The "social contract" that doesn't exist

[Listening]

Whether you like Big Macs isn't relevant to anything. Noe one cares what you like. The bottom line is that raising the minimum wage will cause unemployment among the people who can least afford it.



The preamble doesn't mention any so-called "social contract." Furthermore, the preamble is just propaganda. It has no relevance to anything tangible.

Even if the Founding Fathers believed in something called a "social contract," that wouldn't prove it actually exists.

Without proof, any claims about the "social contract" are just so much eye-wash.

Again, the "social contract" they envisioned was not what people call it today.

REALLY? So we can infer the "Arms" mentioned in the Second Amendment and the "Arms" available to citizens today are not what James Madison and George Mason envisioned.

Jay said we bind together to preserve rights. That is it.

He didn't say we are responsible to feed each other.

Are you suggesting John Jay wrote the Preamble? Evidence and wherein he said what you attribute to him, please. I learned Gouverneur Morris, a founding father and signer of both the Article of Confederation and the Constitution wrote the Preamble.

Read Federalist #2.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.

**************

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.

Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us. To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.

******************

This intelligent people perceived and regretted these defects. Still continuing no less attached to union than enamored of liberty, they observed the danger which immediately threatened the former and more remotely the latter; and being pursuaded that ample security for both could only be found in a national government more wisely framed, they as with one voice, convened the late convention at Philadelphia, to take that important subject under consideration.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The social compact has evolved in the last 225 years, yes. The Founders are not alive and we are.

 

[bripat9643]

The social compact has evolved in the last 225 years, yes. The Founders are not alive and we are.

There is no "social contract." Calling it a "social compact" only obscures the issue. The bottom line is that no one living ever agreed to it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact is that a social compact, contract, or agreement was part of the foundation of the country, and, yes, we are bound by it in our constitutional government.

 

[bripat9643]

The fact is that a social compact, contract, or agreement was part of the foundation of the country, and, yes, we are bound by it in our constitutional government.

That's not a fact, Starkey, and no one is bound to it by any principle of reason or ethics. The Constitution only places obligations on the government, not us. Try reading it sometime. Please quote the section that imposes any obligation on any citizen of the United States.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is a fact.

Another one, bripat, is that you don't believe in or support the Constitution.

Thus your anarchist opinion is not only unfounded, it does not matter.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Instead of looking for a handout, why not take ownership of your personal finances and get the education or training needed to gain additional wages?

And here is the other thing about minimum wage workers.... They lack an education and sacrifices the 1%er's have. Your pay is a direct result of your education. You need to distinguish yourself above that of the minimal education/wage worker to warrant increased compensation.

Thank god in business the inmates do not rule the asylum

That's why unions are going by the way of the horse and buggy.

-Geaux

Guy, you are delusional.

"Man, my boss is so smart, he totally deserves to make an obscene paycheck!" Words never spoken in a working class bar.

Now as much as you guys want to make this about me, I already make three times the minimum wage... (In fact, 2013 will probably be my best year yet, but only because I'm working a second job.)

But the idea that somehow, the 1%ers are deserving of the fruits of the labors of others is absurd and stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

That is a fact.

Another one, bripat, is that you don't believe in or support the Constitution.

Thus your anarchist opinion is not only unfounded, it does not matter.

Prove it's a fact, moron. You can stamp your foot and insist it's a fact all you want, but unless you have proof everyone just takes you for a fool.

 

[Agit8r]

But the idea that somehow, the 1%ers are deserving of the fruits of the labors of others is absurd and stupid.

That's okay though, because if the social contract doesn't exist, we can just go take it from them

 

[bripat9643]

But the idea that somehow, the 1%ers are deserving of the fruits of the labors of others is absurd and stupid.

That's okay though, because if the social contract doesn't exist, we can just go take it from them

Sure, if you don't mind getting a load of buckshot in the face.

 

[Spoonman]

The fact is that a social compact, contract, or agreement was part of the foundation of the country, and, yes, we are bound by it in our constitutional government.

in that case I expect liberals to stop dicking around with the 2nd amendment

 

[Agit8r]

But the idea that somehow, the 1%ers are deserving of the fruits of the labors of others is absurd and stupid.

That's okay though, because if the social contract doesn't exist, we can just go take it from them

Sure, if you don't mind getting a load of buckshot in the face.

Naw, everything is electronic now. Just a matter of hacking. If there is no social contract, the government can't crack down on that stuff anymore.

 

[JoeB131]

But the idea that somehow, the 1%ers are deserving of the fruits of the labors of others is absurd and stupid.

That's okay though, because if the social contract doesn't exist, we can just go take it from them

Sure, if you don't mind getting a load of buckshot in the face.

If it ever gets to the point where the have-nots are just taking from the haves, the haves are going to be in serious trouble because they are seriously outnumbered.

As long as we are talking about the "Social Contract", the main reason it evolved is because you had so many revolutions where the great unwashed had enough...

France in 1787
Russia in 1917
China in 1949
Cuba in 1959
Iran in 1979


The smart countries put in a social contract because they didn't want it to get that far.

 

[JoeB131]

That's okay though, because if the social contract doesn't exist, we can just go take it from them

Sure, if you don't mind getting a load of buckshot in the face.

Naw, everything is electronic now. Just a matter of hacking. If there is no social contract, the government can't crack down on that stuff anymore.

Another good point.

As much as the 1%ers let their tools like Bripat get upset about the "Gummit", they know the government exists to protect their privilage.

 

[Spoonman]

That's okay though, because if the social contract doesn't exist, we can just go take it from them

Sure, if you don't mind getting a load of buckshot in the face.

If it ever gets to the point where the have-nots are just taking from the haves, the haves are going to be in serious trouble because they are seriously outnumbered.

As long as we are talking about the "Social Contract", the main reason it evolved is because you had so many revolutions where the great unwashed had enough...

France in 1787
Russia in 1917
China in 1949
Cuba in 1959
Iran in 1979


The smart countries put in a social contract because they didn't want it to get that far.

big difference in those cases. the have nots were making it on their own. they weren't living off entitlements, welfare, food stamps.

 

[Agit8r]

Sure, if you don't mind getting a load of buckshot in the face.

If it ever gets to the point where the have-nots are just taking from the haves, the haves are going to be in serious trouble because they are seriously outnumbered.

As long as we are talking about the "Social Contract", the main reason it evolved is because you had so many revolutions where the great unwashed had enough...

France in 1787
Russia in 1917
China in 1949
Cuba in 1959
Iran in 1979


The smart countries put in a social contract because they didn't want it to get that far.

big difference in those cases. the have nots were making it on their own.

Actually they were not. That is why they became a violent ochlocracy. Note that no such calamity befell England. Because their nobility were a sober lot, and they took precautions (i.e. the Poor Laws)

 

[bripat9643]

That's okay though, because if the social contract doesn't exist, we can just go take it from them

Sure, if you don't mind getting a load of buckshot in the face.

Naw, everything is electronic now. Just a matter of hacking. If there is no social contract, the government can't crack down on that stuff anymore.

Do you actually believe that government is what keeps your money safe?

 

[bripat9643]

Sure, if you don't mind getting a load of buckshot in the face.

Naw, everything is electronic now. Just a matter of hacking. If there is no social contract, the government can't crack down on that stuff anymore.

Another good point.

As much as the 1%ers let their tools like Bripat get upset about the "Gummit", they know the government exists to protect their privilage.

"Protecting their privilege" in libturdspeak, means not allowing the rabble to rob them.

Yeah, what a "privilege."

 

[Indeependent]

Sure, if you don't mind getting a load of buckshot in the face.

Naw, everything is electronic now. Just a matter of hacking. If there is no social contract, the government can't crack down on that stuff anymore.

Do you actually believe that government is what keeps your money safe?

The overweight, toothless, non-English speaking Indian guard at Citibank is safeguarding my money?

 

[bripat9643]

If it ever gets to the point where the have-nots are just taking from the haves, the haves are going to be in serious trouble because they are seriously outnumbered.

As long as we are talking about the "Social Contract", the main reason it evolved is because you had so many revolutions where the great unwashed had enough...

France in 1787
Russia in 1917
China in 1949
Cuba in 1959
Iran in 1979


The smart countries put in a social contract because they didn't want it to get that far.

big difference in those cases. the have nots were making it on their own.

Actually they were not. That is why they became a violent ochlocracy. Note that no such calamity befell England. Because their nobility were a sober lot, and they took precautions (i.e. the Poor Laws)

They didn't have welfare in those days, so actually they were making it on their own. Who's going to put money in their EBT accounts if they destroy the wealthy?