Debate Now Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government

[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.

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.

That depends upon what you mean by voluntary. Historically, that only meant you could agree or you could die. In our society it is voluntary. You can agree or you can leave. The idea that you can decide to live in this society but your obligations under the contract are optional is absurd. Your continued presence is automatic acceptance of the obligations.

But that obligation still flows both ways and it is not voluntary on the part of the government either, including totalitarian regimes. All governments derive their authority through the acceptance of the governed - without exception. Thus all authority is granted via the social contract - without exception.

What you had said was if the government dictates what liberties you may have then you have no liberty at all. But the reality is that all liberty is dictated by the government. In our society we have tremendous respect for the law and thus those protections typically will extend to the individual. But that is not always the case by any means. It just happens a lot less now than it did before - this being an unprecedented period of personal liberty in our history.

 

[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.

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.

I have heard that argument and I consider it wrong. The federal government clearly holds preeminence over the states under the Constitution. One of the purposes of the federal government was to limit the power of the states. This is why the authority to decide cases under the Constitution is left solely in then hands of the federal courts.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

That depends upon what you mean by voluntary. Historically, that only meant you could agree or you could die. In our society it is voluntary. You can agree or you can leave. The idea that you can decide to live in this society but your obligations under the contract are optional is absurd. Your continued presence is automatic acceptance of the obligations.

But that obligation still flows both ways and it is not voluntary on the part of the government either, including totalitarian regimes. All governments derive their authority through the acceptance of the governed - without exception. Thus all authority is granted via the social contract - without exception.

What you had said was if the government dictates what liberties you may have then you have no liberty at all. But the reality is that all liberty is dictated by the government. In our society we have tremendous respect for the law and thus those protections typically will extend to the individual. But that is not always the case by any means. It just happens a lot less now than it did before - this being an unprecedented period of personal liberty in our history.

The reality is, that this government works for us. You can treat it as your master if you like... As for me, I'll treat it like a group of my employees.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

I would say a society in which the helpless don't starve, the poor are not condemned to shanty towns and one can walk down a street in relative safety is working.

 

[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.

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.

All you are doing is defining the word so you can use it as you like. Liberty is the power to do as you please and no society has unrestricted liberty. Unless it is a society of one.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

That depends upon what you mean by voluntary. Historically, that only meant you could agree or you could die. In our society it is voluntary. You can agree or you can leave. The idea that you can decide to live in this society but your obligations under the contract are optional is absurd. Your continued presence is automatic acceptance of the obligations.

But that obligation still flows both ways and it is not voluntary on the part of the government either, including totalitarian regimes. All governments derive their authority through the acceptance of the governed - without exception. Thus all authority is granted via the social contract - without exception.

What you had said was if the government dictates what liberties you may have then you have no liberty at all. But the reality is that all liberty is dictated by the government. In our society we have tremendous respect for the law and thus those protections typically will extend to the individual. But that is not always the case by any means. It just happens a lot less now than it did before - this being an unprecedented period of personal liberty in our history.

The reality is, that this government works for us. You can treat it as your master if you like... As for me, I'll treat it like a group of my employees.

You can think you treat it any way you like. But I doubt your employees have the capacity to take you into custody, try and sentence you and put you in a cell.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

I have heard that argument and I consider it wrong. The federal government clearly holds preeminence over the states under the Constitution. One of the purposes of the federal government was to limit the power of the states. This is why the authority to decide cases under the Constitution is left solely in then hands of the federal courts.

We have a system of checks and balances. You may have missed the 10th amendment. The feds hold limited powers. These powers do not grant our federal employees, "preeminence." The constitution can be amended, and the federal court system is not without it's own checks and balances.

 

[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. 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.

All you are doing is defining the word so you can use it as you like. Liberty is the power to do as you please and no society has unrestricted liberty. Unless it is a society of one.

No. One definition of liberty is the power to do as you please. However, that is not the correct definition to use wrt society in general and the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. That is a VILE DESPICABLE BULLSHIT LIE MADE BY AUTHORITARIANS.

 

[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.

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.

I have heard that argument and I consider it wrong. The federal government clearly holds preeminence over the states under the Constitution. One of the purposes of the federal government was to limit the power of the states. This is why the authority to decide cases under the Constitution is left solely in then hands of the federal courts.

We have a system of checks and balances. You may have missed the 10th amendment. The feds hold limited powers. These powers do not grant our federal employees, "preeminence." The constitution can be amended, and the federal court system is not without it's own checks and balances.

The Constitution can be amended, but it is what it is for now. I haven't missed the 10th amendment, which was written in a time when states were essentially independent. Travel was slow, refrigeration non-existent. So most of what was consumed came from the area where the consumers lived. That is not the case in the country now and you need to pay attention to the commerce clause under Article I Section 8. Build a house and you will have lumber from Washington, dry wall from China, nails from India, paint from Georgia, all commerce falling under the authority of the Congress. And the decision as to whether that argument stands up under the Constitution rests with the federal courts. The commerce clause was the basis for finding the civil rights laws of the 60's to be constitutional.

So that the federal government has preeminence is a given. The only time it doesn't is when it says it doesn't.

 

[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.

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.

All you are doing is defining the word so you can use it as you like. Liberty is the power to do as you please and no society has unrestricted liberty. Unless it is a society of one.

No. One definition of liberty is the power to do as you please. However, that is not the correct definition to use wrt society in general and the freedoms we enjoy as Americans. That is a VILE DESPICABLE BULLSHIT LIE MADE BY AUTHORITARIANS.

No, it is an honest assessment of reality made by someone who refuses to live in a fantasy. You can chose to do otherwise.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

I have heard that argument and I consider it wrong. The federal government clearly holds preeminence over the states under the Constitution. One of the purposes of the federal government was to limit the power of the states. This is why the authority to decide cases under the Constitution is left solely in then hands of the federal courts.

We have a system of checks and balances. You may have missed the 10th amendment. The feds hold limited powers. These powers do not grant our federal employees, "preeminence." The constitution can be amended, and the federal court system is not without it's own checks and balances.

The Constitution can be amended, but it is what it is for now. I haven't missed the 10th amendment, which was written in a time when states were essentially independent. Travel was slow, refrigeration non-existent. So most of what was consumed came from the area where the consumers lived. That is not the case in the country now and you need to pay attention to the commerce clause under Article I Section 8. Build a house and you will have lumber from Washington, dry wall from China, nails from India, paint from Georgia, all commerce falling under the authority of the Congress. And the decision as to whether that argument stands up under the Constitution rests with the federal courts. The commerce clause was the basis for finding the civil rights laws of the 60's to be constitutional.

So that the federal government has preeminence is a given. The only time it doesn't is when it says it doesn't.

The only time it doesn't is when "we" say it doesn't.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

I have heard that argument and I consider it wrong. The federal government clearly holds preeminence over the states under the Constitution. One of the purposes of the federal government was to limit the power of the states. This is why the authority to decide cases under the Constitution is left solely in then hands of the federal courts.

We have a system of checks and balances. You may have missed the 10th amendment. The feds hold limited powers. These powers do not grant our federal employees, "preeminence." The constitution can be amended, and the federal court system is not without it's own checks and balances.

The Constitution can be amended, but it is what it is for now. I haven't missed the 10th amendment, which was written in a time when states were essentially independent. Travel was slow, refrigeration non-existent. So most of what was consumed came from the area where the consumers lived. That is not the case in the country now and you need to pay attention to the commerce clause under Article I Section 8. Build a house and you will have lumber from Washington, dry wall from China, nails from India, paint from Georgia, all commerce falling under the authority of the Congress. And the decision as to whether that argument stands up under the Constitution rests with the federal courts. The commerce clause was the basis for finding the civil rights laws of the 60's to be constitutional.

So that the federal government has preeminence is a given. The only time it doesn't is when it says it doesn't.

The only time it doesn't is when "we" say it doesn't.

As I said, I don't live in fantasy. But you enjoy yourself.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

I have heard that argument and I consider it wrong. The federal government clearly holds preeminence over the states under the Constitution. One of the purposes of the federal government was to limit the power of the states. This is why the authority to decide cases under the Constitution is left solely in then hands of the federal courts.

We have a system of checks and balances. You may have missed the 10th amendment. The feds hold limited powers. These powers do not grant our federal employees, "preeminence." The constitution can be amended, and the federal court system is not without it's own checks and balances.

The Constitution can be amended, but it is what it is for now. I haven't missed the 10th amendment, which was written in a time when states were essentially independent. Travel was slow, refrigeration non-existent. So most of what was consumed came from the area where the consumers lived. That is not the case in the country now and you need to pay attention to the commerce clause under Article I Section 8. Build a house and you will have lumber from Washington, dry wall from China, nails from India, paint from Georgia, all commerce falling under the authority of the Congress. And the decision as to whether that argument stands up under the Constitution rests with the federal courts. The commerce clause was the basis for finding the civil rights laws of the 60's to be constitutional.

So that the federal government has preeminence is a given. The only time it doesn't is when it says it doesn't.

The only time it doesn't is when "we" say it doesn't.

As I said, I don't live in fantasy. But you enjoy yourself.

I live in TX. Liberty isn't a "fantasy" here in TX. It's an every day occurrence.

 

[PratchettFan]

I have heard that argument and I consider it wrong. The federal government clearly holds preeminence over the states under the Constitution. One of the purposes of the federal government was to limit the power of the states. This is why the authority to decide cases under the Constitution is left solely in then hands of the federal courts.

We have a system of checks and balances. You may have missed the 10th amendment. The feds hold limited powers. These powers do not grant our federal employees, "preeminence." The constitution can be amended, and the federal court system is not without it's own checks and balances.

The Constitution can be amended, but it is what it is for now. I haven't missed the 10th amendment, which was written in a time when states were essentially independent. Travel was slow, refrigeration non-existent. So most of what was consumed came from the area where the consumers lived. That is not the case in the country now and you need to pay attention to the commerce clause under Article I Section 8. Build a house and you will have lumber from Washington, dry wall from China, nails from India, paint from Georgia, all commerce falling under the authority of the Congress. And the decision as to whether that argument stands up under the Constitution rests with the federal courts. The commerce clause was the basis for finding the civil rights laws of the 60's to be constitutional.

So that the federal government has preeminence is a given. The only time it doesn't is when it says it doesn't.

The only time it doesn't is when "we" say it doesn't.

As I said, I don't live in fantasy. But you enjoy yourself.

I live in TX. Liberty isn't a "fantasy" here in TX. It's an every day occurrence.

Sure.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Conflating terms is a common theme with this one.

There is a social contract aspect to the implementation of and buy in for the Constitution, but yes it's a not simply a social contract any more than a wedding is simply a social contract.

Perhaps you would like to review the definition in the OP and compare it to others I just posted and then continue to say that the Constitution is not a social contract. And a marriage also falls into the social contract category as it provides mutual benefits and protections for the parties involved in return for each giving up some liberties in return.

Nah... now your just making stuff up. Social contract category?

Well then you will probably enjoy another thread more than this one because I didn't make up a single one of those definitions. Nor did I make up the one in the OP. But since you say I did we probably won't have much constructive to talk about.

no you did not make up any definitions in your list. what you did was misread is their usage

To be fair so many definitions are ambiguous and the use of most terms are often incorrect, even wildly incorrect. Thus, leading to the tower of Babel problem where we are all speaking the same language but, using completely different meanings for terms.

I don't agree definitions are all that ambiguous. It only appears so to people who are ignorant of both vocabulary and usage

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

What is your point?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

another poor usage of English language terms. Nothing is embedded in the US Constitution

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

another poor usage of English language terms. Nothing is embedded in the US Constitution

An incomplete sentence begins Dante's post. Dante does not grok connotation.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Limited is a vaguely subjective term here. If one wants to say the US Constitution limits the power of the 3 branches of government to enumerated powers, that is one thing.

No one says the Constitution has some hidden authority not given to it by the people who ratified it.

Legal documents like the Constitution almost always have unintended consequences. The letter of the law can often be construed to go against what was intended.

The Constitution became a legal document with ratification. The social contract is we agree to abide by it

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

another poor usage of English language terms. Nothing is embedded in the US Constitution

An incomplete sentence begins Dante's post. Dante does not grok connotation.

what the above quoted posts highlights is...
Jake does not grok context