract has unfortunately become obsolete.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
127,875
Reaction score
21,377
Points
2,180
In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devices—including the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programs—could fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.

The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage

Three points to make here:

  • How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.

  • The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).

  • Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.

Really now. Maybe you just haven't been paying attention for the last 50 or 60 years? You certainly never took political science or philosophy at the community college you went to for a couple of years....



Social Contract Theory
Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. Socrates uses something quite like a social contract argument to explain to Crito why he must remain in prison and accept the death penalty. However, social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes.

After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory, which has been one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the modern West. In the twentieth century, moral and political theory regained philosophical momentum as a result of John Rawls’ Kantian version of social contract theory, and was followed by new analyses of the subject by David Gauthier and others.

More recently, philosophers from different perspectives have offered new criticisms of social contract theory. In particular, feminists and race-conscious philosophers have argued that social contract theory is at least an incomplete picture of our moral and political lives, and may in fact camouflage some of the ways in which the contract is itself parasitical upon the subjugations of classes of persons.
The myth of the social contract is the greatest con ever perpetrated on the human race. The idea that a few wealthy men 250 years ago created some document that obligates me in any way is utterly preposterous.

A valid contract has to be agreed to explicitly by all the parties involved. Your parents can't sign a contract that is binding on you in any way. This is basic legal theory, and it's based on indisputable logic. Allowing others to bind you to the terms of some contract is the road to tyranny, but that's precisely why libturds and every other form of statist is always waxing eloquently about the mythical "social contract."

The bottom line is that if you didn't personally and explicitly agree to it, you aren't bound by it.
 

Geaux4it

Intensity Factor 4-Fold
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
22,874
Reaction score
4,284
Points
290
Location
Tennessee
In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devices—including the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programs—could fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.

The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage

Three points to make here:

  • How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.

  • The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).

  • Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.
The loyal leftist feel the cost should not be passed on to the consumer rather should be absorbed by the business :cuckoo:

-Geaux
 

Truthmatters

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,263
Points
0
wow if you are correct OP then you should have no problem convincing the American people in elections to vote your way.

does that mean you will stop cheating your asses off to win elections?
 

Truthmatters

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,263
Points
0
At Supreme Court, no reprieve for GOP in voting rights consent decree - CSMonitor.com


DNC lawyers argued that the high court should allow the consent decree to remain in place. Evidence presented during the 2008 and 2009 litigation over the decree showed that the order is still needed today, they said.

“That evidence includes proof that the RNC violated the Decree in 1990 and in 2004, when it created voter challenge lists that targeted minority voters; that between 1997 and 2008, Republican candidates and party organizations had engaged in separate voter suppression activities in various states, including Texas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin; and that the racially polarized voting that influenced the RNC in the 1980s persists today,” Angelo Genova wrote in his brief to the court.

“This substantial evidence stands in stark contrast to the RNC’s proffered ‘evidence,’ “ Mr. Genova added. He said the Republicans had made a “preposterous claim that because President Obama, Attorney General [Eric] Holder, and former RNC leaders Michael Steele and Boyd Rutherford are African-American, the RNC no longer has any incentive to suppress minority votes in violation of the terms of the Consent Decree.”
 

Truthmatters

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,263
Points
0
so you will convince people instead of cheating to win.

great news for democracy
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
127,875
Reaction score
21,377
Points
2,180
And nowhere in our federal or states' constitutions does it even suggest such a thing?

All made up by lefties/liberals/socialists to increase their political power and has nothing to do with "helping" anyone but themselves.
Uh-huh....Right. It was originally referred to as the the Social Compact:

The Social Compact

The Social Compact
The First Principle of the Social Compact recognizes that governments are instituted by the people and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed

The Declaration of Independence recognizes as a self-evident truth that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . .” .
Either you're admitting our current government is illegitimate or the claim is total bullshit because I never consented to be governed by our current government.

There are two aspects to this First Principle of the Social Compact. First, that legitimate governments are instituted among the people; second, that the just powers of the government are derived from the consent of the people. The Founding Fathers derived much of their understanding of this First Principle from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and other like-minded philosophers.
Well, the Founding Fathers obviously didn't understand it because no one currently alive has ever consented to be governed by our current government.

The Founding Fathers believed that because conflict is inevitable in a state of nature, individuals united in civil societies and established government to secure the peace. James Madison reflected that “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” But men are not angels, Alexander Hamilton noted, and government becomes necessary to restrain “the passions of men.” Thus, paradoxically, legal restraints are necessary to preserve liberty. The alternative is vigilantism – which Hobbes aptly termed a “war of every one against every one.”.
The Founding Fathers were wise men, but not infallible. The claim that men cannot live together without government is totally unsubstantiated. In fact, there are plenty of examples where men do live together without government, so that theory is pure hogwash.

The second aspect of the Social Compact is that the people must consent to give the government its authority. Robert Bates, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, explained that “In every free government, the people must give their assent to the laws by which they are governed. This is the true criterion between a free government and an arbitrary one.”.
So when did I give my assent to be governed by any of the laws that Congress has passed in the last 250 years?

Indeed, the American Revolution was strongly motivated by a defense of this First Principle. The cry of “no taxation without representation” was directly derived from the Social Compact.

The Social Compact is an indispensable First Principle of American freedom.
The Social Compact is a myth designed to impose tyranny.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
127,875
Reaction score
21,377
Points
2,180
wow if you are correct OP then you should have no problem convincing the American people in elections to vote your way.

does that mean you will stop cheating your asses off to win elections?
You and your libturd amigos are the ones who cheat.
 

Truthmatters

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,263
Points
0
so you think cheating in elections is warrented because your too stupid to figure out how to leave a country you hate?
 

Truthmatters

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,263
Points
0
wow if you are correct OP then you should have no problem convincing the American people in elections to vote your way.

does that mean you will stop cheating your asses off to win elections?
You and your libturd amigos are the ones who cheat.
well that is a lie you will need to try and find some proof to establish it as anything but a lie.

I just gave you a current SCOTUS decision that shows the right leaning SCOTUS we have right now said KEEP PUNISHING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR CHEATING
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
127,875
Reaction score
21,377
Points
2,180
so you think cheating in elections is warrented because your too stupid to figure out how to leave a country you hate?
As I said before, you and your libturd amigos are the ones who cheat.

Hating the government and hating the country are two separate things, asshole.

Anyone who loves the government is nothing but a servile bootlicking authoritarian toady.
 

Truthmatters

Rookie
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
80,182
Reaction score
2,263
Points
0
So if the OP is correct on his ramblings then you would not have to cheat like you do to win elections huh?


Hes full of shit and the people know it so he has to accept cheating by his party to get what HE wants
 

Indeependent

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
44,389
Reaction score
7,493
Points
1,830
And nowhere in our federal or states' constitutions does it even suggest such a thing?

All made up by lefties/liberals/socialists to increase their political power and has nothing to do with "helping" anyone but themselves.
Uh-huh....Right. It was originally referred to as the the Social Compact:

The Social Compact

The Social Compact
The First Principle of the Social Compact recognizes that governments are instituted by the people and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed

The Declaration of Independence recognizes as a self-evident truth that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . .” .
Either you're admitting our current government is illegitimate or the claim is total bullshit because I never consented to be governed by our current government.



Well, the Founding Fathers obviously didn't understand it because no one currently alive has ever consented to be governed by our current government.



The Founding Fathers were wise men, but not infallible. The claim that men cannot live together without government is totally unsubstantiated. In fact, there are plenty of examples where men do live together without government, so that theory is pure hogwash.

The second aspect of the Social Compact is that the people must consent to give the government its authority. Robert Bates, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, explained that “In every free government, the people must give their assent to the laws by which they are governed. This is the true criterion between a free government and an arbitrary one.”.
So when did I give my assent to be governed by any of the laws that Congress has passed in the last 250 years?

Indeed, the American Revolution was strongly motivated by a defense of this First Principle. The cry of “no taxation without representation” was directly derived from the Social Compact.

The Social Compact is an indispensable First Principle of American freedom.
The Social Compact is a myth designed to impose tyranny.
Over 60% of the British Colonists disagreed with the FF.
 

bripat9643

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
127,875
Reaction score
21,377
Points
2,180
wow if you are correct OP then you should have no problem convincing the American people in elections to vote your way.

does that mean you will stop cheating your asses off to win elections?
You and your libturd amigos are the ones who cheat.
well that is a lie you will need to rtry and fond some proof to establish it as anything but a lie.

I just gave you a current SCOTUS decision that shows the right leaning SCOTUS we have right now said KEEP PUNISHING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY FOR CHEATING
It's been documented over and over again. Take the example of precincts where Obama received more votes than the number of people registered.

SCOTUS said no such thing. Furthermore, the SC is nothing but a gang of hand selected political hacks. Its rulings seldom have anything to do with truth.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top