The "social contract" that doesn't exist

[DiamondDave]

[
Is McDonalds made up of individuals? Do those individuals not have the right to express their opinions because they work for a corporation? Do they not have the right of assembly and class action?

You lefties get all twisted up on the "corporations are persons" thing.

Corporations are considered legal "persons" in order to protect the employees and shareholders from personal liability for the acts of the corporations. And thats a good thing, otherwise every employee and shareholder would have been named in the suit when the old lady spilled coffee on her cooch

Your reasoning would make sense if they COLLECTIVELY asked the employees of McDonalds what they wanted to say politically. Usually what ends up happening is that a few executives decide what they are going to contribute to, even if it is in complete oppossition to what the employees or shareholders might want.

Oh, by the way, that old lady was one of many who had been seriously maimed by coffee hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns.

So I guess all business decision should only be done if all employees weigh in collectively??

No.. that is what leadership is for..

Idiot

 

[Indeependent]

[
Is McDonalds made up of individuals? Do those individuals not have the right to express their opinions because they work for a corporation? Do they not have the right of assembly and class action?

You lefties get all twisted up on the "corporations are persons" thing.

Corporations are considered legal "persons" in order to protect the employees and shareholders from personal liability for the acts of the corporations. And thats a good thing, otherwise every employee and shareholder would have been named in the suit when the old lady spilled coffee on her cooch

Your reasoning would make sense if they COLLECTIVELY asked the employees of McDonalds what they wanted to say politically. Usually what ends up happening is that a few executives decide what they are going to contribute to, even if it is in complete oppossition to what the employees or shareholders might want.

Oh, by the way, that old lady was one of many who had been seriously maimed by coffee hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns.

She was about the 700th person to complain to the manager about the coffee.
She was rewarded one million for each ignored customer.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Again - the guy who can't hold a job because he's so ****'n lazy, is not ashamed of being a parasite, and proclaimed "**** poor people - I'm not helping them, that's what my taxes are for" just like Ebenezer Scrooge wants to call other people a "tool"? Joe, baby, you're the biggest ****'n tool there is. You're ignorant. You're lazy. You're uninformed. You want to force people to "sit down and shut up" like a communist dictator because you can't win an honest debate. You add no links to back up any of your absurd and outrageous claims.

In short, you're furious that the facts show your entire desire for communism is a failed and miserable ideology (much like you - failed and miserable).

By the way Joe - on one hand you proclaim that conservatives can't win elections, but then in the next breath you blame conservatives for all of the failures in this country. So are you now admitting that Dumbocrats have collapsed this nation? You know, since they've won all of the elections and hold all of the offices? You can't keep your stories straight from one post to the next, stupid.

Guy, can't you go five minutes without misquoting or mischaracterizing what people say?

Any grown up who says "Communism" is an adult political debate has forfeited the right to be taken seriously.

Conservatives can't win elections now because people are finally wise to them. Unless, of course, they cheat like they did in 2000.

 

[JoeB131]

[
Is McDonalds made up of individuals? Do those individuals not have the right to express their opinions because they work for a corporation? Do they not have the right of assembly and class action?

You lefties get all twisted up on the "corporations are persons" thing.

Corporations are considered legal "persons" in order to protect the employees and shareholders from personal liability for the acts of the corporations. And thats a good thing, otherwise every employee and shareholder would have been named in the suit when the old lady spilled coffee on her cooch

Your reasoning would make sense if they COLLECTIVELY asked the employees of McDonalds what they wanted to say politically. Usually what ends up happening is that a few executives decide what they are going to contribute to, even if it is in complete oppossition to what the employees or shareholders might want.

Oh, by the way, that old lady was one of many who had been seriously maimed by coffee hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns.

She was about the 700th person to complain to the manager about the coffee.
She was rewarded one million for each ignored customer.

The actual case was a lot more comlicated.

Initially, all the poor woman wanted was for McDonalds to cover her hospital bills.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In short, the Corporate Assholes and people like Rottweiler who worship at their feet call this a case of "Tort Abuse", but the fact was, McDonald's was negligent.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Social contract theory is actually a quite accurate description of society.

Wrong. The social contract is a myth.







When did I decide that? I don't recall ever making such a decision. Could you please list the document where I signed my rights away?







It appears to work in only one direction. Government commands and we obey.







Rousseau advocated small government? Are you joking? Is communism your idea of small government?







You have an utterly naive understanding of how governments are formed and how they operate. When has the expansion of the federal government ever been prevented?

Because if a government violates the contract, it's considered illegitimate and should be dismantled/altered.

The contract is illegitimate from the get-go because I never consented to it. However, by any conceivable standard, the U.S government lost any legitimacy it may have had over 150 years ago.

When you accept the responsibility of citizenship, then you accept the social contract. Followers of Rousseau wanted to have a grand ceremony where you accept citizenship and join the contract. But such pomp and circumstance is unnecessary. Whichever country you claim citizenship to, you are bound by their social compact.

My "naïveté" is simply my quoting of the theory. As anyone educated will tell you, the theory is considered separately from the actual. But it is still studied for the insight it gets. The Contract is a theoretic concept, yes. So I use theory to interpret it.
And governments do contract, but with great difficulty. It is, again, theoretically possible, and history shows some examples. Generally, however, they engorge until they die. (Or a revolution occurs)

Rousseau was by no means a communist. He was a radical, a few shades more extreme than Locke. But no, he never supported communism (how could he? It didn't exist in his time)

I'm glad you worded it this way, and here's why I mostly agree with Bripat.

I never accepted the responsibility of citizenship. I pay my taxes and I obey every law that I agree with or that I don't think I can disobey without being caught. This is not my consent. I do this, like many people, because if I don't, the government will punish me. Being coerced under threat of force is not the same as consenting to a contract.

There is no social contract. There's a social demand (this demand depends on the particulars of your society), and for those who refuse to concede to the social demand, there's a social hangman's noose. That is all.

 

[bripat9643]

Your reasoning would make sense if they COLLECTIVELY asked the employees of McDonalds what they wanted to say politically. Usually what ends up happening is that a few executives decide what they are going to contribute to, even if it is in complete oppossition to what the employees or shareholders might want.

Oh, by the way, that old lady was one of many who had been seriously maimed by coffee hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns.

She was about the 700th person to complain to the manager about the coffee.
She was rewarded one million for each ignored customer.

The actual case was a lot more comlicated.

Initially, all the poor woman wanted was for McDonalds to cover her hospital bills.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In short, the Corporate Assholes and people like Rottweiler who worship at their feet call this a case of "Tort Abuse", but the fact was, McDonald's was negligent.

She's the only one to blame for spilling coffee on her genitals, so why should McDonald's pay anything?

 

[deltex1]

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.

God is calling you...you deaf?

 

[JoeB131]

[
Is McDonalds made up of individuals? Do those individuals not have the right to express their opinions because they work for a corporation? Do they not have the right of assembly and class action?

You lefties get all twisted up on the "corporations are persons" thing.

Corporations are considered legal "persons" in order to protect the employees and shareholders from personal liability for the acts of the corporations. And thats a good thing, otherwise every employee and shareholder would have been named in the suit when the old lady spilled coffee on her cooch

Your reasoning would make sense if they COLLECTIVELY asked the employees of McDonalds what they wanted to say politically. Usually what ends up happening is that a few executives decide what they are going to contribute to, even if it is in complete oppossition to what the employees or shareholders might want.

Oh, by the way, that old lady was one of many who had been seriously maimed by coffee hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns.

So I guess all business decision should only be done if all employees weigh in collectively??

No.. that is what leadership is for..

Idiot

Well, you know what, Japanese and German corporations, workers have a vote on what the leadership is... so no problem there.

Frankly, I've seen Corporate leadership. Also known as "SNiffing their own flatulence and thinking it smells like roses."

 

[JoeB131]

[

She's the only one to blame for spilling coffee on her genitals, so why should McDonald's pay anything?

Because they served a product that was dangerously hot and they knew it?

Seriously, guy, if you are selling something that is hot enough to burn you if it is spilled outside your body, is it really safe to put INSIDE your body?

 

[Indeependent]

Your reasoning would make sense if they COLLECTIVELY asked the employees of McDonalds what they wanted to say politically. Usually what ends up happening is that a few executives decide what they are going to contribute to, even if it is in complete oppossition to what the employees or shareholders might want.

Oh, by the way, that old lady was one of many who had been seriously maimed by coffee hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns.

So I guess all business decision should only be done if all employees weigh in collectively??

No.. that is what leadership is for..

Idiot

Well, you know what, Japanese and German corporations, workers have a vote on what the leadership is... so no problem there.

Frankly, I've seen Corporate leadership. Also known as "SNiffing their own flatulence and thinking it smells like roses."

Just saw The Wolf Of Wall Street...Couldn't have been any more accurate.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

[

"Precedence"? Really? So after explaining to you that you can't point to illegal, immoral, or unjust action as an excuse to continue immoral, illegal, or unjust actions, you go right back to the well?

You clearly don't know what precedence means (shocking). How many judicial decisions were made through a corrupt process (can you say Obamacare)? So in your mind, people should look back on corrupt moments in history and use them to make decisions today?

No, people should look at past decisions that were made and why they were made.

For instance, Heller overturned US v. Miller, which was a very sensible precedent set when people were machine-gunning each in the streets during Prohibition. It found the Second Amendment's clause about "Well Regulated Militias gave the Feds, States and Muncipalities the power to regulate guns. And 80 years of supporting decisions continued to uphold that until Scalia had a brain fart.

Originally, you posted Heller as an example of right wingers not following original intent. This one I gotta disagree with you upon. All it is is an example of right wingers not following precedent from the early 1900's, hardly original. Simply because the SCOTUS in the Prohibition days found wiggle room in the wording that spelled out the justification of the right (not even the wording that spelled out the right itself. . . you know, the "shall not be infringed" part?) does not mean that their 80 year old decision retroactively dictated the original intent any more than the Citizens United decision means that the Founding Fathers must have wanted corporate personhood.

You can't say that right leaning supreme court decisions fly in the face of original intent while simultaneously implying that left leaning supreme court decisions dictate it, that's just silly.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Your reasoning would make sense if they COLLECTIVELY asked the employees of McDonalds what they wanted to say politically. Usually what ends up happening is that a few executives decide what they are going to contribute to, even if it is in complete oppossition to what the employees or shareholders might want.

Oh, by the way, that old lady was one of many who had been seriously maimed by coffee hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns.

So I guess all business decision should only be done if all employees weigh in collectively??

No.. that is what leadership is for..

Idiot

Well, you know what, Japanese and German corporations, workers have a vote on what the leadership is... so no problem there.

Frankly, I've seen Corporate leadership. Also known as "SNiffing their own flatulence and thinking it smells like roses."

Yeah, good call. Blue collar workers all know their shit, so they should make the decisions. Guys who go into management are all arrogant and greedy and shouldn't decide anything.

What an obviously well researched world view you have. Such simple sentiment -must- be taking all things into account.

If I said, "I've met blacks. Trust me, they drink 40's." That would be no more ignorant than what I've quoted from you. "Of course he loves money. He's a jew." That sorta thing.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Your reasoning would make sense if they COLLECTIVELY asked the employees of McDonalds what they wanted to say politically. Usually what ends up happening is that a few executives decide what they are going to contribute to, even if it is in complete oppossition to what the employees or shareholders might want.

All the employees of Citizen's United wanted to make the movie Hillary.

And as a collective, their rights to free speech and expression remain intact.

 

[bripat9643]

[

She's the only one to blame for spilling coffee on her genitals, so why should McDonald's pay anything?

Because they served a product that was dangerously hot and they knew it?

Seriously, guy, if you are selling something that is hot enough to burn you if it is spilled outside your body, is it really safe to put INSIDE your body?

That's the way McDonald's customers like it, and they had a warning printed on each and every cup. Knives are dangerous. Do you think some fool who cuts himself with a knife should be entitled to damages for cutting his finger off with a sharp knife?

 

[bripat9643]

So I guess all business decision should only be done if all employees weigh in collectively??

No.. that is what leadership is for..

Idiot

Well, you know what, Japanese and German corporations, workers have a vote on what the leadership is... so no problem there.

Frankly, I've seen Corporate leadership. Also known as "SNiffing their own flatulence and thinking it smells like roses."

Just saw The Wolf Of Wall Street...Couldn't have been any more accurate.

How would you know?

 

[JoeB131]

Your reasoning would make sense if they COLLECTIVELY asked the employees of McDonalds what they wanted to say politically. Usually what ends up happening is that a few executives decide what they are going to contribute to, even if it is in complete oppossition to what the employees or shareholders might want.

All the employees of Citizen's United wanted to make the movie Hillary.

And as a collective, their rights to free speech and expression remain intact.

But who was BEHIND Citizens United, that was the important question.

No, guy, it really was a horrible decision. Period. It effectively allowed corporations- including foriegn owned ones, to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

 

[JoeB131]

[

"Precedence"? Really? So after explaining to you that you can't point to illegal, immoral, or unjust action as an excuse to continue immoral, illegal, or unjust actions, you go right back to the well?

You clearly don't know what precedence means (shocking). How many judicial decisions were made through a corrupt process (can you say Obamacare)? So in your mind, people should look back on corrupt moments in history and use them to make decisions today?

No, people should look at past decisions that were made and why they were made.

For instance, Heller overturned US v. Miller, which was a very sensible precedent set when people were machine-gunning each in the streets during Prohibition. It found the Second Amendment's clause about "Well Regulated Militias gave the Feds, States and Muncipalities the power to regulate guns. And 80 years of supporting decisions continued to uphold that until Scalia had a brain fart.

Originally, you posted Heller as an example of right wingers not following original intent. This one I gotta disagree with you upon. All it is is an example of right wingers not following precedent from the early 1900's, hardly original. Simply because the SCOTUS in the Prohibition days found wiggle room in the wording that spelled out the justification of the right (not even the wording that spelled out the right itself. . . you know, the "shall not be infringed" part?) does not mean that their 80 year old decision retroactively dictated the original intent any more than the Citizens United decision means that the Founding Fathers must have wanted corporate personhood.

You can't say that right leaning supreme court decisions fly in the face of original intent while simultaneously implying that left leaning supreme court decisions dictate it, that's just silly.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

To start with, the reason WHY Miller had to be decided was that effectively, "Militias" were eliminated when states created National Guards. So a redefinition of "Militias" and who could own a gun was called for.

Hense, we didn't want Al Capone and his boys owning Tommy Guns and mowing down Bugs Moran's Gang. That wasn't "A Well-Regulated Militia". It was actually, you know, Common Sense. And you had 80 years of additional decisions that saw it was common sense that cities, states and the Feds should regulate guns and who owns them.

Conversely, what Heller was is nothing near common sense. It's Scalia and the other right wingers being owned by the gun lobby.

 

[JoeB131]

So I guess all business decision should only be done if all employees weigh in collectively??

No.. that is what leadership is for..

Idiot

Well, you know what, Japanese and German corporations, workers have a vote on what the leadership is... so no problem there.

Frankly, I've seen Corporate leadership. Also known as "SNiffing their own flatulence and thinking it smells like roses."

Yeah, good call. Blue collar workers all know their shit, so they should make the decisions. Guys who go into management are all arrogant and greedy and shouldn't decide anything.

What an obviously well researched world view you have. Such simple sentiment -must- be taking all things into account.

If I said, "I've met blacks. Trust me, they drink 40's." That would be no more ignorant than what I've quoted from you. "Of course he loves money. He's a jew." That sorta thing.

Now you went completely off the rails.

Again, the German and Japanese Auto makers involve workers in corporate decisions.

Who beat the pants off the American Auto Makers. Toyota, VW, Nissan, etc. That's why I always find it hilarious when some wingnut claims the Auto Unions destroyed the Auto industry...

 

[JoeB131]

[

She's the only one to blame for spilling coffee on her genitals, so why should McDonald's pay anything?

Because they served a product that was dangerously hot and they knew it?

Seriously, guy, if you are selling something that is hot enough to burn you if it is spilled outside your body, is it really safe to put INSIDE your body?

That's the way McDonald's customers like it, and they had a warning printed on each and every cup. Knives are dangerous. Do you think some fool who cuts himself with a knife should be entitled to damages for cutting his finger off with a sharp knife?

Did they? Did McDonald's take a survey and say, "Hey, do you folks want your coffee so hot that it will melt your skin if applied?"

And do you have a picture of this "warning" that was published? (My guess is they did publish warnings, AFTER Mrs. Leibeck took them for a shitload of money.)

Again- got to love Conservatives and their slavish devotion to being abused by Corporations.

It's kind of like Stockholm Syndrome without the machine guns.

 

[TooTall]

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.”

This is the first sentence in the article you linked.

US Supreme Court on Monday turned aside a petition from the Republican National Committee to lift a 30-year-old consent decree. The decree requires the RNC to refrain from tactics that could suppress voting rights.

That clearly states that the Republicans have been required by the Supreme Court to refrain from tactics that could suppress voting rights for 30 years.

Thanks for pointing that out! You really ought to read what you link.