The "social contract" that doesn't exist

[Norman]

You must really, really hate yourself.

Not that I've noticed.

I suppose consistent principles never were a strong suit of the liberals. That's already proven in this thread, but thanks for proving it yet again.

I've never understood why right wingers are proud of their principles. Even when they're consistent, they're consistently contemptible.

This is why liberals are always so full of hypocrisy. No principles...

People in glass houses...

You win:

 

[JoeNormal]

Not that I've noticed.

I suppose consistent principles never were a strong suit of the liberals. That's already proven in this thread, but thanks for proving it yet again.

I've never understood why right wingers are proud of their principles. Even when they're consistent, they're consistently contemptible.

This is why liberals are always so full of hypocrisy. No principles...

People in glass houses...

You win:

I think it's hilarious that right wingers think their 'principles' are anything worth bragging about.

 

[Foxfyre]

If we can get past the personal sniping for a minute. . .

The social contract is different from a legal contract that you must sign in order to be bound by it - as different as is a contract in the card game of Bridge.

The social contract conforms to the first dictionary definition below:

1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.​

Social contract is a group of patriots deciding that their government would not dictate, reward or endorse religion while at the same time the government would not interfere with the people's religious beliefs or expression of their religious faith in any way.

Social contract is a group of farmers, ranchers, and business people getting together to form a volunteer fire department that would benefit all.

Social contract is a developing community agreeing to organize a mutual water district instead of everybody operating their own wells.

Social contract is a developing community deciding it isn't practical for everybody to supervise the fire department or law enforcement officer or water district and choosing a mayor to oversee those functions on their behalf.

In every case it was the people deciding what their society would be instead of the government dictating that to them.

Others who would come along would not be party to those decisions forming the contract, but would nevertheless be beneficiary of them.

 

[JoeNormal]

If we can get past the personal sniping for a minute. . .

The social contract is different from a legal contract that you must sign in order to be bound by it - as different as is a contract in the card game of Bridge.

The social contract conforms to the first dictionary definition below:

1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.​

Social contract is a group of patriots deciding that their government would not dictate, reward or endorse religion while at the same time the government would not interfere with the people's religious beliefs or expression of their religious faith in any way.

Social contract is a group of farmers, ranchers, and business people getting together to form a volunteer fire department that would benefit all.

Social contract is a developing community agreeing to organize a mutual water district instead of everybody operating their own wells.

Social contract is a developing community deciding it isn't practical for everybody to supervise the fire department or law enforcement officer or water district and choosing a mayor to oversee those functions on their behalf.

In every case it was the people deciding what their society would be instead of the government dictating that to them.

Others who would come along would not be party to those decisions forming the contract, but would nevertheless be beneficiary of them.

Now there's a thoughtful response.

Where I might disagree with you is that our society has evolved is size, scope, sophistication and mutual dependence to the point where small bands of people are nearly irrelevant. I think that certain aspects of our society such infrastructure, health care and defense require a national level initiative.

 

[Norman]

The social contract is different from a legal contract that you must sign in order to be bound by it - as different as is a contract in the card game of Bridge.

A other beautiful way of saying that it is bullshit - and not a contract at all.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I consented to nothing, "implied" or otherwise.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

I assume you were born in America and enjoyed the freedoms and amenities that were provided thanks to the foresight and efforts of people less selfish then you. You were born into the social contract. You're welcome.

The social contract is bullshit. The fact that I may benefit from someone else does doesn't obligate me in any way. If Walmart builds a store down the street, I benefit. Does that mean Walmart can make me pay them a tax? Obviously not. If the so-called social contract is legitimate, then I should be able to create one myself. Can I set some arbitrary boundary and force everyone within to pay money to me? No? Even if I use the money to provide benefits, I still don't have the right to charge anyone for the privilege.

Obviously, you're full of shit.

 

[bripat9643]

This is my 4th language.

You can't even speak one! Thanks for the liberal tolerance though. You really hate all minorities.

What's your first language, Tard? Where have I disparaged minorities? I just don't like stupid people.

You must really, really hate yourself.

Not that I've noticed.

I suppose consistent principles never were a strong suit of the liberals. That's already proven in this thread, but thanks for proving it yet again.

I've never understood why right wingers are proud of their principles. Even when they're consistent, they're consistently contemptible.

Freedom is contemptible? You're contemptible.

 

[bripat9643]

The social contract is different from a legal contract that you must sign in order to be bound by it - as different as is a contract in the card game of Bridge.

A other beautiful way of saying that it is bullshit - and not a contract at all.

Yep, it differs in every way from a legal contract, but it's still a contract!

 

[bripat9643]

If we can get past the personal sniping for a minute. . .

The social contract is different from a legal contract that you must sign in order to be bound by it - as different as is a contract in the card game of Bridge.

The social contract conforms to the first dictionary definition below:

1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.​

Social contract is a group of patriots deciding that their government would not dictate, reward or endorse religion while at the same time the government would not interfere with the people's religious beliefs or expression of their religious faith in any way.

Social contract is a group of farmers, ranchers, and business people getting together to form a volunteer fire department that would benefit all.

Social contract is a developing community agreeing to organize a mutual water district instead of everybody operating their own wells.

Social contract is a developing community deciding it isn't practical for everybody to supervise the fire department or law enforcement officer or water district and choosing a mayor to oversee those functions on their behalf.

In every case it was the people deciding what their society would be instead of the government dictating that to them.

Others who would come along would not be party to those decisions forming the contract, but would nevertheless be beneficiary of them.

Since I didn't agree to it, the "social contract" isn't a contract. You definition requires both parties do agree to it.

 

[bripat9643]

If we can get past the personal sniping for a minute. . .

The social contract is different from a legal contract that you must sign in order to be bound by it - as different as is a contract in the card game of Bridge.

The social contract conforms to the first dictionary definition below:

1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.​

Social contract is a group of patriots deciding that their government would not dictate, reward or endorse religion while at the same time the government would not interfere with the people's religious beliefs or expression of their religious faith in any way.

Social contract is a group of farmers, ranchers, and business people getting together to form a volunteer fire department that would benefit all.

Social contract is a developing community agreeing to organize a mutual water district instead of everybody operating their own wells.

Social contract is a developing community deciding it isn't practical for everybody to supervise the fire department or law enforcement officer or water district and choosing a mayor to oversee those functions on their behalf.

In every case it was the people deciding what their society would be instead of the government dictating that to them.

Others who would come along would not be party to those decisions forming the contract, but would nevertheless be beneficiary of them.

Now there's a thoughtful response.

Where I might disagree with you is that our society has evolved is size, scope, sophistication and mutual dependence to the point where small bands of people are nearly irrelevant. I think that certain aspects of our society such infrastructure, health care and defense require a national level initiative.

The problem with your theory is that the empirical evidence shows that none of those things require the national government to get involved.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

The problem with the social contract theory is that none of us ever signed it. We kind of live by the "social contract" created over a hundred years ago so if someone is expected to honor such a contract because they are a part of society then why do they have to honor something they never agreed to in the first place?

 

[Foxfyre]

If we can get past the personal sniping for a minute. . .

The social contract is different from a legal contract that you must sign in order to be bound by it - as different as is a contract in the card game of Bridge.

The social contract conforms to the first dictionary definition below:

1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.​

Social contract is a group of patriots deciding that their government would not dictate, reward or endorse religion while at the same time the government would not interfere with the people's religious beliefs or expression of their religious faith in any way.

Social contract is a group of farmers, ranchers, and business people getting together to form a volunteer fire department that would benefit all.

Social contract is a developing community agreeing to organize a mutual water district instead of everybody operating their own wells.

Social contract is a developing community deciding it isn't practical for everybody to supervise the fire department or law enforcement officer or water district and choosing a mayor to oversee those functions on their behalf.

In every case it was the people deciding what their society would be instead of the government dictating that to them.

Others who would come along would not be party to those decisions forming the contract, but would nevertheless be beneficiary of them.

Now there's a thoughtful response.

Where I might disagree with you is that our society has evolved is size, scope, sophistication and mutual dependence to the point where small bands of people are nearly irrelevant. I think that certain aspects of our society such infrastructure, health care and defense require a national level initiative.

We can't have it both ways though. The Constitution was designed for a people who would govern themselves via social contract. The principle works even today. But for those who don't trust people to govern themselves, they usually opt for the dictatorial, authoritarian central government. And that negates the reason the Constitution was written, signed, and ratified in the first place.

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem with the social contract theory is that none of us ever signed it. We kind of live by the "social contract" created over a hundred years ago so if someone is expected to honor such a contract because they are a part of society then why do they have to honor something they never agreed to in the first place?

Social Contract has its own definition; one that may or my not require signed consent. As per the dictionary definition I provided in post #563, it is whatever those involved agree to do re any given situation.

 

[Foxfyre]

The social contract is different from a legal contract that you must sign in order to be bound by it - as different as is a contract in the card game of Bridge.

A other beautiful way of saying that it is bullshit - and not a contract at all.

Another way of saying that you don't get to define what is and is not a contract. That has already been done. Social contract is its own thing just as a legal contract is also its own thing but something very different from social contract.

 

[Foxfyre]

If we can get past the personal sniping for a minute. . .

The social contract is different from a legal contract that you must sign in order to be bound by it - as different as is a contract in the card game of Bridge.

The social contract conforms to the first dictionary definition below:

1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.​

Social contract is a group of patriots deciding that their government would not dictate, reward or endorse religion while at the same time the government would not interfere with the people's religious beliefs or expression of their religious faith in any way.

Social contract is a group of farmers, ranchers, and business people getting together to form a volunteer fire department that would benefit all.

Social contract is a developing community agreeing to organize a mutual water district instead of everybody operating their own wells.

Social contract is a developing community deciding it isn't practical for everybody to supervise the fire department or law enforcement officer or water district and choosing a mayor to oversee those functions on their behalf.

In every case it was the people deciding what their society would be instead of the government dictating that to them.

Others who would come along would not be party to those decisions forming the contract, but would nevertheless be beneficiary of them.

Since I didn't agree to it, the "social contract" isn't a contract. You definition requires both parties do agree to it.

Please read my post #563 honestly and you'll see how social contract is done between people who are present and who want to mutually accomplish something. That something may be done on a handshake or more formally but the concept is different from a legal contract. It is not the same thing as a legal contract.

And yes, those who show up later were not party to that agreement, whatever it is, but they benefit from it just the same

 

[bripat9643]

The problem with the social contract theory is that none of us ever signed it. We kind of live by the "social contract" created over a hundred years ago so if someone is expected to honor such a contract because they are a part of society then why do they have to honor something they never agreed to in the first place?

Social Contract has its own definition; one that may or my not require signed consent. As per the dictionary definition I provided in post #563, it is whatever those involved agree to do re any given situation.

If it doesn't require your consent, then it isn't a contract.

 

[bripat9643]

The social contract is different from a legal contract that you must sign in order to be bound by it - as different as is a contract in the card game of Bridge.

A other beautiful way of saying that it is bullshit - and not a contract at all.

Another way of saying that you don't get to define what is and is not a contract. That has already been done. Social contract is its own thing just as a legal contract is also its own thing but something very different from social contract.

Yes, the social contract is "its own thing." It's a myth. It's not a contract in any sense of the word.

 

[bripat9643]

If we can get past the personal sniping for a minute. . .

The social contract is different from a legal contract that you must sign in order to be bound by it - as different as is a contract in the card game of Bridge.

The social contract conforms to the first dictionary definition below:

1. an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.​

Social contract is a group of patriots deciding that their government would not dictate, reward or endorse religion while at the same time the government would not interfere with the people's religious beliefs or expression of their religious faith in any way.

Social contract is a group of farmers, ranchers, and business people getting together to form a volunteer fire department that would benefit all.

Social contract is a developing community agreeing to organize a mutual water district instead of everybody operating their own wells.

Social contract is a developing community deciding it isn't practical for everybody to supervise the fire department or law enforcement officer or water district and choosing a mayor to oversee those functions on their behalf.

In every case it was the people deciding what their society would be instead of the government dictating that to them.

Others who would come along would not be party to those decisions forming the contract, but would nevertheless be beneficiary of them.

Since I didn't agree to it, the "social contract" isn't a contract. You definition requires both parties do agree to it.

Please read my post #563 honestly and you'll see how social contract is done between people who are present and who want to mutually accomplish something. That something may be done on a handshake or more formally but the concept is different from a legal contract. It is not the same thing as a legal contract.

And yes, those who show up later were not party to that agreement, whatever it is, but they benefit from it just the same

Still wrong. You can't be bound by a contract through a majority vote unless you have already consented to be bound by a majority vote. The minority never has consented in any of the scenarios you listed.

 

[Norman]

The social contract is different from a legal contract that you must sign in order to be bound by it - as different as is a contract in the card game of Bridge.

A other beautiful way of saying that it is bullshit - and not a contract at all.

Another way of saying that you don't get to define what is and is not a contract. That has already been done. Social contract is its own thing just as a legal contract is also its own thing but something very different from social contract.

Yes, the social contract is "its own thing." It's a myth. It's not a contract in any sense of the word.

It's a justification for nut cases - particularly the government, to do whatever they want. It fails as a justification, because it doesn't exist!

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem with the social contract theory is that none of us ever signed it. We kind of live by the "social contract" created over a hundred years ago so if someone is expected to honor such a contract because they are a part of society then why do they have to honor something they never agreed to in the first place?

Social Contract has its own definition; one that may or my not require signed consent. As per the dictionary definition I provided in post #563, it is whatever those involved agree to do re any given situation.

If it doesn't require your consent, then it isn't a contract.

]

Sorry. I didn't realize all contracts required your consent.