Debate Now Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government

[JakeStarkey]

One, the social contract evolves as society evolves

Two, original intent by the Founders is is immaterial in our society today other than as a general sign post but not as an absolute boundary line.

Three, liberty and freedom are not the same.

These definitions may help the discussion.

Freedom is a state of being capable of making decisions without external control. Liberty, on the other hand, is freedom which has been granted to a people by an external control. ce between liberty and freedom meaning - Google Search

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

Yes. Social contract is a process and result of compromise in which everybody gives up something in order to get something from somebody else. But it by very definition is a voluntary process and, in order for social contract to exist, achieves mutual agreement for mutual benefit. So of course, once I have entered into social contract, I can no longer do 'anything I please' but I am obligated only to that to which I have agreed via social contract.

Conversely, social contract that comprises the U.S. Constitution does not presume that whomever authority is ceded to for whatever purpose does not then have license to do anything to anybody that it chooses to do.

It is limitation on authority that makes the difference between authority granted via social contract and that assumed by totalitarianism.

 

[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.....

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.

As you are aware, you'll get strong disagreement over some of these items.

I would argue that once you the role of government and the nature of the social contract worked out....you have the answers to all these issues (in theory). Getting people to abide is something else.

And then there is the scope of the contract.

Some don't want the federal government providing health care. But would be O.K. with states providing it. Maybe a county should provide it. There are pros and cons all the way around.

I think that many conservatives (including Foxfyr based on her posts) would argue for. The federal government was there to perform a limited function.....keep us safe and present a unified face to the world. The states would then run the individual shows.

 

[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.

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?

Yes. Social contract is a process and result of compromise in which everybody gives up something in order to get something from somebody else. But it by very definition is a voluntary process and, in order for social contract to exist, achieves mutual agreement for mutual benefit. So of course, once I have entered into social contract, I can no longer do 'anything I please' but I am obligated only to that to which I have agreed via social contract.

Conversely, social contract that comprises the U.S. Constitution does not presume that whomever authority is ceded to for whatever purpose does not then have license to do anything to anybody that it chooses to do.

It is limitation on authority that makes the difference between authority granted via social contract and that assumed by totalitarianism.

I don't get why we keep coming back to this.

The Social Contract (if that is what it is) was spelled out by Jay. By virtue of entering into the process we bind ourselves (and those who follow us) to the rule of law which brings with it consequences for violating those laws (and by association...the contract). It is no longer voluntary at that point (our children don't get to chose to obey/not obey the laws we make).

Your second point is also true. Jay said we give up "some" to protect the others. That was the complaint at the time. That we would lose them all (or easily could).

Your last statement does not flow with the rest.

Possibly you could provide an example of what it is your are trying to say.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is probably correct, "I think that many conservatives (including Foxfyr based on her posts) would argue for. The federal government was there to perform a limited function.....keep us safe and present a unified face to the world. The states would then run the individual shows", and has no been relevant since the Great Depression.

 

[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.....

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.

As you are aware, you'll get strong disagreement over some of these items.

I would argue that once you the role of government and the nature of the social contract worked out....you have the answers to all these issues (in theory). Getting people to abide is something else.

And then there is the scope of the contract.

Some don't want the federal government providing health care. But would be O.K. with states providing it. Maybe a county should provide it. There are pros and cons all the way around.

I think that many conservatives (including Foxfyr based on her posts) would argue for. The federal government was there to perform a limited function.....keep us safe and present a unified face to the world. The states would then run the individual shows.

That is definitely what I strongly believed the social contract is as demonstrated by the Constitution. Certainly we could not exist as a cohesive nation if the states warred among themselves, so the federal government was given power to establish laws to prevent that. But how the people chose to organize their lives within the individual states was strictly up to them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Off topic: I am off to a luncheon now but shall return later.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That is definitely what I strongly believed the social contract is as demonstrated by the Constitution. Certainly we could not exist as a cohesive nation if the states warred among themselves, so the federal government was given power to establish laws to prevent that. But how the people chose to organize their lives within the individual states was strictly up to them.

In effect, calling the social contract a limited one.

I am quite familiar with the arguments and they continue to be at the heart of so many disagreements, including Obamacare.

I am just somewhat surprised that it hasn't come to the forefront sooner that what you are arguing is the nature and SCOPE of the contract.

What others think is legitimate on the part of the federal government, you feel is possibly a violation.

The problem is that the abuse (which conservatives claim) is still sanctioned by the original contract (via the SCOTUS...which I sorely hate simply because of their inconsistency and feckless approach) so conservatives are still bound to it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Their job is to make the society work, not please people.

And again, this begs the question.....

How will you know when society is "working" ?

Isn't that the heart of all arguments because not all have the same goals.

It was quite clear on another thread that someone feels libertarians are "unamerican" because they are willing to take away all social services.

While I don't agree with removal social services, I also don't agree that is unamerican. Voicing your POV is very much American.

And, apparently, to some "working" means no social programs.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

To be fair, your assumption is that liberty means the liberty to take liberty away, such as by killing people. That is incorrect. Liberty does not mean the liberty to take liberty away. You might as well define killing as bringing to life. It's a non-nonsensical definition meant to defend authority to take liberty away so as to "protect" people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

To be fair, your assumption is that liberty means the liberty to take liberty away, such as by killing people. That is incorrect. Liberty does not mean the liberty to take liberty away.

Foxfyre mistakes freedom as liberty, when in fact it is liberty that grants a person the freedom to act without constraint.

For instance, a parent (liberty) that grants a child to act (freedom) without constraint.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

To be fair, your assumption is that liberty means the liberty to take liberty away, such as by killing people. That is incorrect. Liberty does not mean the liberty to take liberty away.

Foxfyre mistakes freedom as liberty, when in fact it is liberty that grants a person the freedom to act without constraint.

For instance, a parent (liberty) that grants a child to act (freedom) without constraint.

Fox conflates a lot of terms as they relate to politics. It's a recurring theme.

You are probably an Authoritarian. You appear to have your definition of liberty inside out, or at least conflated with authority.

I disagree with your use of the term liberty in your example. Authority over a person gives one with said authority the ability to grant the person the freedom to act without constraint. For example, a parent has authority over his child, that authority includes the authority to grant or restrict certain freedoms.

Liberty by contrast is that which is inherit in all manor of free people, it is god given, so to speak.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

To be fair, your assumption is that liberty means the liberty to take liberty away, such as by killing people. That is incorrect. Liberty does not mean the liberty to take liberty away. You might as well define killing as bringing to life. It's a non-nonsensical definition meant to defend authority to take liberty away so as to "protect" people.

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.

To be fair, your assumption is that liberty means the liberty to take liberty away, such as by killing people. That is incorrect. Liberty does not mean the liberty to take liberty away. You might as well define killing as bringing to life. It's a non-nonsensical definition meant to defend authority to take liberty away so as to "protect" people.

Here is an example of what I was saying.

If you don't have these terms worked out in advance, a conversation like this is much more difficult.

It would be better to put more reasonable examples in place.

Everything is relative and has to be kept in context.

Do you have liberty when you can speak your mind freely ?

Do you have liberty lost when you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre ?

Do you have liberty lost when you can't be critical of your boss ?

 

[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.

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.

To be fair, your assumption is that liberty means the liberty to take liberty away, such as by killing people. That is incorrect. Liberty does not mean the liberty to take liberty away.

Foxfyre mistakes freedom as liberty, when in fact it is liberty that grants a person the freedom to act without constraint.

For instance, a parent (liberty) that grants a child to act (freedom) without constraint.

Fox conflates a lot of terms as they relate to politics. It's a recurring theme.

You are probably an Authoritarian. You appear to have your definition of liberty inside out, or at least conflated with authority.

I disagree with your use of the term liberty in your example. Authority over a person gives one with said authority the ability to grant the person the freedom to act without constraint. For example, a parent has authority over his child, that authority includes the authority to grant or restrict certain freedoms.

Liberty by contrast is that which is inherit in all manor of free people, it is god given, so to speak.

I don't know that she conflates them as much as they simply have not been established.

Your example of the child is an interesting example.

Parents can grant the freedoms they are free to grant (which are often the freedoms they enjoy).

They cannot grant their child the freedom to take what they want from a store. That is not theirs to grant.

They cannot grant their six year old the legal right to drive.

The other end of this is the idea of consequences.

You are free to give your child the keys to your car. Maybe you expect him to just play with them (so should the state step in and make it illegal for a six year old to EVER hold car keys ?). But if he drives off in your car and causes damage.........what then ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sun grasps liberty and freedom more accurately than RKM does, I believe.

 

[RKMBrown]

To be fair, your assumption is that liberty means the liberty to take liberty away, such as by killing people. That is incorrect. Liberty does not mean the liberty to take liberty away. You might as well define killing as bringing to life. It's a non-nonsensical definition meant to defend authority to take liberty away so as to "protect" people.

Here is an example of what I was saying.

If you don't have these terms worked out in advance, a conversation like this is much more difficult.

It would be better to put more reasonable examples in place.

Everything is relative and has to be kept in context.

Do you have liberty when you can speak your mind freely ?

Do you have liberty lost when you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre ?

Do you have liberty lost when you can't be critical of your boss ?

You asked, "do you have liberty when you can speak your mind freely?" Your question is unclear, ambiguous, and apparently designed to lead to a straw-man argument. All men have the god given right to speak their mind freely. This is a liberty that is inherent in all free men. This liberty is not the liberty to harm people with your speech.

Here is your straw-man: "Do you have liberty lost when you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre ?" Liberty is not the liberty to cause others harm, such as by killing people in a stampede. The phrase, liberty lost makes no sense. Because you never had the liberty to harm people, you have not lost liberty when you are told that you are not allowed to kill people by yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Here is another straw-man: "Do you have liberty lost when you can't be critical of your boss ?" Liberty is not the liberty to ignore rules. You are conflating ability to be stupid with god given rights. Your liberties are not limited at all when a rule of your employer says you can't harm your boss by being critical of your boss in a public way.

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't know that she conflates them as much as they simply have not been established.

Your example of the child is an interesting example.

Parents can grant the freedoms they are free to grant (which are often the freedoms they enjoy).

They cannot grant their child the freedom to take what they want from a store. That is not theirs to grant.

They cannot grant their six year old the legal right to drive.

The other end of this is the idea of consequences.

You are free to give your child the keys to your car. Maybe you expect him to just play with them (so should the state step in and make it illegal for a six year old to EVER hold car keys ?). But if he drives off in your car and causes damage.........what then ?

Agreed on all points. To your question, what then.... Well then you are liable for the damages that your child did.

 

[RKMBrown]

Sun grasps liberty and freedom more accurately than RKM does, I believe.

He was just asking a question Jake.. Sun and I are more likely in 100% agreement on what liberty is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you think so. Freedom derives from liberty; they are not equal.

 

[RKMBrown]

If you think so. Freedom derives from liberty; they are not equal.

While it is correct to say freedom is not always the same thing as liberty. It is also not always correct to say freedom derives from liberty. We would first have to scope out which definition of freedom it is that you are talking about. IOW scope and context matters when using english terms that have multiple meanings.

When talking about freedom in the context of the constitution we are clearly talking about 1b, and 2a. below.

Freedom:
1: - the quality or state of being free: as
a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action
b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence
c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous <freedom from care>
d : ease, facility <spoke the language with freedom>
e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken <answered with freedom>
f : improper familiarity
g : boldness of conception or execution
h : unrestricted use <gave him the freedom of their home>
2a : a political right
b : franchise, privilege


Above, I was talking about liberty in the context of constitutional liberties which pertain to the liberty definition below for 1c, 1d, 2a, and 2b below.


Liberty:
1: - the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint
c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control
d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges
e : the power of choice
2a : a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant : privilege
b : permission especially to go freely within specified limits
3: an action going beyond normal limits: as
a : a breach of etiquette or propriety : familiarity
b : risk, chance <took foolish liberties with his health>
c : a violation of rules or a deviation from standard practiced : a distortion of fact
4: a short authorized absence from naval duty usually for less than 48 hours