Debate Now Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government

[RKMBrown]

Fox.. the part you are missing is that being embodied in... does not mean "is a." The social contract is embodied the constitution. That does not mean the constitution is a social contract.

The U.S. Constitution is the means by which a society organized itself for mutual benefit. It assigns responsibilities to the government and it assigns responsibilities to the people. It IS social contract. It fits every definition described up there and in the OP.

. . .The fundamental basis for government and law in this system is the concept of the social contract, according to which human beings begin as individuals in a state of nature, and create a society by establishing a contract whereby they agree to live together in harmony for their mutual benefit, after which they are said to live in a state of society. This contract involves the retaining of certain natural rights, an acceptance of restrictions of certain liberties, the assumption of certain duties, and the pooling of certain powers to be exercised collectively. . .
The Social Contract and Constitutional Republics​

Incorrect. The Constitution is not "implicit" at all. The Constitution is explicit.

Here's an example of a social contract: When you join a church there is a litany that the congregation recites where the congregation promises to welcome the new member. That is a social contract that the congregation makes between themselves, god, and the new member. That is a "social contract." The Constitution is not merely a social contract.

With the Constitution, we have a legal document.

There is nothing in any definition that says that social contract cannot also be a legal document.

Correct. More to the point some social contracts can be deemed as legally binding. But that does not mean the Constitution is merely a social contract.

I didn't say it was 'merely a social contract' either. You said it wasn't a social contract at all. I believe I have offered ample evidence and support for why it is. And so far you have offered nothing to dispute that other than your own opinion. If you can offer any credible source that explains why the U.S. Constitution is not social contract, then go for it. Otherwise I guess I'll just have to be a controlling person and insist that all the evidence presented agrees that it is.

IT's not merely a social contract. Therefore, it is not a social contract. This is goes back to the problem of understanding what the term "is" means.

That does not mean there are no social aspects to the Constitution, nor does it mean that the constitution does not include an implicit social contract.

My body has a leg. That does not mean my body is a leg.

The purpose of the Constitution may be to codify the social contract of which you speak... it may even be said to be based on a social contract if you will. But that does not mean, it is a social contract.

 

[RKMBrown]

Full Definition of CONSTITUTION
1: an established law or custom : ordinance
2a : the physical makeup of the individual especially with respect to the health, strength, and appearance of the body <a hearty constitution>
b : the structure, composition, physical makeup, or nature of something<the constitution of society>
3: the act of establishing, making, or setting up
4: the mode in which a state or society is organized; especially : the manner in which sovereign power is distributed
5a : the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it
b : a written instrument embodying the rules of a political or social organization

Websters.

Note: it does not say "social contract."

 

[Foxfyre]

The U.S. Constitution is the means by which a society organized itself for mutual benefit. It assigns responsibilities to the government and it assigns responsibilities to the people. It IS social contract. It fits every definition described up there and in the OP.

. . .The fundamental basis for government and law in this system is the concept of the social contract, according to which human beings begin as individuals in a state of nature, and create a society by establishing a contract whereby they agree to live together in harmony for their mutual benefit, after which they are said to live in a state of society. This contract involves the retaining of certain natural rights, an acceptance of restrictions of certain liberties, the assumption of certain duties, and the pooling of certain powers to be exercised collectively. . .
The Social Contract and Constitutional Republics​

Incorrect. The Constitution is not "implicit" at all. The Constitution is explicit.

Here's an example of a social contract: When you join a church there is a litany that the congregation recites where the congregation promises to welcome the new member. That is a social contract that the congregation makes between themselves, god, and the new member. That is a "social contract." The Constitution is not merely a social contract.

With the Constitution, we have a legal document.

There is nothing in any definition that says that social contract cannot also be a legal document.

Correct. More to the point some social contracts can be deemed as legally binding. But that does not mean the Constitution is merely a social contract.

I didn't say it was 'merely a social contract' either. You said it wasn't a social contract at all. I believe I have offered ample evidence and support for why it is. And so far you have offered nothing to dispute that other than your own opinion. If you can offer any credible source that explains why the U.S. Constitution is not social contract, then go for it. Otherwise I guess I'll just have to be a controlling person and insist that all the evidence presented agrees that it is.

IT's not merely a social contract. Therefore, it is not a social contract. This is goes back to the problem of understanding what the term "is" means.

That does not mean there are no social aspects to the Constitution, nor does it mean that the constitution does not include an implicit social contract.

My body has a leg. That does not mean my body is a leg.

The purpose of the Constitution may be to codify the social contract of which you speak... it may even be said to be based on a social contract if you will. But that does not mean, it is a social contract.

My sources say it is. You have not provided anything to rebut my sources but your own opinion. So can we move on?

 

[RKMBrown]

Incorrect. The Constitution is not "implicit" at all. The Constitution is explicit.

Here's an example of a social contract: When you join a church there is a litany that the congregation recites where the congregation promises to welcome the new member. That is a social contract that the congregation makes between themselves, god, and the new member. That is a "social contract." The Constitution is not merely a social contract.

With the Constitution, we have a legal document.

There is nothing in any definition that says that social contract cannot also be a legal document.

Correct. More to the point some social contracts can be deemed as legally binding. But that does not mean the Constitution is merely a social contract.

I didn't say it was 'merely a social contract' either. You said it wasn't a social contract at all. I believe I have offered ample evidence and support for why it is. And so far you have offered nothing to dispute that other than your own opinion. If you can offer any credible source that explains why the U.S. Constitution is not social contract, then go for it. Otherwise I guess I'll just have to be a controlling person and insist that all the evidence presented agrees that it is.

IT's not merely a social contract. Therefore, it is not a social contract. This is goes back to the problem of understanding what the term "is" means.

That does not mean there are no social aspects to the Constitution, nor does it mean that the constitution does not include an implicit social contract.

My body has a leg. That does not mean my body is a leg.

The purpose of the Constitution may be to codify the social contract of which you speak... it may even be said to be based on a social contract if you will. But that does not mean, it is a social contract.

My sources say it is. You have not provided anything to rebut my sources but your own opinion. So can we move on?

Incorrect. Your sources, EXPLICITLY agreed with me. More particularly, your sources said the social contract is EMBODIED IN the Constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is nothing in any definition that says that social contract cannot also be a legal document.

Correct. More to the point some social contracts can be deemed as legally binding. But that does not mean the Constitution is merely a social contract.

I didn't say it was 'merely a social contract' either. You said it wasn't a social contract at all. I believe I have offered ample evidence and support for why it is. And so far you have offered nothing to dispute that other than your own opinion. If you can offer any credible source that explains why the U.S. Constitution is not social contract, then go for it. Otherwise I guess I'll just have to be a controlling person and insist that all the evidence presented agrees that it is.

IT's not merely a social contract. Therefore, it is not a social contract. This is goes back to the problem of understanding what the term "is" means.

That does not mean there are no social aspects to the Constitution, nor does it mean that the constitution does not include an implicit social contract.

My body has a leg. That does not mean my body is a leg.

The purpose of the Constitution may be to codify the social contract of which you speak... it may even be said to be based on a social contract if you will. But that does not mean, it is a social contract.

My sources say it is. You have not provided anything to rebut my sources but your own opinion. So can we move on?

Incorrect. Your sources, EXPLICITLY agreed with me. More particularly, your sources said the social contract is EMBODIED IN the Constitution.

At this point your argument is becoming too absurd to continue. I agree to disagree if you will. Have a nice evening.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Far more than 3 delegates who attended the Constitution did not sign the final document.

The Delegates Who Didn't Sign the U.S. Constitution
In all, 70 delegates were appointed to the Constitutional Convention, but out of that 70 only 55 attended, and only 39 actually signed. Some simply refused, others got sick, still others left early. One of the most famous reasons for why certain delegates didn't sign was that the document lacked a legitimate Bill of Rights which would protect the rights of States and the freedom of individuals. Three main advocates of this movement wereGeorge Mason, Elbridge Gerry, and Edmund Randolph.

Constitution Day Materials US Constitution Pocket Constitution Book Declaration of Independence Bill of Rights

 

[JakeStarkey]

Chief Justice Roberts had made up his mind at least a month before.

 

[PratchettFan]

are you saying you believe the Congress and state and local governments set out to destroy the social contract?

Set out to destroy it? No.

But if you compare what we have now with what the Constitution intended for government to be, IMO in many respects it has.

Such as?

Obamacare. The President's illegal immigration policy. The President's executive orders to not enforce certain laws. The government presuming to dictate to the people what light bulbs they will be able to produce, what kind of cars they will be allowed to manufacture, what they must provide for their customers and employees above and beyond basic hidden hazards, etc. Congress waiting until the press leaves the premises to quietly vote itself permanent benefits that set the members up for life. I can go on and on and on but that should make the point.

None of the above or anything like them was intended to be the prerogative of the central government to dictate.

The ACA is law and constitutional per the USSC. The President's immigration policy is not illegal. The President has been issuing executive orders since Washington. Nothing you have said in any way is in opposition to the social contract. That is the government doing what the people send them to Washington to do.

Now is it possible that the Founders, who read by candlelight, did not consider the possibility of government standards for light bulb manufacturing? Probably. But I seriously doubt a single one of them would object to it if they were living in a society where that was an issue.

They would have strongly objected to the government dictating that people had to use a certain kind of candle or lantern for lighting.

The argument is not what the law is. Or what SCOTUS rules.

The argument is what is and what is not social contract, what violates social contract, and what the people should do when that occurs, if anything. Let's try to keep the focus where it belongs here.

I don't think they would at all. They were practical men and if they thought that was best for the country, they would have certainly implemented it. I think the big difference here is that we wouldn't hang the offenders.

Perhaps you think the social contract means the government does what you want. That seriously is not the case. The government needs to do its job and if the public is entirely happy about it, it probably is not doing its job.

 

[PratchettFan]

Let me put it more simply.

When a President changes, via executive order, changes or refuses to enforce a law that Congress passed and he signed into law, is that a violation of social contract?

When Congress votes itself benefits that are not authorized via the Constitution, is that a violation of social contract?

When Congress and the President pass laws that obligate some of us to give our property and labor to others without compensation, is that a violation of social contract?

No.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, a social contract is embedded in the Constitution, and it is not based on libertarian principles.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes, a social contract is embedded in the Constitution, and it is not based on libertarian principles.

but the OP demands to know: is the constitution a social contract that can be voided by an abrogation of the social contract

 

[Foxfyre]

Set out to destroy it? No.

But if you compare what we have now with what the Constitution intended for government to be, IMO in many respects it has.

Such as?

Obamacare. The President's illegal immigration policy. The President's executive orders to not enforce certain laws. The government presuming to dictate to the people what light bulbs they will be able to produce, what kind of cars they will be allowed to manufacture, what they must provide for their customers and employees above and beyond basic hidden hazards, etc. Congress waiting until the press leaves the premises to quietly vote itself permanent benefits that set the members up for life. I can go on and on and on but that should make the point.

None of the above or anything like them was intended to be the prerogative of the central government to dictate.

The ACA is law and constitutional per the USSC. The President's immigration policy is not illegal. The President has been issuing executive orders since Washington. Nothing you have said in any way is in opposition to the social contract. That is the government doing what the people send them to Washington to do.

Now is it possible that the Founders, who read by candlelight, did not consider the possibility of government standards for light bulb manufacturing? Probably. But I seriously doubt a single one of them would object to it if they were living in a society where that was an issue.

They would have strongly objected to the government dictating that people had to use a certain kind of candle or lantern for lighting.

The argument is not what the law is. Or what SCOTUS rules.

The argument is what is and what is not social contract, what violates social contract, and what the people should do when that occurs, if anything. Let's try to keep the focus where it belongs here.

I don't think they would at all. They were practical men and if they thought that was best for the country, they would have certainly implemented it. I think the big difference here is that we wouldn't hang the offenders.

Perhaps you think the social contract means the government does what you want. That seriously is not the case. The government needs to do its job and if the public is entirely happy about it, it probably is not doing its job.

I think absolutely the Constitution was intended to create a government that had its powers strictly limited, that was restricted to specific authority and was intended to have no authority beyond that assigned to it by the people. So in a sense, I do believe government was intended to do what the people wanted it to do. That was the social contract the people formed when they created the United States of America.

The reason I am certain that the Founders would have considered the government way out of line and illegally acting if it should dictate the kind of light bulbs or candles that the people would use is that they gave the government no authority to dictate how the people would live their lives in any regard.

And they gave the federal government no authority to confiscate labor or property from one citizen in order to transfer that to another:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

In 1794, when Congress debated appropriation of $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)​

Remember we are not discussing the law of precedent or the law as it exists now. We are discussing social contract as it was intended and whether social contract has been violated or breached and what we should do about it.

 

[PratchettFan]

Such as?

Obamacare. The President's illegal immigration policy. The President's executive orders to not enforce certain laws. The government presuming to dictate to the people what light bulbs they will be able to produce, what kind of cars they will be allowed to manufacture, what they must provide for their customers and employees above and beyond basic hidden hazards, etc. Congress waiting until the press leaves the premises to quietly vote itself permanent benefits that set the members up for life. I can go on and on and on but that should make the point.

None of the above or anything like them was intended to be the prerogative of the central government to dictate.

The ACA is law and constitutional per the USSC. The President's immigration policy is not illegal. The President has been issuing executive orders since Washington. Nothing you have said in any way is in opposition to the social contract. That is the government doing what the people send them to Washington to do.

Now is it possible that the Founders, who read by candlelight, did not consider the possibility of government standards for light bulb manufacturing? Probably. But I seriously doubt a single one of them would object to it if they were living in a society where that was an issue.

They would have strongly objected to the government dictating that people had to use a certain kind of candle or lantern for lighting.

The argument is not what the law is. Or what SCOTUS rules.

The argument is what is and what is not social contract, what violates social contract, and what the people should do when that occurs, if anything. Let's try to keep the focus where it belongs here.

I don't think they would at all. They were practical men and if they thought that was best for the country, they would have certainly implemented it. I think the big difference here is that we wouldn't hang the offenders.

Perhaps you think the social contract means the government does what you want. That seriously is not the case. The government needs to do its job and if the public is entirely happy about it, it probably is not doing its job.

I think absolutely the Constitution was intended to create a government that had its powers strictly limited, that was restricted to specific authority and was intended to have no authority beyond that assigned to it by the people. So in a sense, I do believe government was intended to do what the people wanted it to do. That was the social contract the people formed when they created the United States of America.

The reason I am certain that the Founders would have considered the government way out of line and illegally acting if it should dictate the kind of light bulbs or candles that the people would use is that they gave the government no authority to dictate how the people would live their lives in any regard.

And they gave the federal government no authority to confiscate labor or property from one citizen in order to transfer that to another:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)​

Remember we are not discussing the law of precedent or the law as it exists now. We are discussing social contract as it was intended and whether social contract has been violated or breached and what we should do about it.

Yes, we are discussing the social contract. But I am thinking we are not in agreement at to what that consists of. It is the job of the government to govern, not just attempt to make as many people happy as it can. Sometimes it means it will make people unhappy. The government that just follows wherever the people want to go is reneging on its obligations under the contract, because its job is to lead.

 

[Foxfyre]

Obamacare. The President's illegal immigration policy. The President's executive orders to not enforce certain laws. The government presuming to dictate to the people what light bulbs they will be able to produce, what kind of cars they will be allowed to manufacture, what they must provide for their customers and employees above and beyond basic hidden hazards, etc. Congress waiting until the press leaves the premises to quietly vote itself permanent benefits that set the members up for life. I can go on and on and on but that should make the point.

None of the above or anything like them was intended to be the prerogative of the central government to dictate.

The ACA is law and constitutional per the USSC. The President's immigration policy is not illegal. The President has been issuing executive orders since Washington. Nothing you have said in any way is in opposition to the social contract. That is the government doing what the people send them to Washington to do.

Now is it possible that the Founders, who read by candlelight, did not consider the possibility of government standards for light bulb manufacturing? Probably. But I seriously doubt a single one of them would object to it if they were living in a society where that was an issue.

They would have strongly objected to the government dictating that people had to use a certain kind of candle or lantern for lighting.

The argument is not what the law is. Or what SCOTUS rules.

The argument is what is and what is not social contract, what violates social contract, and what the people should do when that occurs, if anything. Let's try to keep the focus where it belongs here.

I don't think they would at all. They were practical men and if they thought that was best for the country, they would have certainly implemented it. I think the big difference here is that we wouldn't hang the offenders.

Perhaps you think the social contract means the government does what you want. That seriously is not the case. The government needs to do its job and if the public is entirely happy about it, it probably is not doing its job.

I think absolutely the Constitution was intended to create a government that had its powers strictly limited, that was restricted to specific authority and was intended to have no authority beyond that assigned to it by the people. So in a sense, I do believe government was intended to do what the people wanted it to do. That was the social contract the people formed when they created the United States of America.

The reason I am certain that the Founders would have considered the government way out of line and illegally acting if it should dictate the kind of light bulbs or candles that the people would use is that they gave the government no authority to dictate how the people would live their lives in any regard.

And they gave the federal government no authority to confiscate labor or property from one citizen in order to transfer that to another:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)​

Remember we are not discussing the law of precedent or the law as it exists now. We are discussing social contract as it was intended and whether social contract has been violated or breached and what we should do about it.

Yes, we are discussing the social contract. But I am thinking we are not in agreement at to what that consists of. It is the job of the government to govern, not just attempt to make as many people happy as it can. Sometimes it means it will make people unhappy. The government that just follows wherever the people want to go is reneging on its obligations under the contract, because its job is to lead.

But I think the original intent was that the Constitution would allow the states to function effectively as one nation and secure the rights of the people and then leave the people strictly alone to govern themselves. The Founders wanted no king, no monarch, no dictator, no Pope, no totalitarian government of any sort that would govern the people. The Constitution was a social contract that created a government that was not given authority to govern the people but was restricted to specific functions assigned to it.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

The 'more perfect union' was to provide a means for the various states to function as one nation - to establish Justice was to prevent the various states from doing economic or physical violence to each other that also ensured domestic tranquility. Providing the common defense also ensured domestic tranquitlity and secured the blessings of liberty--this was defined in the Declaration as unalienable rights among which were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

There is no liberty when the federal government dictates to us what liberties we will and will not have while living our lives.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Yes, we are discussing the social contract. But I am thinking we are not in agreement at to what that consists of. It is the job of the government to govern, not just attempt to make as many people happy as it can. Sometimes it means it will make people unhappy. The government that just follows wherever the people want to go is reneging on its obligations under the contract, because its job is to lead.

I get a sense of this reading through the thread.

People or entities generally enter into a contract to get something in return for something.....

Those "something"s are spelled out in the contract.

Here is the preamble of the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You can list those things out and discuss them one by one....but it is terms like liberty that can cause an issue.

John Jay said it well in Federalist 2:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.

This is a clear description of a "contract". The problem is in the details of what rights were ceded and which were not.

Yes, it is the job of government to govern. But even that term becomes an issue. You can get into an entire discussion of positive rights and negative rights......and that alone would be a huge undertaking.

What does it mean to "govern".

Providing health care is not governing (and I am not saying our government provides health care).

Is preventing bis business from screwing you "governing" ? Or is putting the mechanism in place to prevent them from screwing you "governing".

It is answers to questions like these that create the debate because not everybody feels the same way.....

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, we are discussing the social contract. But I am thinking we are not in agreement at to what that consists of. It is the job of the government to govern, not just attempt to make as many people happy as it can. Sometimes it means it will make people unhappy. The government that just follows wherever the people want to go is reneging on its obligations under the contract, because its job is to lead.

I get a sense of this reading through the thread.

People or entities generally enter into a contract to get something in return for something.....

Those "something"s are spelled out in the contract.

Here is the preamble of the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You can list those things out and discuss them one by one....but it is terms like liberty that can cause an issue.

John Jay said it well in Federalist 2:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.

This is a clear description of a "contract". The problem is in the details of what rights were ceded and which were not.

Yes, it is the job of government to govern. But even that term becomes an issue. You can get into an entire discussion of positive rights and negative rights......and that alone would be a huge undertaking.

What does it mean to "govern".

Providing health care is not governing (and I am not saying our government provides health care).

Is preventing bis business from screwing you "governing" ? Or is putting the mechanism in place to prevent them from screwing you "governing".

It is answers to questions like these that create the debate because not everybody feels the same way.....

IMO, the role of the U.S. federal government was to govern ONLY in those areas of authority assigned to it. The whole concept of the social contract that forms the U.S. Constitution was, for the first time in the history of the world, for the people to have the liberty assumed in the concept of natural rights. The role of government was to acknowledge and secure those rights and then leave the people alone to govern themselves as they saw fit.

The only liberties ceded to the federal government via social contract was the authority to prevent the various states and the people from doing physical or economic violence to each other. In other word, in the social contract we gave up our ability to harm anybody else with impunity, no matter who was stronger or weaker, but we in no way gave up our right to otherwise live our lives as we chose.

 

[PratchettFan]

The ACA is law and constitutional per the USSC. The President's immigration policy is not illegal. The President has been issuing executive orders since Washington. Nothing you have said in any way is in opposition to the social contract. That is the government doing what the people send them to Washington to do.

Now is it possible that the Founders, who read by candlelight, did not consider the possibility of government standards for light bulb manufacturing? Probably. But I seriously doubt a single one of them would object to it if they were living in a society where that was an issue.

They would have strongly objected to the government dictating that people had to use a certain kind of candle or lantern for lighting.

The argument is not what the law is. Or what SCOTUS rules.

The argument is what is and what is not social contract, what violates social contract, and what the people should do when that occurs, if anything. Let's try to keep the focus where it belongs here.

I don't think they would at all. They were practical men and if they thought that was best for the country, they would have certainly implemented it. I think the big difference here is that we wouldn't hang the offenders.

Perhaps you think the social contract means the government does what you want. That seriously is not the case. The government needs to do its job and if the public is entirely happy about it, it probably is not doing its job.

I think absolutely the Constitution was intended to create a government that had its powers strictly limited, that was restricted to specific authority and was intended to have no authority beyond that assigned to it by the people. So in a sense, I do believe government was intended to do what the people wanted it to do. That was the social contract the people formed when they created the United States of America.

The reason I am certain that the Founders would have considered the government way out of line and illegally acting if it should dictate the kind of light bulbs or candles that the people would use is that they gave the government no authority to dictate how the people would live their lives in any regard.

And they gave the federal government no authority to confiscate labor or property from one citizen in order to transfer that to another:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)​

Remember we are not discussing the law of precedent or the law as it exists now. We are discussing social contract as it was intended and whether social contract has been violated or breached and what we should do about it.

Yes, we are discussing the social contract. But I am thinking we are not in agreement at to what that consists of. It is the job of the government to govern, not just attempt to make as many people happy as it can. Sometimes it means it will make people unhappy. The government that just follows wherever the people want to go is reneging on its obligations under the contract, because its job is to lead.

But I think the original intent was that the Constitution would allow the states to function effectively as one nation and secure the rights of the people and then leave the people strictly alone to govern themselves. The Founders wanted no king, no monarch, no dictator, no Pope, no totalitarian government of any sort that would govern the people. The Constitution was a social contract that created a government that was not given authority to govern the people but was restricted to specific functions assigned to it.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

The 'more perfect union' was to provide a means for the various states to function as one nation - to establish Justice was to prevent the various states from doing economic or physical violence to each other that also ensured domestic tranquility. Providing the common defense also ensured domestic tranquitlity and secured the blessings of liberty--this was defined in the Declaration as unalienable rights among which were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

There is no liberty when the federal government dictates to us what liberties we will and will not have while living our lives.

The Constitution is the law and I thought you wanted to talk about the social contract and not the law.

First, you are free to argue what you think the intent was. I am free to disagree, and I do. But ultimately it doesn't matter what the intent was. Those people are long dead and, to be honest, I don't care what their intent was. They had their turn and it is now our turn, our government, our contract and our responsibility. When we are dead the following generations will have their turn and, if they have any sense at all, won't give a damn what our intents were.

Second, your comment that no liberty exists if the government dictates what liberties we have is false on its face. You really don't want to argue that if you consider it for a moment. Basically, you are saying that if I can't murder someone then I have no liberty. All societies establish what liberties individuals may have, without exception. The citizen's end of the social contract is the agreement to accept limitations on their liberty in exchange for the benefits of living in the society.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, we are discussing the social contract. But I am thinking we are not in agreement at to what that consists of. It is the job of the government to govern, not just attempt to make as many people happy as it can. Sometimes it means it will make people unhappy. The government that just follows wherever the people want to go is reneging on its obligations under the contract, because its job is to lead.

I get a sense of this reading through the thread.

People or entities generally enter into a contract to get something in return for something.....

Those "something"s are spelled out in the contract.

Here is the preamble of the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You can list those things out and discuss them one by one....but it is terms like liberty that can cause an issue.

John Jay said it well in Federalist 2:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.

This is a clear description of a "contract". The problem is in the details of what rights were ceded and which were not.

Yes, it is the job of government to govern. But even that term becomes an issue. You can get into an entire discussion of positive rights and negative rights......and that alone would be a huge undertaking.

What does it mean to "govern".

Providing health care is not governing (and I am not saying our government provides health care).

Is preventing bis business from screwing you "governing" ? Or is putting the mechanism in place to prevent them from screwing you "governing".

It is answers to questions like these that create the debate because not everybody feels the same way.....

Certainly not everybody feels the same way. We are a representative democracy and I believe the technical term for that is "bloody mess". That does not change the purpose of government, which is to govern. That it is not easy matters not at all.

Is providing health care governing? Yep.
Preventing big business from screwing us? Yep
Establishing mechanisms to prevent...? Yep
It's all governing. And if the government officials refuse to deal with these issues because it's not popular then they aren't doing their job. Their job is to make the society work, not please people.

 

[Foxfyre]

They would have strongly objected to the government dictating that people had to use a certain kind of candle or lantern for lighting.

The argument is not what the law is. Or what SCOTUS rules.

The argument is what is and what is not social contract, what violates social contract, and what the people should do when that occurs, if anything. Let's try to keep the focus where it belongs here.

I don't think they would at all. They were practical men and if they thought that was best for the country, they would have certainly implemented it. I think the big difference here is that we wouldn't hang the offenders.

Perhaps you think the social contract means the government does what you want. That seriously is not the case. The government needs to do its job and if the public is entirely happy about it, it probably is not doing its job.

I think absolutely the Constitution was intended to create a government that had its powers strictly limited, that was restricted to specific authority and was intended to have no authority beyond that assigned to it by the people. So in a sense, I do believe government was intended to do what the people wanted it to do. That was the social contract the people formed when they created the United States of America.

The reason I am certain that the Founders would have considered the government way out of line and illegally acting if it should dictate the kind of light bulbs or candles that the people would use is that they gave the government no authority to dictate how the people would live their lives in any regard.

And they gave the federal government no authority to confiscate labor or property from one citizen in order to transfer that to another:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)​

Remember we are not discussing the law of precedent or the law as it exists now. We are discussing social contract as it was intended and whether social contract has been violated or breached and what we should do about it.

Yes, we are discussing the social contract. But I am thinking we are not in agreement at to what that consists of. It is the job of the government to govern, not just attempt to make as many people happy as it can. Sometimes it means it will make people unhappy. The government that just follows wherever the people want to go is reneging on its obligations under the contract, because its job is to lead.

But I think the original intent was that the Constitution would allow the states to function effectively as one nation and secure the rights of the people and then leave the people strictly alone to govern themselves. The Founders wanted no king, no monarch, no dictator, no Pope, no totalitarian government of any sort that would govern the people. The Constitution was a social contract that created a government that was not given authority to govern the people but was restricted to specific functions assigned to it.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

The 'more perfect union' was to provide a means for the various states to function as one nation - to establish Justice was to prevent the various states from doing economic or physical violence to each other that also ensured domestic tranquility. Providing the common defense also ensured domestic tranquitlity and secured the blessings of liberty--this was defined in the Declaration as unalienable rights among which were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

There is no liberty when the federal government dictates to us what liberties we will and will not have while living our lives.

The Constitution is the law and I thought you wanted to talk about the social contract and not the law.

First, you are free to argue what you think the intent was. I am free to disagree, and I do. But ultimately it doesn't matter what the intent was. Those people are long dead and, to be honest, I don't care what their intent was. They had their turn and it is now our turn, our government, our contract and our responsibility. When we are dead the following generations will have their turn and, if they have any sense at all, won't give a damn what our intents were.

Second, your comment that no liberty exists if the government dictates what liberties we have is false on its face. You really don't want to argue that if you consider it for a moment. Basically, you are saying that if I can't murder someone then I have no liberty. All societies establish what liberties individuals may have, without exception. The citizen's end of the social contract is the agreement to accept limitations on their liberty in exchange for the benefits of living in the society.

A government that can dictate what liberties we have is a government with the power to take away any liberties that it wants to take away. I think the person who doesn't understand that is the person who doesn't understand the purpose and intent of the social contract that became the U.S. Constitution or now dismisses that as irrelevent. Such person accepts government as the lord and authority of all and trusts it in a way the Founders never intended it to be trusted.

The Constitution was intended to specify what liberties the people were willing to cede in return for government protection and the government was to have no authority to demand more of the people's liberties. It was intended for the various states to have full authority to decide what is and is not 'murder' and to assign appropriate consequences for that if they chose to do so. Such power was not given to the federal government to decide just as it was not given authority to dictate marriage laws or abortion laws or dietary laws or religious laws or traffic laws. The Founders took the 10th Amendment very seriously.

 

[PratchettFan]

I don't think they would at all. They were practical men and if they thought that was best for the country, they would have certainly implemented it. I think the big difference here is that we wouldn't hang the offenders.

Perhaps you think the social contract means the government does what you want. That seriously is not the case. The government needs to do its job and if the public is entirely happy about it, it probably is not doing its job.

I think absolutely the Constitution was intended to create a government that had its powers strictly limited, that was restricted to specific authority and was intended to have no authority beyond that assigned to it by the people. So in a sense, I do believe government was intended to do what the people wanted it to do. That was the social contract the people formed when they created the United States of America.

The reason I am certain that the Founders would have considered the government way out of line and illegally acting if it should dictate the kind of light bulbs or candles that the people would use is that they gave the government no authority to dictate how the people would live their lives in any regard.

And they gave the federal government no authority to confiscate labor or property from one citizen in order to transfer that to another:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)​

Remember we are not discussing the law of precedent or the law as it exists now. We are discussing social contract as it was intended and whether social contract has been violated or breached and what we should do about it.

Yes, we are discussing the social contract. But I am thinking we are not in agreement at to what that consists of. It is the job of the government to govern, not just attempt to make as many people happy as it can. Sometimes it means it will make people unhappy. The government that just follows wherever the people want to go is reneging on its obligations under the contract, because its job is to lead.

But I think the original intent was that the Constitution would allow the states to function effectively as one nation and secure the rights of the people and then leave the people strictly alone to govern themselves. The Founders wanted no king, no monarch, no dictator, no Pope, no totalitarian government of any sort that would govern the people. The Constitution was a social contract that created a government that was not given authority to govern the people but was restricted to specific functions assigned to it.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

The 'more perfect union' was to provide a means for the various states to function as one nation - to establish Justice was to prevent the various states from doing economic or physical violence to each other that also ensured domestic tranquility. Providing the common defense also ensured domestic tranquitlity and secured the blessings of liberty--this was defined in the Declaration as unalienable rights among which were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

There is no liberty when the federal government dictates to us what liberties we will and will not have while living our lives.

The Constitution is the law and I thought you wanted to talk about the social contract and not the law.

First, you are free to argue what you think the intent was. I am free to disagree, and I do. But ultimately it doesn't matter what the intent was. Those people are long dead and, to be honest, I don't care what their intent was. They had their turn and it is now our turn, our government, our contract and our responsibility. When we are dead the following generations will have their turn and, if they have any sense at all, won't give a damn what our intents were.

Second, your comment that no liberty exists if the government dictates what liberties we have is false on its face. You really don't want to argue that if you consider it for a moment. Basically, you are saying that if I can't murder someone then I have no liberty. All societies establish what liberties individuals may have, without exception. The citizen's end of the social contract is the agreement to accept limitations on their liberty in exchange for the benefits of living in the society.

A government that can dictate what liberties we have is a government with the power to take away any liberties that it wants to take away. I think the person who doesn't understand that is the person who doesn't understand the purpose and intent of the social contract that became the U.S. Constitution or now dismisses that as irrelevent. Such person accepts government as the lord and authority of all and trusts it in a way the Founders never intended it to be trusted.

The Constitution was intended to specify what liberties the people were willing to cede in return for government protection and the government was to have no authority to demand more of the people's liberties. It was intended for the various states to have full authority to decide what is and is not 'murder' and to assign appropriate consequences for that if they chose to do so. Such power was not given to the federal government to decide just as it was not given authority to dictate marriage laws or abortion laws or dietary laws or religious laws or traffic laws.

I really can't see how it is possible for you to have gotten that any more wrong. You do understand the social contract isn't there so you can do anything you please, don't you?