The "social contract" that doesn't exist

[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.



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.

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

No it doesn't. How did I incur this obligation?

 

[The T]

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.



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.

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

No it doesn't. How did I incur this obligation?

It is unspoken...but I am reminded of Ben Franklin's words when asked after the vote between the Articles Of Confederation and the Constitution, where the Constitution won out as he was asked what we had...

and he replied "A Republic, if you can keep it..."

It was a warning to ALL citizens as to what they had been given, and their DUTY to keep it intact.

It WAS in a manner of speaking a CONTRACT...between the Government, and the Governed.

And as to what the Founder's risked through the Revolution, and 11 years after the giant debate of Democracy or Republic...and all that ensued, the result...what we have NOW?

I think it IS (or was) a Contract that has been breached.

My $.02 worth. Take it or leave it. But I speak from principle (NOT saying that you don't. YOU have good points).

 

[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. 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?

That's proof that the Constitution is a contract?

 

[The T]

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?

That's proof that the Constitution is a contract?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8464441-post522.html

And actually? YES it is a contract. And it (used to) favor the Individual American...Kind of MOOT now, isn't it?

 

[P@triot]

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.

"The way I read it" - you can't even convince yourself junior...

It's very clear that you know it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does not say "the right of the well regulated militia". You're simply just toting the liberal line because you think you can get under conservatives skin by doing so.

Now - I do realize there are some conservatives who want to "interpret" the Constitution. There are bad eggs in any bunch. But sadly, all liberals want to "interpret" the Constitution because it prevents them from doing what they desire most: imposing their will on others.

I noticed how you skipped over the undeniable fact that lower laws such as the speed limit are not "open to interpretation" and that a law "open to interpretation" is a law which cannot be obeyed.

One more thing - it's pretty obvious that even you know Scalia is unquestionably the greatest justice to ever sit on the Supreme Court because he does exactly what justices were intended to do - set aside their personal feelings and unbiasedly enforce the United States Constitution. The fact that you claim that courts have actually "interpreted" the 2nd Amendment as being for a well-regulated militia kind of proves that you are in fact a troll as I suspected. If that were the case, Washington D.C., Illinois, and the rest of the unconstitutional bans on firearms would never have been over turned as none of the populations in either cases were "well-regulated militias". In an attempt to be a troll, you're attempting to prevent the why and use it as the what. It's quite transparent and exceptionally weak. Is that really the best you are capable of?

 

[JoeB131]

[

"The way I read it" - you can't even convince yourself junior...

It's very clear that you know it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It does not say "the right of the well regulated militia". You're simply just toting the liberal line because you think you can get under conservatives skin by doing so.

Now - I do realize there are some conservatives who want to "interpret" the Constitution. There are bad eggs in any bunch. But sadly, all liberals want to "interpret" the Constitution because it prevents them from doing what they desire most: imposing their will on others.

I noticed how you skipped over the undeniable fact that lower laws such as the speed limit are not "open to interpretation" and that a law "open to interpretation" is a law which cannot be obeyed.

One more thing - it's pretty obvious that even you know Scalia is unquestionably the greatest justice to ever sit on the Supreme Court because he does exactly what justices were intended to do - set aside their personal feelings and unbiasedly enforce the United States Constitution. The fact that you claim that courts have actually "interpreted" the 2nd Amendment as being for a well-regulated militia kind of proves that you are in fact a troll as I suspected. If that were the case, Washington D.C., Illinois, and the rest of the unconstitutional bans on firearms would never have been over turned as none of the populations in either cases were "well-regulated militias". In an attempt to be a troll, you're attempting to prevent the why and use it as the what. It's quite transparent and exceptionally weak. Is that really the best you are capable of?

Scalia is a total ******* mutant. A complete idiot.

And sorry, man, if the majority of the people say, "You can't own a gun because you are batshit crazy", that's kind of the end of the discussion.

Most of us are sick and tired of watching our children get wheeled out in body bags because the gun manufacturers have convinced you fruitloops that crazy people have a "right" to guns.

 

[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.

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?

Exactly. If you read Bripat's post without having some background, you would think he was saying the Constitution is invalid, but I don't think that was his intent.

The reason it took the Founders eleven long, often contentious years to forge the document that became our Constitution was purely because they were representing all the people. The concepts of self governance had to be taught sufficiently in order for people to understand and appreciate and adopt it as their own ideology. Many of the landed elite wanted no part of a break with England and saw that as a disastrous course to take. And they were fully heard. We have all manner of letters and transcripts of speech after speech after speech delivered by the Founders and their supporters as they informed the people of the concepts and the thought processes that were going into them.

The concerns and determination for self governance were heard from the slave states and the larger anti-slavery crowd and that was worked out to neither condone slavery nor forbid it where it already existed. Self governance requires that we allow people to disagree and organize their societies differently, and that rationale was what got the Constitution past the anti-slavery factions. And we can go down issue by issue, conviction by conviction, religious concern after religious concern all that was included in the debates and discussion and included in the final product.

By the time the Constitution was signed, even without benefit of the electronic media, we probaby had the best informed population that the nation has ever enjoyed.

Social contract is the means by which people mutually agree on how to organize, form, and manage the society they live in to maximum benefit. It is the means by which the self governed administer the societies they live in. Those who arrive in that society subsequently are expect to adhere to the social contract that has already been formed.

But the Constitution is about as beautiful an example of social contract as you will find in this world.

And the concept of self governance persists in America to this day as it exists in almost no other place. We are losing it piece by piece as many are determined to return us to a government who will rule us and order how we are to think, believe, and live our lives. But there's an awful lot of us yet who are resisting that with everything we have.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

No it doesn't. How did I incur this obligation?

Dear Bripat:
It's mostly a spirit of the Law argument:

1. under natural laws, you get the justice you give. this is the Golden Rule of Reciprocity. Equal Justice under laws that everyone is under as a human being.
if you live by retributive justice, you get that in return.
If you live by equal justice, you get that in return.
If you live by restorative justice, you get that in return.

if you believe in live and let live, if you don't impose on others and don't allow them to impose on you or others, then you get the same

2. if you agree to live under military and govt protection and privileges,
then indirectly whatever the costs of these services you use then you are obliged to.

if you pay taxes then you are responsible for what your taxes pay for.

Again this is just natural law. If I go to someone's house and eat their food and use their restroom, it is "natural law" to follow the rules of that person's household.
To take my shoes off if they ask. Not put my feet on their furniture.
Not cuss at their dinner table in front of their kids. etc.

if you don't agree to their rules, then don't go to their house.

same with living in the US and in society in general.
you respect people's consent and culture and ask others to do the same for you.

Bripat, if you do or do not agree to some of the rules,
such as people who don't agree with criminalizing "gay marriage or abortion or
certain drug use" then you bring up those issues and work them out
so you do have a mutual agreement. That is natural law.
if you don't work it out, then conflict arises and one side oppresses or protests
the other. this can be civil or it can get violent.
so if you know you don't agree in advance, by natural laws of due process
and redressing grievances, you bring up these conflicts and change the policies!

Bripat I am glad you have this position.
I would be happy to work with you to
spell out the contract you do or don't agree to,
and work out the issues so the taxation and legal requirements are truly resolved
and agreed upon.
not just suppressed because you feel forced and don't have a choice!

I think this is VERY important for citizenship.
I think all districts should spell out what is the agreement, the
ordinance of behavior and responsibility for costs services and facilities
for living in that district, and make sure all residents agree to the same rules.

we would cut down on crime and violence
and people would organize their own districts
based on the policies they agree to follow and fund.

instant localized democracy and direct representation
and no more of this bullying BS between parties trying to
take over govt to make sure the other group doesn't.

go write out your own agreed policies and budgets
and administration of representative structure
and don't impose on anyone else!

 

[The T]

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?

Exactly. If you read Bripat's post without having some background, you would think he was saying the Constitution is invalid, but I don't think that was his intent.

The reason it took the Founders eleven long, often contentious years to forge the document that became our Constitution was purely because they were representing all the people. The concepts of self governance had to be taught sufficiently in order for people to understand and appreciate and adopt it as their own ideology. Many of the landed elite wanted no part of a break with England and saw that as a disastrous course to take. And they were fully heard. We have all manner of letters and transcripts of speech after speech after speech delivered by the Founders and their supporters as they informed the people of the concepts and the thought processes that were going into them.

The concerns and determination for self governance were heard from the slave states and the larger anti-slavery crowd and that was worked out to neither condone slavery nor forbid it where it already existed. Self governance requires that we allow people to disagree and organize their societies differently, and that rationale was what got the Constitution past the anti-slavery factions. And we can go down issue by issue, conviction by conviction, religious concern after religious concern all that was included in the debates and discussion and included in the final product.

By the time the Constitution was signed, even without benefit of the electronic media, we probaby had the best informed population that the nation has ever enjoyed.

Social contract is the means by which people mutually agree on how to organize, form, and manage the society they live in to maximum benefit. It is the means by which the self governed administer the societies they live in. Those who arrive in that society subsequently are expect to adhere to the social contract that has already been formed.

But the Constitution is about as beautiful an example of social contract as you will find in this world.

And the concept of self governance persists in America to this day as it exists in almost no other place. We are losing it piece by piece as many are determined to return us to a government who will rule us and order how we are to think, believe, and live our lives. But there's an awful lot of us yet who are resisting that with everything we have.

Agreed. Can't say anything else.(But here goes)... It's refreshing to know people on here get it...KNOW the Founding...Shame it's being re-written by revisionists, (Government educators),and their fruits of their revisionism shows sorely on these boards. Damned shame.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Exactly. If you read Bripat's post without having some background, you would think he was saying the Constitution is invalid, but I don't think that was his intent.

The reason it took the Founders eleven long, often contentious years to forge the document that became our Constitution was purely because they were representing all the people. The concepts of self governance had to be taught sufficiently in order for people to understand and appreciate and adopt it as their own ideology. Many of the landed elite wanted no part of a break with England and saw that as a disastrous course to take. And they were fully heard. We have all manner of letters and transcripts of speech after speech after speech delivered by the Founders and their supporters as they informed the people of the concepts and the thought processes that were going into them.

The concerns and determination for self governance were heard from the slave states and the larger anti-slavery crowd and that was worked out to neither condone slavery nor forbid it where it already existed. Self governance requires that we allow people to disagree and organize their societies differently, and that rationale was what got the Constitution past the anti-slavery factions. And we can go down issue by issue, conviction by conviction, religious concern after religious concern all that was included in the debates and discussion and included in the final product.

By the time the Constitution was signed, even without benefit of the electronic media, we probaby had the best informed population that the nation has ever enjoyed.

Social contract is the means by which people mutually agree on how to organize, form, and manage the society they live in to maximum benefit. It is the means by which the self governed administer the societies they live in. Those who arrive in that society subsequently are expect to adhere to the social contract that has already been formed.

But the Constitution is about as beautiful an example of social contract as you will find in this world.

And the concept of self governance persists in America to this day as it exists in almost no other place. We are losing it piece by piece as many are determined to return us to a government who will rule us and order how we are to think, believe, and live our lives. But there's an awful lot of us yet who are resisting that with everything we have.

Sorry, but I disagree. The Constitution is not a social contract. It only binds the government. It doesn't bind me in any way whatsoever.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

CEOs have a responsibility to maximize profits for shareholders. But companies have not always seen themselves as serving stockholders first. The big change began with Milton Friedman when he wrote “There is only one social responsibility of business to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.” Friedman argued that corporations were taking on too many “social responsibilities": providing jobs, helping to fight pollution and reducing discrimination in society. In their eyes, the model was inefficient and unfair to shareholders. There was an obsession with shareholder value maximization. The approach indeed made Wall Street happy. The stock market soared twelvefold in the '80s and '90s.

But, a fast way to fast profits is cutting jobs and wages and so the “corporate social contract” began to erode in the 1980s. This social contract between employer and employee basically said, ‘If you come to work every day, and you work hard, and you give the corporation a measure of loyalty, we in turn will take care of you, often for the rest of your life, by extending healthcare and generous pensions to retirees. All that changed. Real wages flattened. Job security became more tenuous and pensions and healthcare benefits eroded. This idea of maximizing shareholder value is an important reason why all that happened.


A relevant case study is General Electric in the 1980s, run by Jack Welch. Back in the 1950s, GE like many companies at the time put workers over shareholders. Under Welch, the firm downsized more than 100,000 workers in five years. GE’s actions spawned a lot more similar type of aggressive cost restructuring across industrial America in the late '80s and through the 1990s. Fair or not, Welch became the face of maximizing shareholder value. Other executives followed suit. Over the years, these aggressive shareholders and practices took on different names: corporate raiders, leveraged buyouts, activist investors. But corporations' efforts to maximize profits at all cost also led directly to scandals including Enron, the BP oil spill and the 2007-08 financial crisis.


How shareholders jumped to first in line for profits

 

[sealybobo]

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?

Exactly. If you read Bripat's post without having some background, you would think he was saying the Constitution is invalid, but I don't think that was his intent.

The reason it took the Founders eleven long, often contentious years to forge the document that became our Constitution was purely because they were representing all the people. The concepts of self governance had to be taught sufficiently in order for people to understand and appreciate and adopt it as their own ideology. Many of the landed elite wanted no part of a break with England and saw that as a disastrous course to take. And they were fully heard. We have all manner of letters and transcripts of speech after speech after speech delivered by the Founders and their supporters as they informed the people of the concepts and the thought processes that were going into them.

The concerns and determination for self governance were heard from the slave states and the larger anti-slavery crowd and that was worked out to neither condone slavery nor forbid it where it already existed. Self governance requires that we allow people to disagree and organize their societies differently, and that rationale was what got the Constitution past the anti-slavery factions. And we can go down issue by issue, conviction by conviction, religious concern after religious concern all that was included in the debates and discussion and included in the final product.

By the time the Constitution was signed, even without benefit of the electronic media, we probaby had the best informed population that the nation has ever enjoyed.

Social contract is the means by which people mutually agree on how to organize, form, and manage the society they live in to maximum benefit. It is the means by which the self governed administer the societies they live in. Those who arrive in that society subsequently are expect to adhere to the social contract that has already been formed.

But the Constitution is about as beautiful an example of social contract as you will find in this world.

And the concept of self governance persists in America to this day as it exists in almost no other place. We are losing it piece by piece as many are determined to return us to a government who will rule us and order how we are to think, believe, and live our lives. But there's an awful lot of us yet who are resisting that with everything we have.

Agreed. Can't say anything else.(But here goes)... It's refreshing to know people on here get it...KNOW the Founding...Shame it's being re-written by revisionists, (Government educators),and their fruits of their revisionism shows sorely on these boards. Damned shame.

You stupid American workers don't even get a seat at the table.

Whom do companies serve? One obvious answer is: their shareholders. But a longer view of the question suggests that has not always been the case. Today, if you run a publicly traded corporation you work for your shareholders. Period. This became the dominant model in America in the 70’s and 80’s but in Europe, by contrast, corporate boards balanced the interests of various constituencies, including workers, managers and investors.

In Europe, the notion of who controls is more of a joint affair between these big, inside investors, management and, especially in countries like Germany, the workers also have a large seat at the table. They kind of manage it together in a more cooperative, consensual way, whereas in American it is much more a shareholder-dominated board at this point. But even in the United States, the pendulum has swung back and forth in the 20thcentury. After the Great Depression, many large corporations, including General Electric, General Motors and IBM, emphasized their duties to multiple stakeholders: customers, suppliers, creditors and workers. Often, shareholders were described as a last priority. But since the 1970s and '80s, shareholders have leapfrogged back to the top and this is what has led to the widening gap between the rich and the poor. Corporations have broken the social contract. Started with Jack Walsh who every year laid off his bottom 10% of workers. No matter how good the company did, every year he let go of the bottom 10%.


The first corporations — way back — had social purpose

 

[JoeNormal]

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's called implied consent. Look into it.

 

[Norman]

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's called implied consent. Look into it.

No... it is not.

 

[P@triot]

In Europe, the notion of who controls is more of a joint affair between these big, inside investors, management and, especially in countries like Germany, the workers also have a large seat at the table. They kind of manage it together in a more cooperative, consensual way, whereas in American it is much more a shareholder-dominated board at this point.

The first corporations — way back — had social purpose

And how is that working out? All we ever hear from the left is the "European model". Well - if Europe is so great, how come none of you go live there? Greece completely collapsed under liberalism. They have experienced horrific riots, the government has shut down banks and only allowed citizens to withdrawal $70 per week from their bank accounts, etc. France is on the verge of that exact same collapse, and both Spain and France aren't too far behind France. It's a failed model. Why would you want to mirror a failed model?

 

[P@triot]

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's called implied consent. Look into it.

"Implied Consent" only applies to actual agreements. We have made not such agreement. Try again. And make more of an effort this time.

 

[JoeNormal]

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's called implied consent. Look into it.

"Implied Consent" only applies to actual agreements. We have made not such agreement. Try again. And make more of an effort this time.

I'm guessing that you never took a civics class when you were in school.

 

[Norman]

 

[P@triot]

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's called implied consent. Look into it.

"Implied Consent" only applies to actual agreements. We have made not such agreement. Try again. And make more of an effort this time.

I'm guessing that you never took a civics class when you were in school.

I'm guessing I could run circles around you when it comes to government and the U.S. Constitution. Scratch that. I'm not guessing. I guarantee it.

 

[P@triot]

It's called implied consent. Look into it.

I would like to be the first to sincerely thank you for your "implied consent" to **** your wife. When she brings "rape" charges - I'm simply going to show the courts your posts about "implied consent" and inform them that both she and you granted me "implied consent".