The "social contract" that doesn't exist

[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.

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!

Social contract has nothing to do with government though it can result in various forms of government. I wish there was some way to teach the concept to people who are determined to deny that it exists.

 

[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

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.

Have it your way. I wish I could see the world as you see it--a world in which you get to dictate the language and concepts the rest of us live by. The Constitution was designed via social contract. There was a pretty substantial minority who didn't accept it either.

It does require understanding that the definition of social contract is different than the definition of legal contract because they are two entirely separate things.

 

[jillian]

And nowhere in our federal or states' constitutions does it even suggest such a thing?

All made up by lefties/liberals/socialists to increase their political power and has nothing to do with "helping" anyone but themselves.

if only you understood constitutional construction.

you should probably read the commerce clause. the general welfare clause would be helpful to you, too.

or do those parts not count because they don't suit your limited worldview?

 

[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!

Social contract has nothing to do with government though it can result in various forms of government. I wish there was some way to teach the concept to people who are determined to deny that it exists.

If you need to teach people about the existence of a contract - you are already on the wrong track.

 

[Norman]

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.

It does require understanding that the definition of social contract is different than the definition of legal contract because they are two entirely separate things.

Indeed, one of them is bullshit. That about concludes the differences.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, social contract is a fascinating concept to those willing to understand it. But there is no way to inform those who are determined to remain uninformed. I learned that a long time ago. And the "is too - is not" form of argument gets really boring really fast. But carry on all. It is a beautiful Sunday and the world turns.

 

[Norman]

Well, social contract is a fascinating concept to those willing to understand it. But there is no way to inform those who are determined to remain uninformed. I learned that a long time ago. And the "is too - is not" form of argument gets really boring really fast. But carry on all. It is a beautiful Sunday and the world turns.

Well, God of Allah is a fascinating concept to those willing to understand it. But there is no way to inform those who are determined to remain uninformed. I learned that a long time ago. And the "is too - is not" form of argument gets really boring really fast. But carry on all. It is a beautiful Sunday and the world turns.

Indeed, go pollute other places with your meaningless noise. You can substitute any term there and yet still the meaning remains - completely meaningless (which ironically is the same meaning the social contract seems to have, non-existence).

 

[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.

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

Empirical evidence? Show me one great nation that is anarchist.

 

[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.

]

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

All the ones I'm obligated to comply with require my consent. That's a fundamental part of the definition of the word "contract." It's hilarious that you don't even understand what a contract is.

 

[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.

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!

They call it the "social contract" because they are trying to con us into believe that we agreed to be ruled by this corrupt government. Therefore, we have no right to complain.

 

[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.

Empirical evidence? Show me one great nation that is anarchist.

First, define "great." Then define "nation."

 

[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.

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

Empirical evidence? Show me one great nation that is anarchist.

First, define "great." Then define "nation."

You're not going to make me define "is"? What a tool. Ok, list the anarchist countries you know of and let's see if we can detect a pattern.

 

[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.

Empirical evidence? Show me one great nation that is anarchist.

First, define "great." Then define "nation."

You're not going to make me define "is"? What a tool. Ok, list the anarchist countries you know of and let's see if we can detect a pattern.

One thing I will admit, the oppressive totalitarian states you admire are very good at invading their neighbours and slaughtering the opposition.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

There is only one social contract. It's called the constitution. But they don't like that, so they ignore the constitution, and make up some mythical 'social contract' no one has ever seen.

 

[Norman]

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.

Empirical evidence? Show me one great nation that is anarchist.

First, define "great." Then define "nation."

You're not going to make me define "is"? What a tool. Ok, list the anarchist countries you know of and let's see if we can detect a pattern.

One thing I will admit, the oppressive totalitarian states you admire are very good at invading their neighbours and slaughtering the opposition.

Evil is the specialty of socialists.

 

[Andylusion]

And nowhere in our federal or states' constitutions does it even suggest such a thing?

All made up by lefties/liberals/socialists to increase their political power and has nothing to do with "helping" anyone but themselves.

if only you understood constitutional construction.

you should probably read the commerce clause. the general welfare clause would be helpful to you, too.

or do those parts not count because they don't suit your limited worldview?

Both of which the left-wing completely redefines in terms that was never intended when they were written. The welfare clause being the larger offender between the two. You actually define the welfare clause, in exactly the way the people who wrote it, warned us against. The irony is amazing.

 

[jillian]

And nowhere in our federal or states' constitutions does it even suggest such a thing?

All made up by lefties/liberals/socialists to increase their political power and has nothing to do with "helping" anyone but themselves.

if only you understood constitutional construction.

you should probably read the commerce clause. the general welfare clause would be helpful to you, too.

or do those parts not count because they don't suit your limited worldview?

Both of which the left-wing completely redefines in terms that was never intended when they were written. The welfare clause being the larger offender between the two. You actually define the welfare clause, in exactly the way the people who wrote it, warned us against. The irony is amazing.

no. hundreds of years of caselaw defines it.

read. learn.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

When you start with erroneous assumptions, you get faulty data. Your first assumption is patently false.

If the person flipping the burger receives a 20% wage increase, the price of burgers does NOT go up 20%, so the premise is deeply flawed.

Let's say the burgers sell for $3.00. The ingredients - meat, bun, condiments, will cost 40% of that amount, so $1.20 will go to that. The labour of making the burger is approximately 10% of the cost, so $0.30 is the labour to produce the burger. If that goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up $0.06, not 20%.

My numbers aren't too far off. Fast food industry spokespeople have said that it raises their costs by about $0.10 per unit. And were are talking about one of the MOST profitable industries in the world.

My issue with earned income credits, food stamps, and other forms of wage subsidies is that middle class working Americans are seeing their income syphoned off to large highly profitable corporations, which pay less than poverty level wages to full time workers. This is the real transfer of wealth people.

ETA: In the past 20 years, these corporations have managed to pay increased costs in utilities, rents, land to build on, construction costs for outlets, materials, supplies, and local and federal taxes, and seen executive salaries rise into the tens of millions of dollars, and managed to stay in business and retain their profitability. The only cost that has not increased in the past 20 years is basic labor costs. The people who actually make the product and sell it haven't had a raise in 20 years, because middle class taxpayers have been forced to contribute to supplement their wages.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

1) The left doesn't care about what happens to a business that someone who put their life only to those to whom they can pander by blaming that business in order to get the recipients support

2) The left constantly talks about how government mandated safety nets are necessary because people doing it voluntarily didn't produce enough to meet the needs. Since they're the ones that believe such programs should be in place because voluntary donations didn't cut it, aren't they to blame since they didn't voluntarily give enough?

3) The left will say the social contract involves everyone contributing to society and that taxes are part of living in that society. When almost half don't pay income taxes that go to fund the social programs they receive, how is that contributing to society on their part?

 

[Conservative65]

And nowhere in our federal or states' constitutions does it even suggest such a thing?

All made up by lefties/liberals/socialists to increase their political power and has nothing to do with "helping" anyone but themselves.

if only you understood constitutional construction.

you should probably read the commerce clause. the general welfare clause would be helpful to you, too.

or do those parts not count because they don't suit your limited worldview?

Both of which the left-wing completely redefines in terms that was never intended when they were written. The welfare clause being the larger offender between the two. You actually define the welfare clause, in exactly the way the people who wrote it, warned us against. The irony is amazing.

no. hundreds of years of caselaw defines it.

read. learn.

If you know of a situation where someone doesn't have what they need, voluntarily provide it to them. If you can't or won't, tough shit for them. I don't owe them anything.