Debate Now Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

First, let me say that once you've defined this, you are setting up the basis for a coherent discussion. All programs and policies (government and non-government) are designed wit that end (as well as others) in mind. There is no question about what you want.

Now, I may or may not agree with your goals, and we slug it out at the ballot box.

I think we would be hard pressed to find someone to say what they want is for people to starve, shanty towns and uncontrolled crime. It really does come down to what works to prevent this from happening. While we may well disagree on what programs and policies are needed to accomplish this, it is ultimately the job of the government to do the job. That is their end of the contract.

One does not have to search far for people who believe the government has no role like you describe and if the result is people starve, live in shanty towns and one result is uncontrolled crime, so be it

I know there are those who would say the government has no role in this. I just think they are wrong.

A very fundamental difference.

But I don't think it has to carry the kind of rancor it seems to.

I am not saying it is from you. I am speaking generally.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I have much appreciated your contributions to this thread.

I honestly don't think, however, that there is any such thing as a 'limited' social contract. Social contract is what it is--an agreement between people for the mutual benefit of all. It can be something as quick and innocuous as agreeing that we'll use the dutch treat method for lunch or what the ante will be in poker or as complex as the Constitution of the U.S.A. It can be informal agreement or binding as law.

But. . .if it is for the benefit of some, but not all, it is not social contract but is something else--and at the federal level that is usually something else that was never authorized by the Constitution itself. And if it is for the benefit of some and to the detriment of others, that is the polar opposite of social contract.

In a previous post you said that John Jay said "we give up "some" to protect the others." Even though a strong federalist, I can't imagine Jay saying that within the scope of social contract. He was so strong on the whole concept of unalienable rights and limitations on government to prevent any government infringement on those rights, that I am certain he would have agreed on the most consistent definition of social contract.

And that defintion is that social contract is a process to organize people to achieve MUTUAL benefit for everybody, and not just a privileged few.

 

[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.

I have much appreciated your contributions to this thread.

I honestly don't think, however, that there is any such thing as a 'limited' social contract. Social contract is what it is--an agreement between people for the mutual benefit of all. It can be something as quick and innocuous as agreeing that we'll use the dutch treat method for lunch or what the ante will be in poker or as complex as the Constitution of the U.S.A. It can be informal agreement or binding as law.

But. . .if it is for the benefit of some, but not all, it is not social contract but is something else--and at the federal level that is usually something else that was never authorized by the Constitution itself. And if it is for the benefit of some and to the detriment of others, that is the polar opposite of social contract.

In a previous post you said that John Jay said "we give up "some" to protect the others." Even though a strong federalist, I can't imagine Jay saying that within the scope of social contract. He was so strong on the whole concept of unalienable rights and limitations on government to prevent any government infringement on those rights, that I am certain he would have agreed on the most consistent definition of social contract.

And that defintion is that social contract is a process to organize people to achieve MUTUAL benefit for everybody, and not just a privileged few.

I am going to need some concrete examples to help me understand what you are saying.

The quote from Jay is a clear description of a contract.

Jay, Madison, and the (two-faced Hamilton) all argued that the Constitution was a document that created a limited government (and by extension a clearly defined contract).

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

First, let me say that once you've defined this, you are setting up the basis for a coherent discussion. All programs and policies (government and non-government) are designed wit that end (as well as others) in mind. There is no question about what you want.

Now, I may or may not agree with your goals, and we slug it out at the ballot box.

I think we would be hard pressed to find someone to say what they want is for people to starve, shanty towns and uncontrolled crime. It really does come down to what works to prevent this from happening. While we may well disagree on what programs and policies are needed to accomplish this, it is ultimately the job of the government to do the job. That is their end of the contract.

One does not have to search far for people who believe the government has no role like you describe and if the result is people starve, live in shanty towns and one result is uncontrolled crime, so be it

I know there are those who would say the government has no role in this. I just think they are wrong.

Hence, the eternal struggle.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

First, let me say that once you've defined this, you are setting up the basis for a coherent discussion. All programs and policies (government and non-government) are designed wit that end (as well as others) in mind. There is no question about what you want.

Now, I may or may not agree with your goals, and we slug it out at the ballot box.

I think we would be hard pressed to find someone to say what they want is for people to starve, shanty towns and uncontrolled crime. It really does come down to what works to prevent this from happening. While we may well disagree on what programs and policies are needed to accomplish this, it is ultimately the job of the government to do the job. That is their end of the contract.

One does not have to search far for people who believe the government has no role like you describe and if the result is people starve, live in shanty towns and one result is uncontrolled crime, so be it

There is a continuum of people who have different feelings about this.

I don't believe a large segment of the population is interested in watching people starve.

And no, I don't have a link (it is an opinion).

Who said people are interested in watching people starve. A segment of society, for ideological and purely partisan political reasons are adamant that the government has no responsibility to help those who may starve, other than ideological arguments. What others are calling for is for the government to offer a helping hand, not a hand out.

And others are calling for even more.

So what was your point ?

people may call for more, but they are not getting it. so where is the problem?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

And again...I think you would find that many do not feel that it is ultimately the job of government to accomplish those ends.

I am not arguing for the point...I am simply saying that in slogging through this thread that seems to be the place you and Fox disagree and yet don't seem to be listening to each other.

Your statement says the government should control outcomes.

I think Fox is saying government is more about process.

Addressing a problem like poverty is NOT controlling the outcome. Framing things in this way is ridiculous and disingenuous. Going into a policy like addressing poverty with social problems it is a given that the final outcome will be unknown. If you are trying to say the ends don't justify the means go ahead and say attempting to address poverty is not worth the cost or effort because of irrational ideological stances

It is looking for a specific outcome (in this case we have a "poverty line" that we don't want people below). How far above the line....that is different.

Talk about disengeuous...your last statement is totally prejudiced.

First of all "what ends" would you justify.....after all....we are not controlling outcomes ?

I believe a cogent argument can be made (and probably has been) that investment in people that would get them out of poverty actually has a payback. The problem is the methodology for making the investment. Leaving that to the government alone hasn't worked out to well.

At the same time, I constantly hassle my conservative friends (who agree with my hypothesis) about how the so-called free market handles that.

So far it hasn't worked any better than the government.

Nonsense. Taking money through taxes for the purpose of redistributing income, while FORCING the people receiving said re-distributions to maintain the status of being poor to receive said hand-outs is not "allowing" a free market solution that uses hand-ups vs. government managed hand-out redistribution programs.

lovely myths you push

Yeah that's right, hand-outs and hand-ups are myths. ROFL

yeah, your myths:

"Taking money through taxes for the purpose of redistributing income, while FORCING the people receiving said re-distributions to maintain the status of being poor to receive said hand-outs is not "allowing" a free market solution that uses hand-ups vs. government managed hand-out redistribution programs"​

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I have much appreciated your contributions to this thread.

I honestly don't think, however, that there is any such thing as a 'limited' social contract. Social contract is what it is--an agreement between people for the mutual benefit of all. It can be something as quick and innocuous as agreeing that we'll use the dutch treat method for lunch or what the ante will be in poker or as complex as the Constitution of the U.S.A. It can be informal agreement or binding as law.

But. . .if it is for the benefit of some, but not all, it is not social contract but is something else--and at the federal level that is usually something else that was never authorized by the Constitution itself. And if it is for the benefit of some and to the detriment of others, that is the polar opposite of social contract.

In a previous post you said that John Jay said "we give up "some" to protect the others." Even though a strong federalist, I can't imagine Jay saying that within the scope of social contract. He was so strong on the whole concept of unalienable rights and limitations on government to prevent any government infringement on those rights, that I am certain he would have agreed on the most consistent definition of social contract.

And that defintion is that social contract is a process to organize people to achieve MUTUAL benefit for everybody, and not just a privileged few.

I am going to need some concrete examples to help me understand what you are saying.

The quote from Jay is a clear description of a contract.

Jay, Madison, and the (two-faced Hamilton) all argued that the Constitution was a document that created a limited government (and by extension a clearly defined contract).

What kind of concrete examples do you need if the 'dutch treat' social contract for lunch, the poker ante social contract for the game, the Constitution or that traffic light are not sufficient examples? What is it that you do not understand re my argument?

A legally enforceable contract can be social contract. The Constitution is such a contract.

But all law is not social contract. Obamacare, for instance, violates almost every principle of social contract. It materially and physically punishes some in order to provide benefits to some at the expense of others. And it was passed based on government assurances and promises that turned out to be mostly lies and with a good deal of public opposition and extremely narrow congressional margins with some 'aye' votes obtained through threat and coercion.

And social contract can exist without any 'law' being involved at all. For example, a community that expects businesses to stay closed until church is over at noon on Sundays, but that has no law to that effect, is still engaging in social contract. As is the rules for the poker game or the folks going to lunch.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

I have much appreciated your contributions to this thread.

I honestly don't think, however, that there is any such thing as a 'limited' social contract. Social contract is what it is--an agreement between people for the mutual benefit of all. It can be something as quick and innocuous as agreeing that we'll use the dutch treat method for lunch or what the ante will be in poker or as complex as the Constitution of the U.S.A. It can be informal agreement or binding as law.

But. . .if it is for the benefit of some, but not all, it is not social contract but is something else--and at the federal level that is usually something else that was never authorized by the Constitution itself. And if it is for the benefit of some and to the detriment of others, that is the polar opposite of social contract.

In a previous post you said that John Jay said "we give up "some" to protect the others." Even though a strong federalist, I can't imagine Jay saying that within the scope of social contract. He was so strong on the whole concept of unalienable rights and limitations on government to prevent any government infringement on those rights, that I am certain he would have agreed on the most consistent definition of social contract.

And that defintion is that social contract is a process to organize people to achieve MUTUAL benefit for everybody, and not just a privileged few.

I am going to need some concrete examples to help me understand what you are saying.

The quote from Jay is a clear description of a contract.

Jay, Madison, and the (two-faced Hamilton) all argued that the Constitution was a document that created a limited government (and by extension a clearly defined contract).

What kind of concrete examples do you need if the 'dutch treat' social contract for lunch, the poker ante social contract for the game, the Constitution or that traffic light are not sufficient examples? What is it that you do not understand re my argument?

A legally enforceable contract can be social contract. The Constitution is such a contract.

But all law is not social contract. Obamacare, for instance, violates almost every principle of social contract. It materially and physically punishes some in order to provide benefits to some at the expense of others. And it was passed based on government assurances and promises that turned out to be mostly lies and with a good deal of public opposition and extremely narrow congressional margins with some 'aye' votes obtained through threat and coercion.

And social contract can exist without any 'law' being involved at all. For example, a community that expects businesses to stay closed until church is over at noon on Sundays, but that has no law to that effect, is still engaging in social contract. As is the rules for the poker game or the folks going to lunch.

Why didn't you say from the outset that you were going to restrict definitions of what constitutes a social contract in order to posit an argument that the laws and the Constitution are social contracts, but Obamacare is not?

The argument itself is ridiculously weak and woefully ignorant/

The social contract we citizens have with our government is that when they enact laws they do so in a constitutional manner.

facts that CANNOT be denied:, Obamacare was passed by a duly elected Congress, signed into law by a duly elected Chief Executive, and ruled constitutional by an independent Judiciary recognized by all.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I have much appreciated your contributions to this thread.

I honestly don't think, however, that there is any such thing as a 'limited' social contract. Social contract is what it is--an agreement between people for the mutual benefit of all. It can be something as quick and innocuous as agreeing that we'll use the dutch treat method for lunch or what the ante will be in poker or as complex as the Constitution of the U.S.A. It can be informal agreement or binding as law.

But. . .if it is for the benefit of some, but not all, it is not social contract but is something else--and at the federal level that is usually something else that was never authorized by the Constitution itself. And if it is for the benefit of some and to the detriment of others, that is the polar opposite of social contract.

In a previous post you said that John Jay said "we give up "some" to protect the others." Even though a strong federalist, I can't imagine Jay saying that within the scope of social contract. He was so strong on the whole concept of unalienable rights and limitations on government to prevent any government infringement on those rights, that I am certain he would have agreed on the most consistent definition of social contract.

And that defintion is that social contract is a process to organize people to achieve MUTUAL benefit for everybody, and not just a privileged few.

I am going to need some concrete examples to help me understand what you are saying.

The quote from Jay is a clear description of a contract.

Jay, Madison, and the (two-faced Hamilton) all argued that the Constitution was a document that created a limited government (and by extension a clearly defined contract).

What kind of concrete examples do you need if the 'dutch treat' social contract for lunch, the poker ante social contract for the game, the Constitution or that traffic light are not sufficient examples? What is it that you do not understand re my argument?

A legally enforceable contract can be social contract. The Constitution is such a contract.

But all law is not social contract. Obamacare, for instance, violates almost every principle of social contract. It materially and physically punishes some in order to provide benefits to some at the expense of others. And it was passed based on government assurances and promises that turned out to be mostly lies and with a good deal of public opposition and extremely narrow congressional margins with some 'aye' votes obtained through threat and coercion.

And social contract can exist without any 'law' being involved at all. For example, a community that expects businesses to stay closed until church is over at noon on Sundays, but that has no law to that effect, is still engaging in social contract. As is the rules for the poker game or the folks going to lunch.

Why didn't you say from the outset that you were going to restrict definitions of what constitutes a social contract in order to posit an argument that the laws and the Constitution are social contracts, but Obamacare is not?

The argument itself is ridiculously weak and woefully ignorant/

The social contract we citizens have with our government is that when they enact laws they do so in a constitutional manner.

facts that CANNOT be denied:, Obamacare was passed by a duly elected Congress, signed into law by a duly elected Chief Executive, and ruled constitutional by an independent Judiciary recognized by all.

Obamacare was not ruled constitutional by anybody. SCOTUS agreed that Congress had the authority to tax to provide healthcare and as a result did not overturn the individual mandate on that rationale. The government lawyers argued it on the strength of government's power to tax.

(SCOTUS had also ruled that Obamacare could not force the states to take on additional Medicaid expansions remember--that was NOT constitutional.)

And the tax thing was argued after Obamarcare was passed on the promise of those who voted it into law that it was not a new tax or tax increase and would not increase our taxes one penny (or add one penny to the deficit). Those who passed it, most especially the President who signed it into law, lied through their teeth to misrepresent it and keep the public from rising up in protest. And they have subsequently changed the letter and intent of the law time and again to postpone the most onerous aspects of it so their precious campaign contributions and seats in government would not be in danger.

THAT in my opinion is a breach of social contract.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

I have much appreciated your contributions to this thread.

I honestly don't think, however, that there is any such thing as a 'limited' social contract. Social contract is what it is--an agreement between people for the mutual benefit of all. It can be something as quick and innocuous as agreeing that we'll use the dutch treat method for lunch or what the ante will be in poker or as complex as the Constitution of the U.S.A. It can be informal agreement or binding as law.

But. . .if it is for the benefit of some, but not all, it is not social contract but is something else--and at the federal level that is usually something else that was never authorized by the Constitution itself. And if it is for the benefit of some and to the detriment of others, that is the polar opposite of social contract.

In a previous post you said that John Jay said "we give up "some" to protect the others." Even though a strong federalist, I can't imagine Jay saying that within the scope of social contract. He was so strong on the whole concept of unalienable rights and limitations on government to prevent any government infringement on those rights, that I am certain he would have agreed on the most consistent definition of social contract.

And that defintion is that social contract is a process to organize people to achieve MUTUAL benefit for everybody, and not just a privileged few.

I am going to need some concrete examples to help me understand what you are saying.

The quote from Jay is a clear description of a contract.

Jay, Madison, and the (two-faced Hamilton) all argued that the Constitution was a document that created a limited government (and by extension a clearly defined contract).

What kind of concrete examples do you need if the 'dutch treat' social contract for lunch, the poker ante social contract for the game, the Constitution or that traffic light are not sufficient examples? What is it that you do not understand re my argument?

A legally enforceable contract can be social contract. The Constitution is such a contract.

But all law is not social contract. Obamacare, for instance, violates almost every principle of social contract. It materially and physically punishes some in order to provide benefits to some at the expense of others. And it was passed based on government assurances and promises that turned out to be mostly lies and with a good deal of public opposition and extremely narrow congressional margins with some 'aye' votes obtained through threat and coercion.

And social contract can exist without any 'law' being involved at all. For example, a community that expects businesses to stay closed until church is over at noon on Sundays, but that has no law to that effect, is still engaging in social contract. As is the rules for the poker game or the folks going to lunch.

Why didn't you say from the outset that you were going to restrict definitions of what constitutes a social contract in order to posit an argument that the laws and the Constitution are social contracts, but Obamacare is not?

The argument itself is ridiculously weak and woefully ignorant/

The social contract we citizens have with our government is that when they enact laws they do so in a constitutional manner.

facts that CANNOT be denied:, Obamacare was passed by a duly elected Congress, signed into law by a duly elected Chief Executive, and ruled constitutional by an independent Judiciary recognized by all.

Obamacare was not ruled constitutional by anybody. SCOTUS agreed that Congress had the authority to tax to provide healthcare and as a result did not overturn the individual mandate on that rationale. It also ruled that Obamacare could not force the states to take on additional Medicaid expansions. And that was after Obamacare was passed on the promise of those who voted it into law that it was not a new tax or tax increase and would not increase our taxes one penny. Those who passed it, most especially the President who signed it into law, lied through their teeth to keep the public from rising up in protest, and have subsequently changed the letter and intent of the law time and again to postpone the most onerous aspects of it so their precious campaign contributions and seats in government would not be in danger.

THAT in my opinion is a breach of social contract.

PPACA ACA Obamacare Mandate Shared Responsibility Payment Tax US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III–C, an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN join, and an opinion with respect to Parts III–A, III–B, and III–D.

Today we resolve constitutional challenges to two provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010:

...

They must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid, or risk losing all Medicaid funding. The remedy for that constitutional violation is to preclude the Federal Government from imposing such a sanction. That remedy does not require striking down other portions of the Affordable Care Act.

The Framers created a Federal Government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits. The Court does so today. But the Court does not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is affirmed in part and reversed in part.

It is so ordered.

----------------------------------​

Obamacare was ruled constitutional

​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

I have much appreciated your contributions to this thread.

I honestly don't think, however, that there is any such thing as a 'limited' social contract. Social contract is what it is--an agreement between people for the mutual benefit of all. It can be something as quick and innocuous as agreeing that we'll use the dutch treat method for lunch or what the ante will be in poker or as complex as the Constitution of the U.S.A. It can be informal agreement or binding as law.

But. . .if it is for the benefit of some, but not all, it is not social contract but is something else--and at the federal level that is usually something else that was never authorized by the Constitution itself. And if it is for the benefit of some and to the detriment of others, that is the polar opposite of social contract.

In a previous post you said that John Jay said "we give up "some" to protect the others." Even though a strong federalist, I can't imagine Jay saying that within the scope of social contract. He was so strong on the whole concept of unalienable rights and limitations on government to prevent any government infringement on those rights, that I am certain he would have agreed on the most consistent definition of social contract.

And that defintion is that social contract is a process to organize people to achieve MUTUAL benefit for everybody, and not just a privileged few.

I am going to need some concrete examples to help me understand what you are saying.

The quote from Jay is a clear description of a contract.

Jay, Madison, and the (two-faced Hamilton) all argued that the Constitution was a document that created a limited government (and by extension a clearly defined contract).

What kind of concrete examples do you need if the 'dutch treat' social contract for lunch, the poker ante social contract for the game, the Constitution or that traffic light are not sufficient examples? What is it that you do not understand re my argument?

A legally enforceable contract can be social contract. The Constitution is such a contract.

But all law is not social contract. Obamacare, for instance, violates almost every principle of social contract. It materially and physically punishes some in order to provide benefits to some at the expense of others. And it was passed based on government assurances and promises that turned out to be mostly lies and with a good deal of public opposition and extremely narrow congressional margins with some 'aye' votes obtained through threat and coercion.

And social contract can exist without any 'law' being involved at all. For example, a community that expects businesses to stay closed until church is over at noon on Sundays, but that has no law to that effect, is still engaging in social contract. As is the rules for the poker game or the folks going to lunch.

Why didn't you say from the outset that you were going to restrict definitions of what constitutes a social contract in order to posit an argument that the laws and the Constitution are social contracts, but Obamacare is not?

The argument itself is ridiculously weak and woefully ignorant/

The social contract we citizens have with our government is that when they enact laws they do so in a constitutional manner.

facts that CANNOT be denied:, Obamacare was passed by a duly elected Congress, signed into law by a duly elected Chief Executive, and ruled constitutional by an independent Judiciary recognized by all.

Obamacare was not ruled constitutional by anybody. SCOTUS agreed that Congress had the authority to tax to provide healthcare and as a result did not overturn the individual mandate on that rationale. The government lawyers argued it on the strength of government's power to tax. (SCOTUS had also ruled that Obamacare could not force the states to take on additional Medicaid expansions remember--that was NOT constitutional.) And the tax thing was argued after Obamarcare was passed on the promise of those who voted it into law that it was not a new tax or tax increase and would not increase our taxes one penny. Those who passed it, most especially the President who signed it into law, lied through their teeth to misrepresent it and keep the public from rising up in protest. And they have subsequently changed the letter and intent of the law time and again to postpone the most onerous aspects of it so their precious campaign contributions and seats in government would not be in danger.

THAT in my opinion is a breach of social contract.

Nothing in the letter of the law has been changed.

If you read the law, nothing has been changed. The text the Congress passed the President signed into law is exactly the same as it was.

You do not understand a legal ruling. It's okay. Most people do not especially with the partisan shouting passing itself off as news

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Chief Justice Roberts' words in the decision:

* * * "The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part."

PPACA ACA Obamacare Mandate Shared Responsibility Payment Tax Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum post #28

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So Foxfyre are you supposed to be held to factual truths in this thread or is there a rule that allows you to either consistently misrepresent, misunderstand or ignore when confronted with factual evidence?

 

[Foxfyre]

I have much appreciated your contributions to this thread.

I honestly don't think, however, that there is any such thing as a 'limited' social contract. Social contract is what it is--an agreement between people for the mutual benefit of all. It can be something as quick and innocuous as agreeing that we'll use the dutch treat method for lunch or what the ante will be in poker or as complex as the Constitution of the U.S.A. It can be informal agreement or binding as law.

But. . .if it is for the benefit of some, but not all, it is not social contract but is something else--and at the federal level that is usually something else that was never authorized by the Constitution itself. And if it is for the benefit of some and to the detriment of others, that is the polar opposite of social contract.

In a previous post you said that John Jay said "we give up "some" to protect the others." Even though a strong federalist, I can't imagine Jay saying that within the scope of social contract. He was so strong on the whole concept of unalienable rights and limitations on government to prevent any government infringement on those rights, that I am certain he would have agreed on the most consistent definition of social contract.

And that defintion is that social contract is a process to organize people to achieve MUTUAL benefit for everybody, and not just a privileged few.

I am going to need some concrete examples to help me understand what you are saying.

The quote from Jay is a clear description of a contract.

Jay, Madison, and the (two-faced Hamilton) all argued that the Constitution was a document that created a limited government (and by extension a clearly defined contract).

What kind of concrete examples do you need if the 'dutch treat' social contract for lunch, the poker ante social contract for the game, the Constitution or that traffic light are not sufficient examples? What is it that you do not understand re my argument?

A legally enforceable contract can be social contract. The Constitution is such a contract.

But all law is not social contract. Obamacare, for instance, violates almost every principle of social contract. It materially and physically punishes some in order to provide benefits to some at the expense of others. And it was passed based on government assurances and promises that turned out to be mostly lies and with a good deal of public opposition and extremely narrow congressional margins with some 'aye' votes obtained through threat and coercion.

And social contract can exist without any 'law' being involved at all. For example, a community that expects businesses to stay closed until church is over at noon on Sundays, but that has no law to that effect, is still engaging in social contract. As is the rules for the poker game or the folks going to lunch.

Why didn't you say from the outset that you were going to restrict definitions of what constitutes a social contract in order to posit an argument that the laws and the Constitution are social contracts, but Obamacare is not?

The argument itself is ridiculously weak and woefully ignorant/

The social contract we citizens have with our government is that when they enact laws they do so in a constitutional manner.

facts that CANNOT be denied:, Obamacare was passed by a duly elected Congress, signed into law by a duly elected Chief Executive, and ruled constitutional by an independent Judiciary recognized by all.

Obamacare was not ruled constitutional by anybody. SCOTUS agreed that Congress had the authority to tax to provide healthcare and as a result did not overturn the individual mandate on that rationale. The government lawyers argued it on the strength of government's power to tax. (SCOTUS had also ruled that Obamacare could not force the states to take on additional Medicaid expansions remember--that was NOT constitutional.) And the tax thing was argued after Obamarcare was passed on the promise of those who voted it into law that it was not a new tax or tax increase and would not increase our taxes one penny. Those who passed it, most especially the President who signed it into law, lied through their teeth to misrepresent it and keep the public from rising up in protest. And they have subsequently changed the letter and intent of the law time and again to postpone the most onerous aspects of it so their precious campaign contributions and seats in government would not be in danger.

THAT in my opinion is a breach of social contract.

Nothing in the letter of the law has been changed.

If you read the law, nothing has been changed. The text the Congress passed the President signed into law is exactly the same as it was.

You do not understand a legal ruling. It's okay. Most people do not especially with the partisan shouting passing itself off as news

I read Dante. The law has been changed, altered, postponed, adjusted numerous times since its passage:

49 Changes to ObamaCare So Far Galen Institute

But that isn't the point I'm making.

The question via question posed in the OP is:

How much responsibility do the American people have to obey a law--any law--that was forced on us via lies? That has had to be changed numerous times to hold off wholesale retaliation by those hurt by the law? That is not delivering according to its advertising? And that is hurting many in physical and material ways?

 

[RKMBrown]

Addressing a problem like poverty is NOT controlling the outcome. Framing things in this way is ridiculous and disingenuous. Going into a policy like addressing poverty with social problems it is a given that the final outcome will be unknown. If you are trying to say the ends don't justify the means go ahead and say attempting to address poverty is not worth the cost or effort because of irrational ideological stances

It is looking for a specific outcome (in this case we have a "poverty line" that we don't want people below). How far above the line....that is different.

Talk about disengeuous...your last statement is totally prejudiced.

First of all "what ends" would you justify.....after all....we are not controlling outcomes ?

I believe a cogent argument can be made (and probably has been) that investment in people that would get them out of poverty actually has a payback. The problem is the methodology for making the investment. Leaving that to the government alone hasn't worked out to well.

At the same time, I constantly hassle my conservative friends (who agree with my hypothesis) about how the so-called free market handles that.

So far it hasn't worked any better than the government.

Nonsense. Taking money through taxes for the purpose of redistributing income, while FORCING the people receiving said re-distributions to maintain the status of being poor to receive said hand-outs is not "allowing" a free market solution that uses hand-ups vs. government managed hand-out redistribution programs.

lovely myths you push

Yeah that's right, hand-outs and hand-ups are myths. ROFL

yeah, your myths:

"Taking money through taxes for the purpose of redistributing income, while FORCING the people receiving said re-distributions to maintain the status of being poor to receive said hand-outs is not "allowing" a free market solution that uses hand-ups vs. government managed hand-out redistribution programs"​

Yeah well I gave you the benefit of doubt that you knew taxes were not a myth.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is looking for a specific outcome (in this case we have a "poverty line" that we don't want people below). How far above the line....that is different.

Talk about disengeuous...your last statement is totally prejudiced.

First of all "what ends" would you justify.....after all....we are not controlling outcomes ?

I believe a cogent argument can be made (and probably has been) that investment in people that would get them out of poverty actually has a payback. The problem is the methodology for making the investment. Leaving that to the government alone hasn't worked out to well.

At the same time, I constantly hassle my conservative friends (who agree with my hypothesis) about how the so-called free market handles that.

So far it hasn't worked any better than the government.

Nonsense. Taking money through taxes for the purpose of redistributing income, while FORCING the people receiving said re-distributions to maintain the status of being poor to receive said hand-outs is not "allowing" a free market solution that uses hand-ups vs. government managed hand-out redistribution programs.

lovely myths you push

Yeah that's right, hand-outs and hand-ups are myths. ROFL

yeah, your myths:

"Taking money through taxes for the purpose of redistributing income, while FORCING the people receiving said re-distributions to maintain the status of being poor to receive said hand-outs is not "allowing" a free market solution that uses hand-ups vs. government managed hand-out redistribution programs"​

Yeah well I gave you the benefit of doubt that you knew taxes were not a myth.

Not directed at you specifically, but just using this as an illustration: we are becoming dangerously close to getting more personal than the rules of the thread allow.

The rules do not allow comments on what the members know or think or believe or intend or feel or anything else personal about the member. Focus on the specific posts please unless a post seriously violate the rules in which case please do not respond in kind but report it and let the mods handle it.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I am going to need some concrete examples to help me understand what you are saying.

The quote from Jay is a clear description of a contract.

Jay, Madison, and the (two-faced Hamilton) all argued that the Constitution was a document that created a limited government (and by extension a clearly defined contract).

What kind of concrete examples do you need if the 'dutch treat' social contract for lunch, the poker ante social contract for the game, the Constitution or that traffic light are not sufficient examples? What is it that you do not understand re my argument?

A legally enforceable contract can be social contract. The Constitution is such a contract.

But all law is not social contract. Obamacare, for instance, violates almost every principle of social contract. It materially and physically punishes some in order to provide benefits to some at the expense of others. And it was passed based on government assurances and promises that turned out to be mostly lies and with a good deal of public opposition and extremely narrow congressional margins with some 'aye' votes obtained through threat and coercion.

And social contract can exist without any 'law' being involved at all. For example, a community that expects businesses to stay closed until church is over at noon on Sundays, but that has no law to that effect, is still engaging in social contract. As is the rules for the poker game or the folks going to lunch.

Why didn't you say from the outset that you were going to restrict definitions of what constitutes a social contract in order to posit an argument that the laws and the Constitution are social contracts, but Obamacare is not?

The argument itself is ridiculously weak and woefully ignorant/

The social contract we citizens have with our government is that when they enact laws they do so in a constitutional manner.

facts that CANNOT be denied:, Obamacare was passed by a duly elected Congress, signed into law by a duly elected Chief Executive, and ruled constitutional by an independent Judiciary recognized by all.

Obamacare was not ruled constitutional by anybody. SCOTUS agreed that Congress had the authority to tax to provide healthcare and as a result did not overturn the individual mandate on that rationale. The government lawyers argued it on the strength of government's power to tax. (SCOTUS had also ruled that Obamacare could not force the states to take on additional Medicaid expansions remember--that was NOT constitutional.) And the tax thing was argued after Obamarcare was passed on the promise of those who voted it into law that it was not a new tax or tax increase and would not increase our taxes one penny. Those who passed it, most especially the President who signed it into law, lied through their teeth to misrepresent it and keep the public from rising up in protest. And they have subsequently changed the letter and intent of the law time and again to postpone the most onerous aspects of it so their precious campaign contributions and seats in government would not be in danger.

THAT in my opinion is a breach of social contract.

Nothing in the letter of the law has been changed.

If you read the law, nothing has been changed. The text the Congress passed the President signed into law is exactly the same as it was.

You do not understand a legal ruling. It's okay. Most people do not especially with the partisan shouting passing itself off as news

I read Dante. The law has been changed, altered, postponed, adjusted numerous times since its passage:

49 Changes to ObamaCare So Far Galen Institute

But that isn't the point I'm making.

The question via question posed in the OP is:

How much responsibility do the American people have to obey a law--any law--that was forced on us via lies? That has had to be changed numerous times to hold off wholesale retaliation by those hurt by the law? That is not delivering according to its advertising? And that is hurting many in physical and material ways?

Jesus Ccccchrist! You are talking about implementation of the law? How does that change the law, the text of the law?

Law based on lies? The law was not based on lies. You may be of the opinion it was sold on lies, but that is NOT the same thing. The people did NOT vote for the law because they do NOT vote for laws. Congress passes laws and the President signs it.

The social compact we have is we are a nation of laws and not men. We have an amendment process and elections that enable us to change laws we do not like.

 

[Foxfyre]

What kind of concrete examples do you need if the 'dutch treat' social contract for lunch, the poker ante social contract for the game, the Constitution or that traffic light are not sufficient examples? What is it that you do not understand re my argument?

A legally enforceable contract can be social contract. The Constitution is such a contract.

But all law is not social contract. Obamacare, for instance, violates almost every principle of social contract. It materially and physically punishes some in order to provide benefits to some at the expense of others. And it was passed based on government assurances and promises that turned out to be mostly lies and with a good deal of public opposition and extremely narrow congressional margins with some 'aye' votes obtained through threat and coercion.

And social contract can exist without any 'law' being involved at all. For example, a community that expects businesses to stay closed until church is over at noon on Sundays, but that has no law to that effect, is still engaging in social contract. As is the rules for the poker game or the folks going to lunch.

Why didn't you say from the outset that you were going to restrict definitions of what constitutes a social contract in order to posit an argument that the laws and the Constitution are social contracts, but Obamacare is not?

The argument itself is ridiculously weak and woefully ignorant/

The social contract we citizens have with our government is that when they enact laws they do so in a constitutional manner.

facts that CANNOT be denied:, Obamacare was passed by a duly elected Congress, signed into law by a duly elected Chief Executive, and ruled constitutional by an independent Judiciary recognized by all.

Obamacare was not ruled constitutional by anybody. SCOTUS agreed that Congress had the authority to tax to provide healthcare and as a result did not overturn the individual mandate on that rationale. The government lawyers argued it on the strength of government's power to tax. (SCOTUS had also ruled that Obamacare could not force the states to take on additional Medicaid expansions remember--that was NOT constitutional.) And the tax thing was argued after Obamarcare was passed on the promise of those who voted it into law that it was not a new tax or tax increase and would not increase our taxes one penny. Those who passed it, most especially the President who signed it into law, lied through their teeth to misrepresent it and keep the public from rising up in protest. And they have subsequently changed the letter and intent of the law time and again to postpone the most onerous aspects of it so their precious campaign contributions and seats in government would not be in danger.

THAT in my opinion is a breach of social contract.

Nothing in the letter of the law has been changed.

If you read the law, nothing has been changed. The text the Congress passed the President signed into law is exactly the same as it was.

You do not understand a legal ruling. It's okay. Most people do not especially with the partisan shouting passing itself off as news

I read Dante. The law has been changed, altered, postponed, adjusted numerous times since its passage:

49 Changes to ObamaCare So Far Galen Institute

But that isn't the point I'm making.

The question via question posed in the OP is:

How much responsibility do the American people have to obey a law--any law--that was forced on us via lies? That has had to be changed numerous times to hold off wholesale retaliation by those hurt by the law? That is not delivering according to its advertising? And that is hurting many in physical and material ways?

Jesus Ccccchrist! You are talking about implementation of the law? How does that change the law, the text of the law?

Law based on lies? The law was not based on lies. You may be of the opinion it was sold on lies, but that is NOT the same thing. The people did NOT vote for the law because they do NOT vote for laws. Congress passes laws and the President signs it.

The social compact we have is we are a nation of laws and not men. We have an amendment process and elections that enable us to change laws we do not like.

Changing how a law is implemented is changing the law. Lying to sell a law is very much misrepresentation of what people can expect from the law, most especially when they have no opportunity to know what is in the law before it is forced upon them.

So the question in the OP again--whether or not we agree that Obamacare is a good example to illustrate it--is:

How much are the people obligated to obey a law--ANY LAW--that:
1. We were lied to in order to pass it?
2. That was misrepresented to us as to what it would do or accomplish or force on us and/or what it would cost us?
3. That has had to be changed numerous times to keep certain constituencies from openly revolting?
4. That continues to hurt people who lack such power to influence Congress and is deeply unpopular?

That goes straight to the heart of the discussion topic presented in the OP.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

First, let me say that once you've defined this, you are setting up the basis for a coherent discussion. All programs and policies (government and non-government) are designed wit that end (as well as others) in mind. There is no question about what you want.

Now, I may or may not agree with your goals, and we slug it out at the ballot box.

I think we would be hard pressed to find someone to say what they want is for people to starve, shanty towns and uncontrolled crime. It really does come down to what works to prevent this from happening. While we may well disagree on what programs and policies are needed to accomplish this, it is ultimately the job of the government to do the job. That is their end of the contract.

And again...I think you would find that many do not feel that it is ultimately the job of government to accomplish those ends.

I am not arguing for the point...I am simply saying that in slogging through this thread that seems to be the place you and Fox disagree and yet don't seem to be listening to each other.

Your statement says the government should control outcomes.

I think Fox is saying government is more about process.

Addressing a problem like poverty is NOT controlling the outcome. Framing things in this way is ridiculous and disingenuous. Going into a policy like addressing poverty with social problems it is a given that the final outcome will be unknown. If you are trying to say the ends don't justify the means go ahead and say attempting to address poverty is not worth the cost or effort because of irrational ideological stances

It is looking for a specific outcome (in this case we have a "poverty line" that we don't want people below). How far above the line....that is different.

Talk about disengeuous...your last statement is totally prejudiced.

First of all "what ends" would you justify.....after all....we are not controlling outcomes ?

I believe a cogent argument can be made (and probably has been) that investment in people that would get them out of poverty actually has a payback. The problem is the methodology for making the investment. Leaving that to the government alone hasn't worked out to well.

At the same time, I constantly hassle my conservative friends (who agree with my hypothesis) about how the so-called free market handles that.

So far it hasn't worked any better than the government.

Before people demanded the government step in many more people as a percentage of the population were living in poverty. You are saying look backwards to a past that never existed. One where people were better of without government assistance. The problem is the facts don't back up your arguments or theories.

note: The outcome of poverty - not the particular social program. your arguments are either disingenuous or based on an ignorance of the facts.

I am not arguing anything. I have not offered this as a solution.

I have simply pointed out that there are different views on the topic and that some of it might be a way to look at the disagreements that are going on.

So, please stop making up stuff to argue against.

But to be clear, poverty is a changing target. I think you are the one who needs to re-examine your facts.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why didn't you say from the outset that you were going to restrict definitions of what constitutes a social contract in order to posit an argument that the laws and the Constitution are social contracts, but Obamacare is not?

The argument itself is ridiculously weak and woefully ignorant/

The social contract we citizens have with our government is that when they enact laws they do so in a constitutional manner.

facts that CANNOT be denied:, Obamacare was passed by a duly elected Congress, signed into law by a duly elected Chief Executive, and ruled constitutional by an independent Judiciary recognized by all.

Obamacare was not ruled constitutional by anybody. SCOTUS agreed that Congress had the authority to tax to provide healthcare and as a result did not overturn the individual mandate on that rationale. The government lawyers argued it on the strength of government's power to tax. (SCOTUS had also ruled that Obamacare could not force the states to take on additional Medicaid expansions remember--that was NOT constitutional.) And the tax thing was argued after Obamarcare was passed on the promise of those who voted it into law that it was not a new tax or tax increase and would not increase our taxes one penny. Those who passed it, most especially the President who signed it into law, lied through their teeth to misrepresent it and keep the public from rising up in protest. And they have subsequently changed the letter and intent of the law time and again to postpone the most onerous aspects of it so their precious campaign contributions and seats in government would not be in danger.

THAT in my opinion is a breach of social contract.

Nothing in the letter of the law has been changed.

If you read the law, nothing has been changed. The text the Congress passed the President signed into law is exactly the same as it was.

You do not understand a legal ruling. It's okay. Most people do not especially with the partisan shouting passing itself off as news

I read Dante. The law has been changed, altered, postponed, adjusted numerous times since its passage:

49 Changes to ObamaCare So Far Galen Institute

But that isn't the point I'm making.

The question via question posed in the OP is:

How much responsibility do the American people have to obey a law--any law--that was forced on us via lies? That has had to be changed numerous times to hold off wholesale retaliation by those hurt by the law? That is not delivering according to its advertising? And that is hurting many in physical and material ways?

Jesus Ccccchrist! You are talking about implementation of the law? How does that change the law, the text of the law?

Law based on lies? The law was not based on lies. You may be of the opinion it was sold on lies, but that is NOT the same thing. The people did NOT vote for the law because they do NOT vote for laws. Congress passes laws and the President signs it.

The social compact we have is we are a nation of laws and not men. We have an amendment process and elections that enable us to change laws we do not like.

Changing how a law is implemented is changing the law. Lying to sell a law is very much misrepresentation of what people can expect from the law, most especially when they have no opportunity to know what is in the law before it is forced upon them.

So the question in the OP again--whether or not we agree that Obamacare is a good example to illustrate it--is:

How much are the people obligated to obey a law--ANY LAW--that:
1. We were lied to in order to pass it?
2. That was misrepresented to us as to what it would do or accomplish or force on us and/or what it would cost us?
3. That has had to be changed numerous times to keep certain constituencies from openly revolting?
4. That continues to hurt people and is deeply unpopular?

That goes straight to the heart of the discussion topic presented in the OP.

You're wrong. That;'s all there is to it. Worse, you're wrong on so many levels it is next to impossible to take you seriously in this thread. You apparently have a poor grasp of anything in the area of legal thinking or argument.