The "social contract" that doesn't exist

[Not2BSubjugated]

lol, yes, this could have been a much shorter thread if the OP understood that.

IT's really not the OP that's lacking in understanding, here.

What you don't seem to understand is that agreement isn't passive. You can't truly unknowingly agree to something, either. Agreement -must- be conscious and willing. Anything else is coercion, which is what the "social contract" in any given modern society actually is.

You don't really agree to the laws and taxes. You obey and pay them to avoid punishment. Not same-same.

If you're handed a contract by a guy with a gun to your head who says sign it or else, even if you sign it you didn't really agree to anything. You were forced into some shit. That's not a real contract, that's succumbing to a threat. The government's threat is less obvious, but it's still just as real as any gangster's pistol.

However, for those of you still unconvinced, come on down to SE Portland, I'll have a couple buddies of mine rob you at gun point, and when you give them your money, I'll remind you that you actually agreed and gave them your money willingly, and that it wasn't a robbery so much as a business transaction.

And your better idea is?

My better idea is to stop calling it a social contract as though I got to choose to be born into society or not, or as though I got to choose whether or not to be part of it, or as though there's somewhere I could even go to opt out of the game completely. It's not a choice, stop lying to yourselves.

That's my better idea. Ruthless self-honesty.

My other better idea is to stop using the term as though it's a meaningful argument in a debate regarding American politics. I've seen too many people say that the social contract justifies that the government force me to do this or that as a taxpayer. . . the social contract doesn't justify shit because it's not a hard document on which our laws our based. . . it's a conceptual thing that seems to bind me to whatever rule the guy talking wants it to support. I don't think we need any loosely defined almost-documents on which you can base your urge to tell me how I can be most efficiently subjugated to benefit "the greater good".

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I'm starting to think this theory is almost religious with some people, so I'm gonna go out on a limb and play a hunch with this post.

Government is a necessary thing. Too many people are too fucked up for anarchy to allow many to thrive.

I'll repeat that, partially to remind some of you slower leftists out there that libertarians and anarchists are not same-same.

Government is a necessary thing.

We can agree on that, me and you social contract theorists out there. That thought, however, doesn't need to be carried out to religious extremes to be true.

For instance, it can be true that, while the government is necessary, the concept of government isn't all warm, fluffy and loving. The government's power isn't based on each individual in society's agreement that what said government does is just and necessary. Once determined, the government's power is based on force. Ultimately, the government derives its authority from the ability to subjugated the will of the individual when that will defies its own. Whether a government is a good one or a bad one is notwithstanding, this truth remains.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am coming very late to this thread, but since the concept of the social contract was introduced in the OP, I would like to add my two cents.

The Constitution is indeed a social contract. It is the formal concept of the principles that would form a new nation: The United States of America. It took them eleven years of heated debates, argument, exchange of ideas, give and take, and compromise from the time the Declaration was signed to the signing of the Constitution and some time more before all of the then existing states agreed to it. But the social contract was a large majority consensus of how the people of that day chose to cooperate together and govern themselves. Those who would join the union after the fact each had to agree to accept that Constitution as the law of the land.

THAT is what a social contract is. An agreement between a group of people to organize their common lives together and govern themselves. It happened thousands of times over this great land in the decades and centuries to follow. A group of settlers or homesteaders would agree to band together to raise barns and do other tasks difficult for one family to do on its own. In time commerce and industry cropped up to serve a growing group of farmers and ranchers. And when there was sufficient need, they agreed to hire somebody to keep the peace. And they formed volunteer fire departments. And they mutually built a school and hired a teacher. In time they would incorporate and hire a mayor and a city clerk to oversee and manage the law enforcement, fire fighting, and other shared services. Shared expenses were voted via bonds or other means of taxes but always the people authorized it.

All of that is social contract as the Founders understood it.

None of them ever envisioned a federal government or even a state government that would assume the power to dictate to them what sort of school they must have, what they could and could not teach in the school they built and funded, that would not ask them but would order them to support this program or that initiative. And they sure didn't envision government powers that would dictate to them how much they were required to pay their employees.

Such is NOT social contract. Such is depotism, monarchy, dictatorship, and/or a form of totalitarianism that the Constitution was intended to free us from.

The Founders would not be pleased.

 

[The T]

I am coming very late to this thread, but since the concept of the social contract was introduced in the OP, I would like to add my two cents.

The Constitution is indeed a social contract. It is the formal concept of the principles that would form a new nation: The United States of America. It took them eleven years of heated debates, argument, exchange of ideas, give and take, and compromise from the time the Declaration was signed to the signing of the Constitution and some time more before all of the then existing states agreed to it. But the social contract was a large majority consensus of how the people of that day chose to cooperate together and govern themselves. Those who would join the union after the fact each had to agree to accept that Constitution as the law of the land.

THAT is what a social contract is. An agreement between a group of people to organize their common lives together and govern themselves. It happened thousands of times over this great land in the decades and centuries to follow. A group of settlers or homesteaders would agree to band together to raise barns and do other tasks difficult for one family to do on its own. In time commerce and industry cropped up to serve a growing group of farmers and ranchers. And when there was sufficient need, they agreed to hire somebody to keep the peace. And they formed volunteer fire departments. And they mutually built a school and hired a teacher. In time they would incorporate and hire a mayor and a city clerk to oversee and manage the law enforcement, fire fighting, and other shared services. Shared expenses were voted via bonds or other means of taxes but always the people authorized it.

All of that is social contract as the Founders understood it.

None of them ever envisioned a federal government or even a state government that would assume the power to dictate to them what sort of school they must have, what they could and could not teach in the school they built and funded, that would not ask them but would order them to support this program or that initiative. And they sure didn't envision government powers that would dictate to them how much they were required to pay their employees.

Such is NOT social contract. Such is depotism, monarchy, dictatorship, and/or a form of totalitarianism that the Constitution was intended to free us from.

The Founders would not be pleased.

Completely correct. WE are living in what the Founder's feared...Tyranny of the elites.

 

[P@triot]

First of all, if the times have changed so much that the Constitution needs updating, then legally and properly amend the Constitution. But you don't. Why? Because you're an unhinged little asshole who is in the extreme minority of proud communists. To this day, the Constitution is still flawless and still functions perfectly for the United States when applied correctly (in other words, when we don't allow Dumbocrats to interpret it with their fucked up ideology).

Second of all, as I already pointed out (and humiliated you in the process by exposing your extraordinary ignorance) - the Constitution does not say "the right of a well-regulated militia". It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". You'd think after I school you this bad you'd stop with your insane, uninformed, and inaccurate narrative. But nope, like a typical Dumbocrat, you go right back to the well thinking that a lie told often enough will become "truth". Typical self-admitted communist.

Adam Lanza happened because extremely ignorant libtards (such as yourself) in Congress led by Tip O'Neill created an ignorant bill outlawing firearms at schools - creating a VICTIM ZONE where maniacs like Lanza know they can mow everyone down. There's a reason Lanza didn't walk into a Police Department to attempt his killing spree - because everyone there is armed stupid.

Somehow, I don't think arming teachers who are already stressed out most of the time was really a solution, Poodle. Love teachers, have teachers in my family, would not want to see most of them packing heat in a classroom.

Okay, one more time, twit.

SCOTUS interprets the constitution. It makes rulings based on the situation of the day.

I would even go so far as to say in 1787, when you had wild animals and native americans and such, the Second Amendment even made a bit of sense.

Today... meh, not so much.

Apply the words to the TIMES.

Kind of like how the Courts had to interpret "Freedom of the Press" when television came out. They had to adapt. That's what we have courts for, is to interpret.

No, it doesn't. The Constitution is written in black & white and is not open to "interpretation". Is a speed limit open to "interpretation"? Are rape laws open to "interpretation"? Well, the Constitution is the highest law in the land. And a law that is "open" to "interpretation" cannot be obeyed. It would be impossible. And this is one of many simple facts that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the liberal fantasy that the Constitution is a "living, breathing" document which is "open" to "interpretation" is an immature wet-dream for desperate and ignorant Dumbocrats.

So now that I've humiliated you with indisputable facts once again, would you like to try again junior?

 

[P@triot]

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.

Your first paragraph answers your own questions.

"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."

**What happens when the social-welfare programs can't keep up with the cost of living and medical costs??

**Why can't they? -- Wealthy people have lobbied for lowering of income tax rates and more special loopholes and rates, thereby lowering tax revenue that would normally go to those programs.

Pure, unadulterated ignorance. First of all, the wealthy (and the middle class for that matter) continues to see their income rise. Since taxes are a percentage, that guarantees that tax revenues increase as incomes/wealth increase. One quick example (dumbed down for your convenience):

50% of $100 = $50

30% of $1,000 = $300

The lower tax percentage actually yields the higher tax revenue in this example genius.

Second, and more important, social-welfare programs can't keep up because Dumbocrats have incentivized being a parasite and decentivized being a producer. Thus, the a Dumbocrats have grown and expanded the parasite class - as they intended so that they could expand their power. It's no coincidence that we have more people on food stamps under Obama (a radical marxist) than any president in U.S. history.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is true that if the Founders had intended for the Constitution to be interpreted, they would have intentionally given the courts all the power over everybody. And that was something they very definitely intended not to do. The court was to have no power whatsoever other than to arbitrate disputes. No power of any kind to make law was assigned to the courts. That concept has also been long gone for some time.

 

[The T]

It is true that if the Founders had intended for the Constitution to be interpreted, they would have intentionally given the courts all the power over everybody. And that was something they very definitely intended not to do. The court was to have no power whatsoever other than to arbitrate disputes. No power of any kind to make law was assigned to the courts. That concept has also been long gone for some time.

Quite frankly? I'd be FINE with a Re-do...while reigning in the tyrants and putting them where they belong...in jail or otherwise.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Completely correct. WE are living in what the Founder's feared...Tyranny of the elites.

So, a bunch of rich white guys who owned slaves and thought that only white male property owners should have the franchise were really worried about a "Tyranny of the elites"?

Really?

Really?

 

[JoeB131]

[

No, it doesn't. The Constitution is written in black & white and is not open to "interpretation". Is a speed limit open to "interpretation"? Are rape laws open to "interpretation"? Well, the Constitution is the highest law in the land. And a law that is "open" to "interpretation" cannot be obeyed. It would be impossible. And this is one of many simple facts that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the liberal fantasy that the Constitution is a "living, breathing" document which is "open" to "interpretation" is an immature wet-dream for desperate and ignorant Dumbocrats.

So now that I've humiliated you with indisputable facts once again, would you like to try again junior?

Sorry, guy, ain't the way it works.

Both sides want to "interpret" the constitution their way.

The way I read it, the Constitution says "WELL REGULATED MILITIAS".

And that's how the courts interpreted it through most of our history.

Until that mutant Scalia, anyway.

But here's the thing. There just aren't enough angry white guys to put Republicans in the White House anymore.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi RW Happy New Year!
by your topic, I thought this was going to be about the left not recognizing the Constitution!
how ironic they have their own social contract that you didn't sign to either. so it's mutual!

maybe this is another sign that each party should hold its own members to their contracts.
have their own IRS tax collections, and pay for whatever members they lobby to vote for them. So if you buy the votes of a bunch of welfare dependents, that's who you pay for!

as for minimum wage, it is possible and works well to set up local currency based on 10 an hour standard. you can set this up with local businesses agreeing to accept and exchange the currency while advertising in a network so the members patronize each other.

Nothing wrong with that, and no forced mandates to participate, it is all voluntary.
this way the economic costs of labor goods and services goes up evenly throughout the community that adopts it.

maybe the Democrats should listen to the Greens the way the Republicans should listen to the Libertarians. Get both major parties back on track instead of wasting resources fighting over nonissues that can be resolved without dragging federal govt into it and deadlocking Congress over things that parties can resolve locally among their own membership bases.

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 T]

[

Completely correct. WE are living in what the Founder's feared...Tyranny of the elites.

So, a bunch of rich white guys who owned slaves and thought that only white male property owners should have the franchise were really worried about a "Tyranny of the elites"?

Really?

Really?

PAST history...That wrong was righted, and the Founders left that issue unresolved ON PURPOSE and we had a CIVIL WAR over it in part...ever heard of the 3/5ths COMPROMISE? KNOW what it was about? NO? Look it up.

*Thank Me*.

Idiot.

 

[emilynghiem]

yes and no.

1. the Constitution as a social contract between people and govt is based on natural laws, natural rights and process of human nature and relations in society and with the institution of government.

So you may be able to argue that certain technical laws originally written don't apply, but the overall spirit and meaning of the laws are the same as universal natural laws that apply to all people.

we all want to defend our free will/consent, using due process, right to petition and free speech and press to redress grievances, resolve conflicts, and promote education and information for a free and better society.

2. once you invoke protections under the Constitution, then you can't very well leave parts out to exclude other people protected under the same. that is unethical and inconsistent, and does not carry the full weight of the law or public authority as does enforcing the law equally for all persons.

that is what is wrong with politics today: people enforcing and defending parts of the Constitution for their own agenda and then conveniently leaving these out for others!

you can do this and still be protected under the Constitutional concept of due process and right to petition back and forth. but when you are equally hypocrites, then the people who are including both of you and NOT leaving one view out or another, have more authority to govern over you. the people who are truly in power and who invoke the full authority of govt are the ones who redress grievances and include all people views and interests equally. from what I have seen, it takes teams of people to do this, including people of different views and biases to make sure everyone is accommodated and no one left out.

we have some of that going on with this forum, so thanks for working together to pull the best ideas insights and information from everyone here, so we can be more inclusive and represent more of the diverse views out there as government is SUPPOSED to do! thanks!

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.

 

[bripat9643]

I am coming very late to this thread, but since the concept of the social contract was introduced in the OP, I would like to add my two cents.

The Constitution is indeed a social contract. It is the formal concept of the principles that would form a new nation: The United States of America. It took them eleven years of heated debates, argument, exchange of ideas, give and take, and compromise from the time the Declaration was signed to the signing of the Constitution and some time more before all of the then existing states agreed to it. But the social contract was a large majority consensus of how the people of that day chose to cooperate together and govern themselves. Those who would join the union after the fact each had to agree to accept that Constitution as the law of the land.

THAT is what a social contract is. An agreement between a group of people to organize their common lives together and govern themselves. It happened thousands of times over this great land in the decades and centuries to follow. A group of settlers or homesteaders would agree to band together to raise barns and do other tasks difficult for one family to do on its own. In time commerce and industry cropped up to serve a growing group of farmers and ranchers. And when there was sufficient need, they agreed to hire somebody to keep the peace. And they formed volunteer fire departments. And they mutually built a school and hired a teacher. In time they would incorporate and hire a mayor and a city clerk to oversee and manage the law enforcement, fire fighting, and other shared services. Shared expenses were voted via bonds or other means of taxes but always the people authorized it.

All of that is social contract as the Founders understood it.

None of them ever envisioned a federal government or even a state government that would assume the power to dictate to them what sort of school they must have, what they could and could not teach in the school they built and funded, that would not ask them but would order them to support this program or that initiative. And they sure didn't envision government powers that would dictate to them how much they were required to pay their employees.

Such is NOT social contract. Such is depotism, monarchy, dictatorship, and/or a form of totalitarianism that the Constitution was intended to free us from.

The Founders would not be pleased.

There is no such thing as a social contract, period. A few representatives of some of the states agreed to the Constitution. The vast majority of people were never given the opportunity to give there consent. Furthermore, an election isn't consent for the people who vote "no."

The entire idea of the social contract is pure hooey intended to hornswoggle people into accepting being ruled. It's not valid now, and it never was.

 

[The T]

I am coming very late to this thread, but since the concept of the social contract was introduced in the OP, I would like to add my two cents.

The Constitution is indeed a social contract. It is the formal concept of the principles that would form a new nation: The United States of America. It took them eleven years of heated debates, argument, exchange of ideas, give and take, and compromise from the time the Declaration was signed to the signing of the Constitution and some time more before all of the then existing states agreed to it. But the social contract was a large majority consensus of how the people of that day chose to cooperate together and govern themselves. Those who would join the union after the fact each had to agree to accept that Constitution as the law of the land.

THAT is what a social contract is. An agreement between a group of people to organize their common lives together and govern themselves. It happened thousands of times over this great land in the decades and centuries to follow. A group of settlers or homesteaders would agree to band together to raise barns and do other tasks difficult for one family to do on its own. In time commerce and industry cropped up to serve a growing group of farmers and ranchers. And when there was sufficient need, they agreed to hire somebody to keep the peace. And they formed volunteer fire departments. And they mutually built a school and hired a teacher. In time they would incorporate and hire a mayor and a city clerk to oversee and manage the law enforcement, fire fighting, and other shared services. Shared expenses were voted via bonds or other means of taxes but always the people authorized it.

All of that is social contract as the Founders understood it.

None of them ever envisioned a federal government or even a state government that would assume the power to dictate to them what sort of school they must have, what they could and could not teach in the school they built and funded, that would not ask them but would order them to support this program or that initiative. And they sure didn't envision government powers that would dictate to them how much they were required to pay their employees.

Such is NOT social contract. Such is depotism, monarchy, dictatorship, and/or a form of totalitarianism that the Constitution was intended to free us from.

The Founders would not be pleased.

There is no such thing as a social contract, period. A few representatives of some of the states agreed to the Constitution. The vast majority of people were never given the opportunity to give there consent. An election isn't consent for the people who vote "no."

The entire idea of the social contract is pure hooey intended to hornswoggle people into accepting being ruled. It's not valid now, and it never was.

Beg to differ. They went to their Colonies, spoke to people, AND what were the Federalist Papers about?

 

[emilynghiem]

The fact that you're a citizen using the services of the society you pay taxes.

Wrong. I am forced to pay for those services. It's not voluntary. I can't choose not to pay sales tax or income tax.

If you would read through the thread you would find that all these idiotic arguments have already been addressed.

The Constitution is in no way a contract or even a "compact," and no one living ever agreed to it. Even when it became law, only a small percentage of Americans living at the time actually consented to it.

1. it is based on natural laws that all human beings are subject to. it is a written expression to document those inherent rights and process so it can better be taught and managed to defend and protect the factors necessary such as security, petition, free speech; and checks and balances, separation of powers, equal protection of the laws, etc etc

2. if you don't want to pay under these laws, then you can barter or not use federal reserve notes to limit your interactions to what you can do freely.

you are not forced to use these systems.

I am a lot like you. If you want to be free of the system I am happy to collaborate with you to set up a domain or network to MINIMALIZE how much interaction has to be under the federal or state systems that are controlled by the elected government and voted on policies.

I believe people like us should not be harassed or punished if we want to live indpendently.

in fact, I think we should have regions and systems that are indpendent so we can choose freely and understand better how the operations work!

so this is good, not bad, to teach citizens how to govern our business independently.

And yes, I do believe we should use such model and outreach to teach people the meaning, principles and process in the Constitution, so that people agree what the rules are in order to be citizens. otherwise if people don't agree to the rules, and run up the costs for taxpayers by breaking laws and incurring debts and damages, then why should the law abiding citizens and working people have to pay for those costs of others' crimes?
why not hold each wrongdoer accountable, and have all citizens sign agreements to pay for their costs? if we held political parties financially responsible for taxes and programs and funding for their own membership base, then people could agree to their own rules.

and only the rules policies and programs that all people and parties agree to universally as public would be run by federal govt. this would limit federal govt to what it can handle, instead of huge political bureaucracies that can't be managed or policed, and would reduce the taxes where we could possibly pay for govt with the sales tax or 10 percent flat tax.

everything else can be negotiated through local parties or whatever people use to run their private programs where they CONSENT to fund those policies. localizing democracies would satisfy what all parties want: the liberals want prochoice and govt out of personal decisions, the libertarians and republicans want limited govt, the greens want sustainable systems based on grassroots cooperatives and inclusion instead of topdown oppression, the occupy and tea party both want to get rid of crony capitalism and corporate politics etc.

if everyone funded the programs they choose through their own parties or affiliations, there would not be any need for forced taxation because people would willingly contribute.
it is like investing in your own business model, or donating to your favorite charity. whateve r you believe works best, you invest your labor and income there and reduce federal taxes.
so citizens who invest in programs to take burdens off govt are rewarded with tax breaks.

if each party monitors and manages its own members per agenda, the work to facilitate the govt programs can be transferred over, where the people are motivated to fund their own political agenda, instead of fighting with govt or competing parties over differences.

 

[bripat9643]

yes and no.

1. the Constitution as a social contract between people and govt is based on natural laws, natural rights and process of human nature and relations in society and with the institution of government.

So you may be able to argue that certain technical laws originally written don't apply, but the overall spirit and meaning of the laws are the same as universal natural laws that apply to all people.

we all want to defend our free will/consent, using due process, right to petition and free speech and press to redress grievances, resolve conflicts, and promote education and information for a free and better society.

The Constitution is not a social contract. It doesn't bind me in any way whatsoever. It only binds the government. It doesn't matter what it's based on.

2. once you invoke protections under the Constitution, then you can't very well leave parts out to exclude other people protected under the same. that is unethical and inconsistent, and does not carry the full weight of the law or public authority as does enforcing the law equally for all persons.

Whose arguing that laws shouldn't be equally enforced?

that is what is wrong with politics today: people enforcing and defending parts of the Constitution for their own agenda and then conveniently leaving these out for others!

Example?

you can do this and still be protected under the Constitutional concept of due process and right to petition back and forth. but when you are equally hypocrites, then the people who are including both of you and NOT leaving one view out or another, have more authority to govern over you. the people who are truly in power and who invoke the full authority of govt are the ones who redress grievances and include all people views and interests equally. from what I have seen, it takes teams of people to do this, including people of different views and biases to make sure everyone is accommodated and no one left out.

I have no idea what your point is, but the bottom line is that no one has any legitimate authority to govern me.

we have some of that going on with this forum, so thanks for working together to pull the best ideas insights and information from everyone here, so we can be more inclusive and represent more of the diverse views out there as government is SUPPOSED to do! thanks!

Insipid raw-raw democrat propaganda. Who says government is supposed to do any of that? The theory of natural rights says government is supposed to leave you the hell alone.

End of story.

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.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes and no Hazlnut
i see it as a mutual tug of war

the people who believe in managing things through govt as the public default
want more programs protected there, and thus want the funding for it through govt

the people who believe in the private sector (businesses, churches, nonprofit schools which people can choose themselves how to fund and manage by free enterprise) will push NOT to tax working citizens and businesses to fund govt, but allow individuals and the free sector to invest more money OUTSIDE government to provide services that way

my question is: why can't people decide and pay for the parties and programs they prefer which reflect their BELIEFS? the same way we expect Muslims to pay for charity through their own community networks, and Christians and Buddhists to pay for their own programs respectively, why not with political parties?

why compete to force funding and control one way or the other?
why not give equal choice? isn't equal protection under the law a governmental standard?

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.

Your first paragraph answers your own questions.

"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."

**What happens when the social-welfare programs can't keep up with the cost of living and medical costs??

**Why can't they? -- Wealthy people have lobbied for lowering of income tax rates and more special loopholes and rates, thereby lowering tax revenue that would normally go to those programs.

 

[The T]

yes and no.

1. the Constitution as a social contract between people and govt is based on natural laws, natural rights and process of human nature and relations in society and with the institution of government.

So you may be able to argue that certain technical laws originally written don't apply, but the overall spirit and meaning of the laws are the same as universal natural laws that apply to all people.

we all want to defend our free will/consent, using due process, right to petition and free speech and press to redress grievances, resolve conflicts, and promote education and information for a free and better society.

The Constitution is not a social contract. It doesn't bind me in any way whatsoever. It only binds the government. It doesn't matter what it's based on.

2. once you invoke protections under the Constitution, then you can't very well leave parts out to exclude other people protected under the same. that is unethical and inconsistent, and does not carry the full weight of the law or public authority as does enforcing the law equally for all persons.

Whose arguing that laws shouldn't be equally enforced?



Example?



I have no idea what your point is, but the bottom line is that no one has any legitimate authority to govern me.



Insipid raw-raw democrat propaganda. Who says government is supposed to do any of that? The theory of natural rights says government is supposed to leave you the hell alone.

End of story.

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.

It DOES bind YOU as a citizen to protect and defend it...and YOUR LIBERTY. Do the Founders words fall silent? Really?

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Bripat: thanks again to you Rottweiler, Joe Intense and others on a critical
conversation I think everyone should think and talk through to reach an understanding
of the diversity of viewpoints in order to include them all without discrimination.

First of all, I think I am talking about the spirit of the Constitutional laws while you are talking about the literal letter of the laws. I agree with you that these apply to define and limit the federal govt. so technically that isn't you or me.

What I am talking about it by the natural laws that govern human nature,
the "law of reciprocity" still applies

If you want free speech, you enforce that for yourself and others equally.
Same with due process, right to petition, equal protection and representation
or what I call INCLUSION since I see so much bullying and exclusion/coercion these days.

in that sense the PRINCIPLES in the Bill of Rights and fourteenth amendment are spelling out natural laws that all of us as human beings are governed by and under.

if we enforce these, then they are respected for us.
that is how I see people being the government or the authority derived from our consent.
this is what it means for laws to be a social contract or agreement between people as individuals and collectively in relationship under laws or governmental statutes.

maybe bripat it is better to start with what you do believe in, what you do agree to follow and use that language instead.

the minimal language I use for people being self governing
free speech is your judicial power to speak and interpret by your beliefs and judgment
free press is your right to educate, legislate write out laws or contracts or policies you agree to follow and share information to communicate to conduct your business
free exercise is religion covers your free will to act according to your agreed conditions
right to assemble peacefully and petition covers your right to security to due process and redress grievances and resolve conflicts to defend your interests and not impose on others either

the fourteenth amendment concept of equal protection under law enforces the idea of defending these rights, processes and freedoms for all people equally

the only problem I run into with this system is where people want to defend their rights but exclude or impose on others. so most of the process is conflict resolution and teaching people how to prevent from imposing so we all do a better job of defending these principles consistently. the more we do so inclusively, this strengthens the integrity and authority so we can better check against abuses by individuals or by groups collectively.

we have to start by resolving these issues among individuals, then we can better unite in enforcing these principles among larger groups and correct collective institutions in turn.

these are the terms I use

what terms do you use to describe how you see governance and laws
and what you agree to follow?

I use the Bill of Rights, Fourteenth Amendment and Code of Ethics for Government service
and that usually checks or corrects against most types of grievances or abuses

yes and no.

1. the Constitution as a social contract between people and govt is based on natural laws, natural rights and process of human nature and relations in society and with the institution of government.

So you may be able to argue that certain technical laws originally written don't apply, but the overall spirit and meaning of the laws are the same as universal natural laws that apply to all people.

we all want to defend our free will/consent, using due process, right to petition and free speech and press to redress grievances, resolve conflicts, and promote education and information for a free and better society.

The Constitution is not a social contract. It doesn't bind me in any way whatsoever. It only binds the government. It doesn't matter what it's based on.

2. once you invoke protections under the Constitution, then you can't very well leave parts out to exclude other people protected under the same. that is unethical and inconsistent, and does not carry the full weight of the law or public authority as does enforcing the law equally for all persons.

Whose arguing that laws shouldn't be equally enforced?



Example?



I have no idea what your point is, but the bottom line is that no one has any legitimate authority to govern me.



Insipid raw-raw democrat propaganda. Who says government is supposed to do any of that? The theory of natural rights says government is supposed to leave you the hell alone.

End of story.

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.