The "social contract" that doesn't exist

[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.

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."

The revolution and the social contract are two separate issues.

And the people are the ones who sent delegates to the Philadelphia Convention.

 

[BluesMistress]

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

LOL ~
It's No Wonder so many are stuck in low paying jobs....It's people like you believing what MSNBC is spoon feeding you.

I started at a min wage job many years ago making $2.75 an hour. That same job now pays $9.10 an hour in one of the highest paying min wage states. And still at the bottom is a minimum wage job that pay $9.10 an hour.
$2.75 an hour & gas was 55 cents a gallon. $9.10 an hour and gas is almost 4 bucks a gallon.
Homes were $15,000 now those SAME homes are $200,000 and over...

What part don't you understand...Min wage can increase to 50 bucks an hour and I am going to get an increase to 100 bucks an hour. And my company is going to charge You and everyone else to make up the difference. Inflation makes food, gas, housing and Everything else go up. Nothing changes except the numbers. You think raising the mim wage does not effect anyone else's income.
A min wage job is a stepping stone to a better job.
A fully trained employee that was making $9.10 an hour and every one else gets an increase so that worker and everyone else is making more than min wage. And we all pay for it.

 

[bripat9643]

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. ”

That all sounds very nice and inspiring. The only problem with it is that it's total bullshit.

Hugo was an author of fiction, not a logician. Every sentence of his statement could be dissected and shown to be false.

 

[bripat9643]

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

What about the money taken out of the economy to pay for all this shit?

 

[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.

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.

Saying they exist "in theory" is another way of saying they don't exist. There never was any social contract, and certainly no one born since the Constitution was approved had ever agreed to it.

 

[SnowTiger]

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?







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







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.

When you accept the responsibility of citizenship, then you accept the social contract. Followers of Rousseau wanted to have a grand ceremony where you accept citizenship and join the contract. But such pomp and circumstance is unnecessary. Whichever country you claim citizenship to, you are bound by their social compact.

My "naïveté" is simply my quoting of the theory. As anyone educated will tell you, the theory is considered separately from the actual. But it is still studied for the insight it gets. The Contract is a theoretic concept, yes. So I use theory to interpret it.
And governments do contract, but with great difficulty. It is, again, theoretically possible, and history shows some examples. Generally, however, they engorge until they die. (Or a revolution occurs)

Rousseau was by no means a communist. He was a radical, a few shades more extreme than Locke. But no, he never supported communism (how could he? It didn't exist in his time)

 

[Spoonman]

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

so by your logic, the bush tax cuts were a good thing because people had more money and they spend every dime they had. so his tax cuts were good for the economy. and, Obama was wrong for ending them

 

[bripat9643]

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."

The revolution and the social contract are two separate issues.

And the people are the ones who sent delegates to the Philadelphia Convention.

The people did? Really? You mean some people did. Lot's of people didn't even know about it, and many of the ones who did didn't approve.

 

[norwegen]

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.

Saying they exist "in theory" is another way of saying they don't exist. There never was any social contract, and certainly no one born since the Constitution was approved had ever agreed to it.

and in some measure in practice

Perhaps another convention is in order.

 

[Truthmatters]

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."

The revolution and the social contract are two separate issues.

And the people are the ones who sent delegates to the Philadelphia Convention.

The people did? Really? You mean some people did. Lot's of people didn't even know about it, and many of the ones who did didn't approve.

then walk away.

your not in chains you ******* idiot

 

[SnowTiger]

That all sounds very nice and inspiring. The only problem with it is that it's total bullshit.



Hugo was an author of fiction, not a logician. Every sentence of his statement could be dissected and shown to be false.

Hugo was a philosopher. He employed a common literary technique whereby through his monologues and other digressions from story lines, he explained his manifesto.
Surely you've heard of such a technique before? It's quite well known.

 

[norwegen]

The people did? Really? You mean some people did. Lot's of people didn't even know about it, and many of the ones who did didn't approve.

I get the feeling you're an island entire of itself.

I'm Donne here.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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 asked no less an authority than Donald Rumsfeld and here is his reply, "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."]

 

[bripat9643]

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

Wrong. The social contract is a myth.

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?

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

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

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.

When you accept the responsibility of citizenship, then you accept the social contract.

When did I accept this so-called "responsibility of citizenship?" Was there a ceremony of some kind? Did I sign some papers?[/QUOTE]

Followers of Rousseau wanted to have a grand ceremony where you accept citizenship and join the contract. But such pomp and circumstance is unnecessary. Whichever country you claim citizenship to, you are bound by their social compact.

They didn't have it because they realized most people simply wouldn't participate. I never "claimed" to be a citizen of any country. It was simply a fact of my birth.

My "naïveté" is simply my quoting of the theory. As anyone educated will tell you, the theory is considered separately from the actual. But it is still studied for the insight it gets. The Contract is a theoretic concept, yes. So I use theory to interpret it.

There is no "actual." All you have is a theory, and it's obvious horseshit. The theory doesn't offer any "insights." it's just propaganda designed to lull people into believe that they have agreed to be looted, mulcted and enslaved.

And governments do contract, but with great difficulty. It is, again, theoretically possible, and history shows some examples. Generally, however, they engorge until they die. (Or a revolution occurs)

Rousseau was by no means a communist. He was a radical, a few shades more extreme than Locke. But no, he never supported communism (how could he? It didn't exist in his time)

Of course he supported communism. Why do you think the French Revolution was such a blood bath? It was all based on the ideas of Rousseau.

 

[bripat9643]

The people did? Really? You mean some people did. Lot's of people didn't even know about it, and many of the ones who did didn't approve.

I get the feeling you're an island entire of itself.

I'm Donne here.

Yeah, I am an Island. I one of the few people who only believes what can be proven. I don't believe in myths, no matter how noble or idealistic they may appear to be.

 

[bripat9643]

That all sounds very nice and inspiring. The only problem with it is that it's total bullshit.



Hugo was an author of fiction, not a logician. Every sentence of his statement could be dissected and shown to be false.

Hugo was a philosopher. He employed a common literary technique whereby through his monologues and other digressions from story lines, he explained his manifesto.
Surely you've heard of such a technique before? It's quite well known.

He was no more a philosopher than any modern writer of novels. There was nothing rigorous or consistent about his opinions. His opinions are no more valid than mine. Unless you can demonstrate that his ideas have some basis in fact and logic, they can be ignored.

 

[bripat9643]

The revolution and the social contract are two separate issues.

And the people are the ones who sent delegates to the Philadelphia Convention.

The people did? Really? You mean some people did. Lot's of people didn't even know about it, and many of the ones who did didn't approve.

then walk away.

your not in chains you ******* idiot

Why should I have to walk away from anything? When did I agree to do that?

You're only proving that you're a moron.

 

[Londoner]

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.

• 
  
  
  This is one of the famous arguments made by Milton Friedman in his "Capitalism and Freedom". It makes a lot of sense. Many stimulative actions by the government have the unintended effect of inflating away wage gains, which gains also, by increasing the cost of production, dampen the incentive to add jobs in the first place. We get it. Government often makes the problem worse. This is why a small minority on the Left were worried about the Iraq War. We supported the idea of spreading democracy, but we felt that a government incapable of running a laundromat on budget had no chance of rebuilding an Arab nation without terrible economic consequences, most of which were criminally hidden off budget by your side. Meaning: your side, for all its strategic bluster about government intervention, has historically given government more money/power than the Left ever dreamed of giving it.
  
  But let's get back to the tired wage arguments your side has been making since Reagan took over in 1980. After Reagan severely weakened Unions and put his anti-Labor people in place, the effective American wage remained virtually flat for 30+ yrs. This is partly because of globalization, which freed capital to seek cheaper labor in places like Communist China, Vietnam, Honduras, Yemen, Mexico and any other freedom-hating nation you can think of. [FYI: why has your side remained completely silent about the partnerships that our capitalist class has made with freedom hating tyrannical and/or Communist nations? One of your party's biggest donors, The Walmart Waltons, has deeper loyalties to their Chinese producers than they have to the American main street. You do realize that those of us who haven't been drugged by talk radio pity you for not seeing the pathetic contradiction between your party's patriotic rhetoric and the partnerships of its entrepreneurial heroes. Meaning: nobody but you believes your bullshit]
  
  So yes, the Reagan Revolution, which definitely included Bill Clinton, successfully brought down our high postwar wage/benefit system. But a question remains: is your argument about the dangers of high wages 100% true, and has our low wage system caused any unintended consequences that your side never saw coming?
  
  So the first question is: are high wages incompatible with economic growth? To answer this, consider that wages and taxes were at their highest in the 50s and 60s when the US saw higher economic growth than the 80s &90s, when wages and taxes were much lower. Friedman and his followers were, famously, never able to explain this. One reason is that their economic theories completely under-weighted the positive effect of higher consumer demand that resulted from postwar Labor policies, which demand proved to be an even greater incentive for investment/job growth than lower taxes and lower wages. Put simply, when the consumer has more spendin' money - as he did during the high wage postwar years - the capitalist will always invest and innovate to get those consumer dollars. So your simplistic "cut & paste" talking points about the dangers of high wages needs to take this into account.
  
  Second question: are there any unintended consequences of the low wage system your side imposed on our nation? To answer this, please research what happened to household debt starting in 1980. In order to make up for flat wages and disappearing benefits, American families had to borrow more and more just to stay afloat. In essence, the Reagan Revolution created a toxic formula, one that concentrated all the country's surplus wealth inside the pockets of a small group of capitalists (who were now wealthy enough to fund elections and staff government - talk about concentrated power: your party invented it. The Koch brothers, with their ability to invest billions in television ads, have more power to influence an election than a million voters combined). If you do the research of what happened after we dismantled our postwar wage system you will see that our lower and middle classes have spent 30 years making up for lost wages/benefits by going deeper and deeper into debt. Worse: when our largest employer, Walmart, shifted manufacturing of their products to China, they contributed to a larger movement which cut the American middle class out of the benefits of economic growth, the result of which meant we had to fuel consumption with credit cards and any number of debt vehicles (-you get this right? As wages/benefits stay flat or go down, you need to make up for this shortfall with other mechanisms, which is why the USA transitioned to a debt-fueled economy under Reagan. This is why we all started receiving three credit card offers a week in the 80s). Problem is, after 30 years of going deeper and deeper into debt, the middle class consumer is finally tapped out. As a result, the middle class is now so indebted that it doesn't have enough purchasing power in the aggregate to buy what the capitalist is selling (in sufficient volume). And when this happens, the capitalist has no incentive to invest, innovate or add jobs. That is where we are now.
  
  The over-application of demand-side polices results in inflation (and we need to credit Freidman for bringing this to light. The man is brilliant). However, the over-application of supply side policies is the destruction of demand, which typically results in an over reliance upon credit (consumer debt), which is as dangerous to economic growth as high wages and high taxes.
  
  Meaning: your simplistic story about wages has two sides. You might not agree with counter-arguments, but you can only learn all sides of an issue when you study this stuff . . . rather than simply cutting and pasting talking points.
  
  

  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.

  
  Ronald Reagan's father was having trouble putting food on the table in the 30s. By your logic, we should have let the Reagan's fail. But we didn't. Big Government gave the Reagans loads of assistance, which FDR justified as an investment, believing that the Reagan Family, if helped through hard times, might some day be capable of making a contribution to our great nation. FDR was right. Rather than giving subsidies to corporations who shift jobs to Communist China (which is what we started doing in 1980), FDR chose to invest in the American People, a fact which drives your party crazy.
  
  

  Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual

  
  Please stop with these tired talking points. The Reagan Revolution started with a promise for small government & responsible fiscal policy - yet, it ended with illegal wiretapping and TARP. It was a ******* hoax that made government bigger and more intrusive. It turned the state into a subsidy and bailout machine for the wealthy while bankrupting the middle class as our capitalist suppliers got in bed with freedom hating, tyrannical nations for the cheap labor.
  
  Your talking points made sense in 1980 when we really did need to unburden suppliers from a dated tax and regulatory structure. But after 30 years, like all entrenched political movements, it devolved into a special interest farce. Please, we're begging you, stop with the tired talking points that have been endlessly repeated for 30+ years. Try to say something new and interesting. It was far more interesting when Milton Friedman first said it in the 50s. Now it sounds like a nauseating cliche repeated terminally by a brain dead arm of "cut & paste" drones. You can do better.

 

[SnowTiger]

I'm not going to discuss the philosophy behind why we study models and theories in abstract, and how such study benefits understanding. You yourself have normative views. But such a discussion doesn't belong here. I suggest you create a new forum exclusively for the philosophical debate, or do some enlightened learning on your own.

The Rousseauvian ceremonies never happened because the First French Republic never stabilized. If you would like to read about them, however, I would suggest studying the writings of Louis Antoine de Saint-Just, who (although a despicable excuse for a human being) sketched out how the ceremonies would happen. They're interesting, a little scary. Very hunger-games esque with costumed district parades. I wonder if that's where Collins got her inspiration.

The French Revolution was in no way communist. Not at all. That is fact, unfortunately ignored by Glenn Beck and his followers. Perhaps you might like some background reading on that. I can recommend a few books.

You accept your citizenship of a country, correct? You are given it by rights of birth, but can relinquish it at any time. That is your decision to remain a citizen, your decision to continue in the social knot. Go to the us immigration website for more info.

Your last assignment is to do a quick google search on 19th century literature and it's connection to philosophy. It's the only way for you to understand what Hugo was and why he was important.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The people did? Really? You mean some people did. Lot's of people didn't even know about it, and many of the ones who did didn't approve.

then walk away.

your not in chains you ******* idiot

Why should I have to walk away from anything? When did I agree to do that?

You're only proving that you're a moron.

Social Contract - an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.

Other than this theory, what do you suppose is the purpose of government and the obligations of citizens?

Describe for us the utopia assumed by the Libertarian Ideology you seem to be in support of, and explain how such a theory might govern a nation of 300 Million diverse inhabitants.