The "social contract" that doesn't exist

[Wry Catcher]

Bri pat is sooooooooo stupid he is on record saying things were better for man in the days of kings and queens.

he is as dumb as a box of round rocks

Spot on!

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

Yeah, you're right. Those guys 250 years ago didn't create it:

Plato on the social contract

The first known exposition of social contract theory was made by Plato in his short dialogue Crito.[wp] In the dialogue, Socrates is jailed and about to be executed, but when offered a chance to be sprung from jail, refuses it by saying, essentially, "I made my bed and now I have to lie in it."

The dialogue contains this description of social contract theory, in which Socrates assumes the voice of "the Laws":

“”We further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him.

How does that prove that the social contract isn't a myth?

When did I agree to this so-called "contract?"

By one theory, each time you obey a law, each time you vote, when you exercise you right to rant against the government and when you safely leave you home and arrive at your destination aided by traffic laws, DOT rules and controls agreed upon by civilized citizens (speed limits, stop signs and other rules of the road).

Since there are a very few (albeit many loud) Libertarians, and they have been around as a political party since the 1970's and never won a national election, why do you think 'your' ideas will ever win the battle of ideas. Our system of governance has been around for more than two centuries.

What makes you think you know better than the generations of Americans who preceded you? Nothing you have ever posted suggests you're well educated or intelligent enough to posit a theory credible for anyone but the few others like you to believe.

Prove me wrong. [I agree, you are as dumb as a box of rocks]

 

[BluesMistress]

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.

great post and 100% accurate. I can't wait for bleeding heart libtards to weigh in and claim that "you just don't care about the "people". and "the govt owes everyone a 'living wage' "

liberalism is clearly a mental disease. the libs on USMB prove it every day

Not only do the price of burgers go up 20% but everyone else gets a 20% increase.

If I'm making $15 an hour and they increase min wage to $15 an hour then I get a wage increase because I'm NOT a min wage worker...As does everyone else...Whatever the min wage increase is I and others also get a wage increase. Nothing changes except the numbers.
Those working for min wage will only fall behind again because they are min wage workers. Educated people with job skills have worked hard to receive wage increases.
It only causes inflation...Everything goes up for everyone.
Min wage job should NOT be considered a career. It's supposed to be a 1st job to learn how to do a job.

99 weeks will easily get anyone an AA degree with job skills. Community College has 2 year programs that serve the community to fill jobs that need educated employees. They are good paying jobs. These programs often lead to a lifelong profession.

52 weeks without a job is a Clue that your job is Not coming back...Enroll in a Jobs program. I'm all for this being paid for instead of sitting around waiting for a check in the mail.

 

[norwegen]

Over 60% of the British Colonists disagreed with the FF.

What did they disagree with? The social compact or revolution?

In the 1770s, the Americans were Whigs (the Tories were either emigrating or keeping silent). They were Enlightenment thinkers who were witnessing the erosion of liberties in England only decades after the Glorious Revolution (when much of the king's authority was stripped from him and bestowed on the Parliament). They were excited about establishing their own republics, and began seating their own legislatures in the 1770s. The federation seated its first legislature in 1774. IOW, they were dismissing the Parliament; overwhelmingly, they wanted to govern themselves.

They may not have been overwhelmingly in favor of war, but when they dismissed the king in 1776, they knew that the shots fired a year earlier in Lexington sent a very clear message: war was on.

So since 1776, being completely independent and students of the Scriptures, history, and the natural law, they changed the very definition of social compact. No longer was it an agreement between the magistracy and the people, or the rulers and the ruled. It was now an agreement among individuals. That is, constitutions are creations of the people.

The Articles of Confederation, and later, the Constitution, were created as results of conventions of the people. Not legislators or aristocratic heirs. And, on a national level, since we haven't had such a convention since the Philadelphia Convention, we have no agreement with each other regarding such issues as minimum wage, welfare, and other liberal policies. Our social compact doesn't include these things. These liberal laws are illegitimate.

 

[norwegen]

The contract works both ways, between the government and citizen.

Not so. Not in America. It's an agreement among the people. In the revolutionary era, conventions of the people ("townhalls") were commonplace. Such conventions were even placed at the national level, once in 1787.

When a government is formed, people decide which powers they will give the government.

When government is formed, yes. That is, when people create it. And then, yes, they decide among themselves the powers to impart to it.

 

[SnowTiger]

Victor Hugo on the Social Contract
(One of the best summaries of Rousseau I've ever read)

"From a political point of view, there is a single principle: the sovereignty of man over himself. This sovereignty of me over myself is called Liberty. Where two or more of these sovereignties combine, the state begins. But there is no abdication in that association. Each sovereignty concedes a certain quantity of itself, for the purpose of forming the common right. This quantity is the same for all of us. This identity in concession which each makes to all is called Equality. Common right is nothing other than the protection of all, shining on the right of each. This protection of all over each is called Fraternity. The point of intersection of all these assembled sovereignties is called Society. As this intersection is a junction, the point is the knot known as the social bond. Some call it the contract, which amounts to the same thing, since the word contract is etymologically formed with the idea of a bond. Let us agree on what equality is: as liberty is the summit, so equality is the base. Equality, citizens, is not merely surface vegetation, a society of great blades of grass and tiny oaks; a community of jealousies cancelling each other out. In terms of civics, equality is all aptitudes having the same opportunity; politically, it is all votes having the same weight; religiously, it is all consciences having of the same right. Equality has a voice: free and compulsory education. The right to the alphabet, that is where the beginning must be made. Primary school compulsory for all, secondary school open to all, that is the law. From equal education comes a society of equals. Yes, instruction! light! light! Everything comes from light, and everything returns to it. ”

 

[Truthmatters]

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.

great post and 100% accurate. I can't wait for bleeding heart libtards to weigh in and claim that "you just don't care about the "people". and "the govt owes everyone a 'living wage' "

liberalism is clearly a mental disease. the libs on USMB prove it every day

Not only do the price of burgers go up 20% but everyone else gets a 20% increase.

If I'm making $15 an hour and they increase min wage to $15 an hour then I get a wage increase because I'm NOT a min wage worker...As does everyone else...Whatever the min wage increase is I and others also get a wage increase. Nothing changes except the numbers.
Those working for min wage will only fall behind again because they are min wage workers. Educated people with job skills have worked hard to receive wage increases.
It only causes inflation...Everything goes up for everyone.
Min wage job should NOT be considered a career. It's supposed to be a 1st job to learn how to do a job.

99 weeks will easily get anyone an AA degree with job skills. Community College has 2 year programs that serve the community to fill jobs that need educated employees. They are good paying jobs. These programs often lead to a lifelong profession.

52 weeks without a job is a Clue that your job is Not coming back...Enroll in a Jobs program. I'm all for this being paid for instead of sitting around waiting for a check in the mail.

and more money goes into the economy due to more money being in the hands of people who SPEND every dime they make.


that is good for the economy

 

[bripat9643]

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

Wrong. The social contract is a myth.

It's simple- we are born into it. It is what makes us decide to surrender certain rights to gain protections of government. (Basic minimal- we agree not to kill anyone so that we ourselves may not be killed)

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

The contract works both ways, between the government and citizen.

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

It's actually, the way it was intended by Rousseau, a very small-government philosophy.

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

When a government is formed, people decide which powers they will give the government. The government will naturally want to expand and the social contract prevents this unless the expansion is the direct will of the people.

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

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

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

 

[bripat9643]

Good, then there are many countries in Africa who are eager to grant you citizenship.
Don't mind the bullets flying. Civil wars are commonplace, as many as 15-20 going on at one time.

What is your imbecile babbling supposed to prove? What does the fact that there are plenty of shitty places in the world to live prove? How does that prove the existence of some mythical contract I supposedly agreed to?

Do you have the time to understand and vote on every issue that ever comes up?
Suppose all levels of Civil governing ended, would you actually be able to attend to EVERY matter that came up that would even remotely affect you?

How does that prove the social contract exists? Majority vote doesn't count as any kind of consent from the people who vote "no."

 

[bripat9643]

Good, then there are many countries in Africa who are eager to grant you citizenship.
Don't mind the bullets flying. Civil wars are commonplace, as many as 15-20 going on at one time. [/B]

What is your imbecile babbling supposed to prove? What does the fact that there are plenty of shitty places in the world to live prove? How does that prove the existence of some mythical contract I supposedly agreed to?

I responded to your comment that you are an anarchist.

Your response was nothing but an infantile rant. It had nothing to do with what I posted.

The Socratic Method is the way in which law schools teach their students to become lawyers in this country, and Socrates first introduced the concept of the social contract.

And you think your post was an example of the Socratic method? ROFL!

Or perhaps you believe that because Socrates invented the Socratic method that his opinions about government must be true. That's also obvious bullshit.

I suggest you at least get off your fat lazy ass and Google the social compact/contract and then you may not look so fucking stupid on this thread.....and all the others, too.

I suggest you post some logic or facts that actually support your claim rather than nothing but a stream of infantile ad hominems.

 

[bripat9643]

Bri pat is sooooooooo stupid he is on record saying things were better for man in the days of kings and queens.

he is as dumb as a box of round rocks

I said government was less oppressive in those days. That doesn't mean everything was better, douchebag.

 

[bripat9643]

The "social contract" that does exist

social contract or social compact
1. (Philosophy) (in the theories of Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and others) an agreement, entered into by individuals, that results in the formation of the state or of organized society, the prime motive being the desire for protection, which entails the surrender of some or all personal liberties

Social contract theory - definition of Social contract theory by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

So where is it, Fakey?

Prove it exists.

 

[Clementine]

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.

So true.

And even if the left managed to raise the minimum, those folks would still enjoy a subsidized life, courtesy of the tax payers. That part won't change.

It's hard to imagine child starving with all the aid out there. They get free school breakfasts, lunches and now have food sent home for dinner. It's called backpack meals. They also receive WIC, food stamps and we still have food shelters where they get free groceries. Many polled admitted that their children were eating two breakfasts and often two dinners. And then the government sounds the alarms because children are too fat. They are puzzled as to why this problem exists, even as they seek to increase the benefits for the poor.

What is poor these days in America? Only having one television, one car and one free Obamaphone?

They have their rent and utilities subsidized. Many actually do live better than the tax payers supporting them. Many receive free or cheap health care now while those picking up the tab couldn't afford as good of a plan as the welfare crowd. Many can't afford any health care plan now.

Every time the liberals come up with another freebie, the rest of us suffer. Wealth from middle class is already redistributed to a near breaking point. How much more can we handle before we're all in line at the welfare office? Isn't that the real goal anyway?

How many of you here started out with a minimum wage job? I sure did. Of course, I have a high school diploma and worked my way through college so I was able to find much better paying jobs as the years went by. I got raises. Why is a 40 year-old expecting to raise a bunch of children on a minimum wage job and why doesn't he/she ever get raises or find better jobs? That is the real question. The liberals simple view is that the only way people can better their lives is if someone gives them more. They have no faith in people and they've convinced many that it's impossible to improve their lot in life without government. This couldn't be further from the truth, but decades of promising more and more handouts has spoiled people and now they do nothing but wait for government to come through. Had they made better decisions and done more on their own, they'd be so much better off now.

Raising minimum wage will increase costs and decrease the number of available jobs. Are the current minimum wage earners prepared to give their jobs up so their co-workers can make more? I hope so.

I wonder if this is another push by the liberals to create more government dependents. They keep killing jobs and hurting the economy in hopes of forcing more people to just give up. I really think that is the goal. Ask every past tyrant and they'll tell you how important it is to convince the population that doing things for the greater good is the best cover for pushing oppressive laws through.

If liberal policies actually worked, we would have won the war on poverty. Of course, we didn't because the ones in poverty didn't help with the fight.

We would see the elderly secure in their retirement instead of depending on measly checks each month and living under the threat of social security going bankrupt.

We would see more people insured now instead of less. They could have accomplished that by allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines the way auto insurance companies have done for years. Competition brings down costs. Government interference raises costs. The Republican plan for health care reform included competition. Shame the liberal media didn't report on that or even acknowledge that several plans were submitted by the Republicans.

The liberal plan to deal with illegal immigration is to change it so it's not illegal anymore.

The liberal plan to fix the economy is to break it and then create a socialist one to replace it.

Liberals know what they are doing when they come up with these handouts. They are pandering to their dependents to get votes and the end game is bringing down capitalism and turning the country into a socialist cesspool.

The minimum wage argument is always popular with liberals and they need something to deflect from the Obamacare disaster and all the other scandals that they would rather not discuss. This gives the media something to focus on besides the widespread misery caused by the left's policies.

 

[Clementine]

Bri pat is sooooooooo stupid he is on record saying things were better for man in the days of kings and queens.

he is as dumb as a box of round rocks

I said government was less oppressive in those days. That doesn't mean everything was better, douchebag.

You'll have to ignore the douchebag because of his/her obvious problem with reading comprehension. The liberal had to put words in your mouth since what you were saying was too complicated.

 

[norwegen]

The "social contract" that does exist

social contract or social compact
1. (Philosophy) (in the theories of Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, and others) an agreement, entered into by individuals, that results in the formation of the state or of organized society, the prime motive being the desire for protection, which entails the surrender of some or all personal liberties

Social contract theory - definition of Social contract theory by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

So where is it, Fakey?

Prove it exists.

I would argue that social contracts do exist. Certainly in theory, and in some measure in practice.

We don't really have one now, though. Not since the Progressive Era. Our social contract includes a recognition of natural law. Progressives have injected positive law into our legislative process, essentially breaching the contract.

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah, you're right. Those guys 250 years ago didn't create it:

Plato on the social contract

The first known exposition of social contract theory was made by Plato in his short dialogue Crito.[wp] In the dialogue, Socrates is jailed and about to be executed, but when offered a chance to be sprung from jail, refuses it by saying, essentially, "I made my bed and now I have to lie in it."

The dialogue contains this description of social contract theory, in which Socrates assumes the voice of "the Laws":

“”We further proclaim and give the right to every Athenian, that if he does not like us when he has come of age and has seen the ways of the city, and made our acquaintance, he may go where he pleases and take his goods with him; and none of us laws will forbid him or interfere with him. Any of you who does not like us and the city, and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city, may go where he likes, and take his goods with him. But he who has experience of the manner in which we order justice and administer the State, and still remains, has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him.

How does that prove that the social contract isn't a myth?

When did I agree to this so-called "contract?"

By one theory, each time you obey a law, each time you vote, when you exercise you right to rant against the government and when you safely leave you home and arrive at your destination aided by traffic laws, DOT rules and controls agreed upon by civilized citizens (speed limits, stop signs and other rules of the road).

Well that's an imbecile theory, and it's obviously false. Who says I'm agreeing to anything by obeying a law? All I'm doing is trying to avoid going to jail. And voting also doesn't constitute consent to anything. It's simply a means of choosing a new gang of overseers. People vote out of self-defense, to prevent themselves from being looted by the hoard of moochers who want something for nothing. That is, aside from the looters, who vote so they can get their hands on other people's stuff.

Obeying traffic signals also doesn't prove a thing other than that you want to avoid getting a ticket. It certainly does constitute agreeing to pay for welfare, Social Security or all the other cons and shakedowns the government has perpetrated on us.

All your justifications are obvious nonsense. They wouldn't last two seconds in a court of law.

Since there are a very few (albeit many loud) Libertarians, and they have been around as a political party since the 1970's and never won a national election, why do you think 'your' ideas will ever win the battle of ideas. Our system of governance has been around for more than two centuries.

They will win because they are right. Few people were opposed to slavery in 1860. Nevertheless, 67 years later slavery was abolished.

What makes you think you know better than the generations of Americans who preceded you?

So the generation that believed slavery was moral and acceptable were wiser than you? Is that what you're saying?

Nothing you have ever posted suggests you're well educated or intelligent enough to make an argument credible for anyone but the few others like you to believe.

Prove me wrong.

ROFL! A numbskull like you is questioning my education and intelligence? I wouldn't even waste my time. My arguments stand on their own. I don't need some government bureaucrat to give them the stamp of approval. That's for servile minions like you.

 

[bripat9643]

Bri pat is sooooooooo stupid he is on record saying things were better for man in the days of kings and queens.

he is as dumb as a box of round rocks

Spot on!

You don't improve your credibility by congratulating TM on his opinions.

 

[bripat9643]

Over 60% of the British Colonists disagreed with the FF.

What did they disagree with? The social compact or revolution?

In the 1770s, the Americans were Whigs (the Tories were either emigrating or keeping silent). They were Enlightenment thinkers who were witnessing the erosion of liberties in England only decades after the Glorious Revolution (when much of the king's authority was stripped from him and bestowed on the Parliament). They were excited about establishing their own republics, and began seating their own legislatures in the 1770s. The federation seated its first legislature in 1774. IOW, they were dismissing the Parliament; overwhelmingly, they wanted to govern themselves.

They may not have been overwhelmingly in favor of war, but when they dismissed the king in 1776, they knew that the shots fired a year earlier in Lexington sent a very clear message: war was on.

So since 1776, being completely independent and students of the Scriptures, history, and the natural law, they changed the very definition of social compact. No longer was it an agreement between the magistracy and the people, or the rulers and the ruled. It was now an agreement among individuals. That is, constitutions are creations of the people.

The Articles of Confederation, and later, the Constitution, were created as results of conventions of the people. Not legislators or aristocratic heirs. And, on a national level, since we haven't had such a convention since the Philadelphia Convention, we have no agreement with each other regarding such issues as minimum wage, welfare, and other liberal policies. Our social compact doesn't include these things. These liberal laws are illegitimate.

Yada, yada, yada. None of that proves the so-called "social contract" is real.

It's a myth. The bottom line is that 2/3 of the population disagreed with the revolution. They didn't consent to any so-called "social contract."

 

[bripat9643]

The contract works both ways, between the government and citizen.

Not so. Not in America. It's an agreement among the people. In the revolutionary era, conventions of the people ("townhalls") were commonplace. Such conventions were even placed at the national level, once in 1787.

When a government is formed, people decide which powers they will give the government.

When government is formed, yes. That is, when people create it. And then, yes, they decide among themselves the powers to impart to it.

There is no "contract" because not everyone agrees to it. Contracts are only valid if you agree to them explicitly. that means every person who is bound by the terms has to agree to it. I have never agreed to be ruled by any existing government. In fact, no one has.

 

[Spoonman]

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.

great post and 100% accurate. I can't wait for bleeding heart libtards to weigh in and claim that "you just don't care about the "people". and "the govt owes everyone a 'living wage' "

liberalism is clearly a mental disease. the libs on USMB prove it every day

and just wait until joe burger flipper gets his 20% minimum wage increase and loses how obamacare subsidy.