Debate Now Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps we could start with:

What did John Locke mean when he advocated the principle of a state of liberty; not of license?

In other words does liberty exist without government? Or is it a matter of permission allowed or ordered by government?

Ok. Liberty only exists within a stable society. Liberty is meaningless in isolation and non-existent in a non-stable society. It is not a matter of permission ordered by the government but what the society considers to be acceptable behavior. IOW, your liberty is not dependent upon your government but upon your neighbors.

What produces a stable society? How is that accomplished?

Mostly warm homes and full bellies.

Within human nature though, there are always those who want bigger warm homes and caviar instead of hamburger to fill their bellies. And those with the security of warm homes and full bellies have the luxury of caring about other quality of life matters such as protection of their property values or the security of their personal possessions or the view from their deck or the neighbor's dogs that bark all night or speed limits, traffic lights, school bus routes, or fire insurance rates, etc.

Now social contract becomes a strong factor in how such matters will be addressed and handled.

The problem comes when the government structures are formed to administer such quality of life issues begin to acquire officials who assume powers never intended within the social contract. And there becomes a kind of authoritarian creep with more and more power, money, and resources shifted to the government.

At what point do the people say 'enough!' and start pushing back?

 

[PratchettFan]

Perhaps we could start with:

What did John Locke mean when he advocated the principle of a state of liberty; not of license?

In other words does liberty exist without government? Or is it a matter of permission allowed or ordered by government?

Ok. Liberty only exists within a stable society. Liberty is meaningless in isolation and non-existent in a non-stable society. It is not a matter of permission ordered by the government but what the society considers to be acceptable behavior. IOW, your liberty is not dependent upon your government but upon your neighbors.

What produces a stable society? How is that accomplished?

Mostly warm homes and full bellies.

Within human nature though, there are always those who want bigger warm homes and caviar instead of hamburger. And those with the security of warm homes and full bellies have the luxury of caring about other quality of life matters such as protection of their property values or the security of their personal possessions or the view from their deck or the neighbor's dogs that bark all night or speed limits, traffic lights, school bus routes, or fire insurance rates, etc.

Now social contract becomes a strong factor in how such matters will be addressed and handled.

The problem comes when the government structures mutually agreed to handle such quality of life issues acquire officials who assume powers never intended within the social contract. And there becomes a kind of authoritarian creep with more and more power, money, and resources shifted to the government.

At what point do the people says 'enough!' and start pushing back?

At the point where they no longer have warm houses and full bellies. Even then it takes some time.

It is certainly the nature of human beings that some are going to take more than their share. But it is also the nature that some people will lead and most will follow. The vast majority of humanity has absolutely no desire to do anything except follow. That is why they will jump out of the trenches into machine gun fire at the blast of a whistle, or will line naked civilians up in front of a trench and execute them. We are pack animals and pack animals typically only have one alpha of each sex. We have more because our packs have become more complicated. But that doesn't change our basic nature.

This is why I say the social contract is a very real thing. It is not philosophical nor even a thing thought out. It is biological. At the same time, we have a very advanced brain and individualism is not an insignificant factor. So we have laws which keep those who would deviate in line. The extent to which we allow deviation seems to be a matter of just how warm our houses and full our bellies are. If the US power grid went off line for a week, I think you would see just how quickly the rights of man go out the window.

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps we could start with:

What did John Locke mean when he advocated the principle of a state of liberty; not of license?

In other words does liberty exist without government? Or is it a matter of permission allowed or ordered by government?

Ok. Liberty only exists within a stable society. Liberty is meaningless in isolation and non-existent in a non-stable society. It is not a matter of permission ordered by the government but what the society considers to be acceptable behavior. IOW, your liberty is not dependent upon your government but upon your neighbors.

What produces a stable society? How is that accomplished?

Mostly warm homes and full bellies.

Within human nature though, there are always those who want bigger warm homes and caviar instead of hamburger. And those with the security of warm homes and full bellies have the luxury of caring about other quality of life matters such as protection of their property values or the security of their personal possessions or the view from their deck or the neighbor's dogs that bark all night or speed limits, traffic lights, school bus routes, or fire insurance rates, etc.

Now social contract becomes a strong factor in how such matters will be addressed and handled.

The problem comes when the government structures mutually agreed to handle such quality of life issues acquire officials who assume powers never intended within the social contract. And there becomes a kind of authoritarian creep with more and more power, money, and resources shifted to the government.

At what point do the people says 'enough!' and start pushing back?

At the point where they no longer have warm houses and full bellies. Even then it takes some time.

It is certainly the nature of human beings that some are going to take more than their share. But it is also the nature that some people will lead and most will follow. The vast majority of humanity has absolutely no desire to do anything except follow. That is why they will jump out of the trenches into machine gun fire at the blast of a whistle, or will line naked civilians up in front of a trench and execute them. We are pack animals and pack animals typically only have one alpha of each sex. We have more because our packs have become more complicated. But that doesn't change our basic nature.

This is why I say the social contract is a very real thing. It is not philosophical nor even a thing thought out. It is biological. At the same time, we have a very advanced brain and individualism is not an insignificant factor. So we have laws which keep those who would deviate in line. The extent to which we allow deviation seems to be a matter of just how warm our houses and full our bellies are. If the US power grid went off line for a week, I think you would see just how quickly the rights of man go out the window.

I'm not sure I can agree that social contract is not intentional, deliberate, and very well thought out. I have seen it up close and personal and I believe history has shown that it can see humankind through extreme difficulty--even in the Nazi death camps of WWII.

It goes back to the chicken and egg kind of debate as to whether crime creates poverty or crime is a result of poverty. But we only have to look to our not-so-distant past when there was much more poverty and much less crime to call into question whether poverty breeds crime or even anti-social behavior.

And yes some societies submit to an authoritarian government and surrender their rights because they see that as the only way to self preservation. But such people have always known the "Hobbes" concept of social contract in which government is given authority and responsibility to take care of the people.

The USA was created under a "Lockean" social contract in which the people assign the government the power it will be allowed and then the people will govern themselves. And now more than two centuries later, there still remains remnants of that sense of liberty and self governance.

I wonder if Americans would willingly submit to a swift and immediate transfer of government to totalitarian power? I think they might resist, even though they have been gradually doing that via a thousand tiny cuts for some time now.

 

[midcan5]

May I ask what you are trying to prove with this discussion? These word arguments have purposes that are often hidden behind piles of BS. Tell us where you'd like to take us. That would be the interesting and telling point - the rest is just words and subterfuge.

 

[PratchettFan]

Ok. Liberty only exists within a stable society. Liberty is meaningless in isolation and non-existent in a non-stable society. It is not a matter of permission ordered by the government but what the society considers to be acceptable behavior. IOW, your liberty is not dependent upon your government but upon your neighbors.

What produces a stable society? How is that accomplished?

Mostly warm homes and full bellies.

Within human nature though, there are always those who want bigger warm homes and caviar instead of hamburger. And those with the security of warm homes and full bellies have the luxury of caring about other quality of life matters such as protection of their property values or the security of their personal possessions or the view from their deck or the neighbor's dogs that bark all night or speed limits, traffic lights, school bus routes, or fire insurance rates, etc.

Now social contract becomes a strong factor in how such matters will be addressed and handled.

The problem comes when the government structures mutually agreed to handle such quality of life issues acquire officials who assume powers never intended within the social contract. And there becomes a kind of authoritarian creep with more and more power, money, and resources shifted to the government.

At what point do the people says 'enough!' and start pushing back?

At the point where they no longer have warm houses and full bellies. Even then it takes some time.

It is certainly the nature of human beings that some are going to take more than their share. But it is also the nature that some people will lead and most will follow. The vast majority of humanity has absolutely no desire to do anything except follow. That is why they will jump out of the trenches into machine gun fire at the blast of a whistle, or will line naked civilians up in front of a trench and execute them. We are pack animals and pack animals typically only have one alpha of each sex. We have more because our packs have become more complicated. But that doesn't change our basic nature.

This is why I say the social contract is a very real thing. It is not philosophical nor even a thing thought out. It is biological. At the same time, we have a very advanced brain and individualism is not an insignificant factor. So we have laws which keep those who would deviate in line. The extent to which we allow deviation seems to be a matter of just how warm our houses and full our bellies are. If the US power grid went off line for a week, I think you would see just how quickly the rights of man go out the window.

I'm not sure I can agree that social contract is not intentional, deliberate, and very well thought out. I have seen it up close and personal and I believe history has shown that it can see humankind through extreme difficulty--even in the Nazi death camps of WWII.

It goes back to the chicken and egg kind of debate as to whether crime creates poverty or crime is a result of poverty. But we only have to look to our not-so-distant past when there was much more poverty and much less crime to call into question whether poverty breeds crime or even anti-social behavior.

And yes some societies submit to an authoritarian government and surrender their rights because they see that as the only way to self preservation. But such people have always known the "Hobbes" concept of social contract in which government is given authority and responsibility to take care of the people.

The USA was created under a "Lockean" social contract in which the people assign the government the power it will be allowed and then the people will govern themselves. And now more than two centuries later, there still remains remnants of that sense of liberty and self governance.

I wonder if Americans would willingly submit to a swift and immediate transfer of government to totalitarian power? I think they might resist, even though they have been gradually doing that via a thousand tiny cuts for some time now.

I would agree that laws are thought out, but not the social contract. That is really just an observation of natural human behavior.

The US was a compromise by people who understood the consequences of not forming a government after the revolution. If it were truly Lockean we would have seen universal sufferage and certainly not slavery. Yet only a minority was allowed the vote and an entire segment of the population was deemed property.

I hate to be cynical, but I think not only would Americans submit to a totalitarian power, they would wave flags at the parade.

 

[Foxfyre]

What produces a stable society? How is that accomplished?

Mostly warm homes and full bellies.

Within human nature though, there are always those who want bigger warm homes and caviar instead of hamburger. And those with the security of warm homes and full bellies have the luxury of caring about other quality of life matters such as protection of their property values or the security of their personal possessions or the view from their deck or the neighbor's dogs that bark all night or speed limits, traffic lights, school bus routes, or fire insurance rates, etc.

Now social contract becomes a strong factor in how such matters will be addressed and handled.

The problem comes when the government structures mutually agreed to handle such quality of life issues acquire officials who assume powers never intended within the social contract. And there becomes a kind of authoritarian creep with more and more power, money, and resources shifted to the government.

At what point do the people says 'enough!' and start pushing back?

At the point where they no longer have warm houses and full bellies. Even then it takes some time.

It is certainly the nature of human beings that some are going to take more than their share. But it is also the nature that some people will lead and most will follow. The vast majority of humanity has absolutely no desire to do anything except follow. That is why they will jump out of the trenches into machine gun fire at the blast of a whistle, or will line naked civilians up in front of a trench and execute them. We are pack animals and pack animals typically only have one alpha of each sex. We have more because our packs have become more complicated. But that doesn't change our basic nature.

This is why I say the social contract is a very real thing. It is not philosophical nor even a thing thought out. It is biological. At the same time, we have a very advanced brain and individualism is not an insignificant factor. So we have laws which keep those who would deviate in line. The extent to which we allow deviation seems to be a matter of just how warm our houses and full our bellies are. If the US power grid went off line for a week, I think you would see just how quickly the rights of man go out the window.

I'm not sure I can agree that social contract is not intentional, deliberate, and very well thought out. I have seen it up close and personal and I believe history has shown that it can see humankind through extreme difficulty--even in the Nazi death camps of WWII.

It goes back to the chicken and egg kind of debate as to whether crime creates poverty or crime is a result of poverty. But we only have to look to our not-so-distant past when there was much more poverty and much less crime to call into question whether poverty breeds crime or even anti-social behavior.

And yes some societies submit to an authoritarian government and surrender their rights because they see that as the only way to self preservation. But such people have always known the "Hobbes" concept of social contract in which government is given authority and responsibility to take care of the people.

The USA was created under a "Lockean" social contract in which the people assign the government the power it will be allowed and then the people will govern themselves. And now more than two centuries later, there still remains remnants of that sense of liberty and self governance.

I wonder if Americans would willingly submit to a swift and immediate transfer of government to totalitarian power? I think they might resist, even though they have been gradually doing that via a thousand tiny cuts for some time now.

I would agree that laws are thought out, but not the social contract. That is really just an observation of natural human behavior.

The US was a compromise by people who understood the consequences of not forming a government after the revolution. If it were truly Lockean we would have seen universal sufferage and certainly not slavery. Yet only a minority was allowed the vote and an entire segment of the population was deemed property.

I hate to be cynical, but I think not only would Americans submit to a totalitarian power, they would wave flags at the parade.

The original Constitution did not specify who could vote and left that up to the states to decide. Most of the states originally limited voting rights to heads of households, presumed to be males, who were landowners or who produced taxable income. Some of the states extended the vote to women who were head of households; one or two extended the vote to freed slaves who were head of households.

After that it became a matter of custom and culture more than anything else and for a long time, outside of a few militant feminists--militant groups had little power in those days--it just wasn't important enough to women to care all that much. Most adult women were married and most agreed with their husbands in matters of politics, so one vote per household still seemed reasonable.

When women decided they did care and there was sufficient support for a correction of policy, the 19th Amendment gave women the vote in 1920. And that too was accomplished via social contract. It took 40 years to accomplish from the time it was first introduced until it finally passed Congress and was ratified by all 48 states existing that that time. But because it was accomplished by consent of the states and the people, it created barely a ripple and little or no resentment and was implemented seamlessly and painlessly. That is how social contract is supposed to work.

 

[Foxfyre]

May I ask what you are trying to prove with this discussion? These word arguments have purposes that are often hidden behind piles of BS. Tell us where you'd like to take us. That would be the interesting and telling point - the rest is just words and subterfuge.

The opportunity is offered those with the interest and intellect or curiosity to accept it to discuss concepts of social contract as related to laws and government. The direction is takes is up to those discussing it.

 

[PratchettFan]

Mostly warm homes and full bellies.

Within human nature though, there are always those who want bigger warm homes and caviar instead of hamburger. And those with the security of warm homes and full bellies have the luxury of caring about other quality of life matters such as protection of their property values or the security of their personal possessions or the view from their deck or the neighbor's dogs that bark all night or speed limits, traffic lights, school bus routes, or fire insurance rates, etc.

Now social contract becomes a strong factor in how such matters will be addressed and handled.

The problem comes when the government structures mutually agreed to handle such quality of life issues acquire officials who assume powers never intended within the social contract. And there becomes a kind of authoritarian creep with more and more power, money, and resources shifted to the government.

At what point do the people says 'enough!' and start pushing back?

At the point where they no longer have warm houses and full bellies. Even then it takes some time.

It is certainly the nature of human beings that some are going to take more than their share. But it is also the nature that some people will lead and most will follow. The vast majority of humanity has absolutely no desire to do anything except follow. That is why they will jump out of the trenches into machine gun fire at the blast of a whistle, or will line naked civilians up in front of a trench and execute them. We are pack animals and pack animals typically only have one alpha of each sex. We have more because our packs have become more complicated. But that doesn't change our basic nature.

This is why I say the social contract is a very real thing. It is not philosophical nor even a thing thought out. It is biological. At the same time, we have a very advanced brain and individualism is not an insignificant factor. So we have laws which keep those who would deviate in line. The extent to which we allow deviation seems to be a matter of just how warm our houses and full our bellies are. If the US power grid went off line for a week, I think you would see just how quickly the rights of man go out the window.

I'm not sure I can agree that social contract is not intentional, deliberate, and very well thought out. I have seen it up close and personal and I believe history has shown that it can see humankind through extreme difficulty--even in the Nazi death camps of WWII.

It goes back to the chicken and egg kind of debate as to whether crime creates poverty or crime is a result of poverty. But we only have to look to our not-so-distant past when there was much more poverty and much less crime to call into question whether poverty breeds crime or even anti-social behavior.

And yes some societies submit to an authoritarian government and surrender their rights because they see that as the only way to self preservation. But such people have always known the "Hobbes" concept of social contract in which government is given authority and responsibility to take care of the people.

The USA was created under a "Lockean" social contract in which the people assign the government the power it will be allowed and then the people will govern themselves. And now more than two centuries later, there still remains remnants of that sense of liberty and self governance.

I wonder if Americans would willingly submit to a swift and immediate transfer of government to totalitarian power? I think they might resist, even though they have been gradually doing that via a thousand tiny cuts for some time now.

I would agree that laws are thought out, but not the social contract. That is really just an observation of natural human behavior.

The US was a compromise by people who understood the consequences of not forming a government after the revolution. If it were truly Lockean we would have seen universal sufferage and certainly not slavery. Yet only a minority was allowed the vote and an entire segment of the population was deemed property.

I hate to be cynical, but I think not only would Americans submit to a totalitarian power, they would wave flags at the parade.

The original Constitution did not specify who could vote and left that up to the states to decide. Most of the states originally limited voting rights to heads of households, presumed to be males, who were landowners or who produced taxable income. Some of the states extended the vote to women who were head of households; one or two extended the vote to freed slaves who were head of households.

After that it became a matter of custom and culture more than anything else and for a long time, outside of a few militant feminists--militant groups had little power in those days--it just wasn't important enough to women to care all that much. Most adult women were married and most agreed with their husbands in matters of politics, so one vote per household still seemed reasonable.

When women decided they did care and there was sufficient support for a correction of policy, the 19th Amendment gave women the vote in 1920. And that too was accomplished via social contract. It took 40 years to accomplish from the time it was first introduced until it finally passed Congress and was ratified by all 48 states existing that that time. But because it was accomplished by consent of the states and the people, it created barely a ripple and little or no resentment and was implemented seamlessly and painlessly. That is how social contract is supposed to work.

As to seamlessly and painlessly, I think you need to familiarize yourself with the history. However, I think you just demonstrated my point. The Founding Fathers themselves were content to limited freedom for most and the use of force to impose the will of the state. Those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion I am sure had very clear opinions on totalitarian government.

 

[Foxfyre]

Within human nature though, there are always those who want bigger warm homes and caviar instead of hamburger. And those with the security of warm homes and full bellies have the luxury of caring about other quality of life matters such as protection of their property values or the security of their personal possessions or the view from their deck or the neighbor's dogs that bark all night or speed limits, traffic lights, school bus routes, or fire insurance rates, etc.

Now social contract becomes a strong factor in how such matters will be addressed and handled.

The problem comes when the government structures mutually agreed to handle such quality of life issues acquire officials who assume powers never intended within the social contract. And there becomes a kind of authoritarian creep with more and more power, money, and resources shifted to the government.

At what point do the people says 'enough!' and start pushing back?

At the point where they no longer have warm houses and full bellies. Even then it takes some time.

It is certainly the nature of human beings that some are going to take more than their share. But it is also the nature that some people will lead and most will follow. The vast majority of humanity has absolutely no desire to do anything except follow. That is why they will jump out of the trenches into machine gun fire at the blast of a whistle, or will line naked civilians up in front of a trench and execute them. We are pack animals and pack animals typically only have one alpha of each sex. We have more because our packs have become more complicated. But that doesn't change our basic nature.

This is why I say the social contract is a very real thing. It is not philosophical nor even a thing thought out. It is biological. At the same time, we have a very advanced brain and individualism is not an insignificant factor. So we have laws which keep those who would deviate in line. The extent to which we allow deviation seems to be a matter of just how warm our houses and full our bellies are. If the US power grid went off line for a week, I think you would see just how quickly the rights of man go out the window.

I'm not sure I can agree that social contract is not intentional, deliberate, and very well thought out. I have seen it up close and personal and I believe history has shown that it can see humankind through extreme difficulty--even in the Nazi death camps of WWII.

It goes back to the chicken and egg kind of debate as to whether crime creates poverty or crime is a result of poverty. But we only have to look to our not-so-distant past when there was much more poverty and much less crime to call into question whether poverty breeds crime or even anti-social behavior.

And yes some societies submit to an authoritarian government and surrender their rights because they see that as the only way to self preservation. But such people have always known the "Hobbes" concept of social contract in which government is given authority and responsibility to take care of the people.

The USA was created under a "Lockean" social contract in which the people assign the government the power it will be allowed and then the people will govern themselves. And now more than two centuries later, there still remains remnants of that sense of liberty and self governance.

I wonder if Americans would willingly submit to a swift and immediate transfer of government to totalitarian power? I think they might resist, even though they have been gradually doing that via a thousand tiny cuts for some time now.

I would agree that laws are thought out, but not the social contract. That is really just an observation of natural human behavior.

The US was a compromise by people who understood the consequences of not forming a government after the revolution. If it were truly Lockean we would have seen universal sufferage and certainly not slavery. Yet only a minority was allowed the vote and an entire segment of the population was deemed property.

I hate to be cynical, but I think not only would Americans submit to a totalitarian power, they would wave flags at the parade.

The original Constitution did not specify who could vote and left that up to the states to decide. Most of the states originally limited voting rights to heads of households, presumed to be males, who were landowners or who produced taxable income. Some of the states extended the vote to women who were head of households; one or two extended the vote to freed slaves who were head of households.

After that it became a matter of custom and culture more than anything else and for a long time, outside of a few militant feminists--militant groups had little power in those days--it just wasn't important enough to women to care all that much. Most adult women were married and most agreed with their husbands in matters of politics, so one vote per household still seemed reasonable.

When women decided they did care and there was sufficient support for a correction of policy, the 19th Amendment gave women the vote in 1920. And that too was accomplished via social contract. It took 40 years to accomplish from the time it was first introduced until it finally passed Congress and was ratified by all 48 states existing that that time. But because it was accomplished by consent of the states and the people, it created barely a ripple and little or no resentment and was implemented seamlessly and painlessly. That is how social contract is supposed to work.

As to seamlessly and painlessly, I think you need to familiarize yourself with the history. However, I think you just demonstrated my point. The Founding Fathers themselves were content to limited freedom for most and the use of force to impose the will of the state. Those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion I am sure had very clear opinions on totalitarian government.

Well I would prefer to keep this discussion on social contract.

I disagree with your characterization of what the Founders were content with.

Social Contract, does limit certain liberties as a trade off to accomplish a desirable mutual goal, but the the operative word is mutual. Such as okay, the majority is willing to vote to have their right to drive unimpeded through a particular intersection restricted by installation of a traffic light that will make it much safer for both motorists and pedestrians and will facilitate a more orderly flow of traffic--mutual benefit to all. In order for the traffic light to accomplish its desired effect, it will be necessary to enforce some consequence for failure to obey the light.

Where the issue becomes sticky, however, is when somebody in government arbitrarily puts up a light that the citizens see as intrusive, unnecessary, and restrictive. Who should have the power to demand that the light stay or go?

 

[PratchettFan]

At the point where they no longer have warm houses and full bellies. Even then it takes some time.

It is certainly the nature of human beings that some are going to take more than their share. But it is also the nature that some people will lead and most will follow. The vast majority of humanity has absolutely no desire to do anything except follow. That is why they will jump out of the trenches into machine gun fire at the blast of a whistle, or will line naked civilians up in front of a trench and execute them. We are pack animals and pack animals typically only have one alpha of each sex. We have more because our packs have become more complicated. But that doesn't change our basic nature.

This is why I say the social contract is a very real thing. It is not philosophical nor even a thing thought out. It is biological. At the same time, we have a very advanced brain and individualism is not an insignificant factor. So we have laws which keep those who would deviate in line. The extent to which we allow deviation seems to be a matter of just how warm our houses and full our bellies are. If the US power grid went off line for a week, I think you would see just how quickly the rights of man go out the window.

I'm not sure I can agree that social contract is not intentional, deliberate, and very well thought out. I have seen it up close and personal and I believe history has shown that it can see humankind through extreme difficulty--even in the Nazi death camps of WWII.

It goes back to the chicken and egg kind of debate as to whether crime creates poverty or crime is a result of poverty. But we only have to look to our not-so-distant past when there was much more poverty and much less crime to call into question whether poverty breeds crime or even anti-social behavior.

And yes some societies submit to an authoritarian government and surrender their rights because they see that as the only way to self preservation. But such people have always known the "Hobbes" concept of social contract in which government is given authority and responsibility to take care of the people.

The USA was created under a "Lockean" social contract in which the people assign the government the power it will be allowed and then the people will govern themselves. And now more than two centuries later, there still remains remnants of that sense of liberty and self governance.

I wonder if Americans would willingly submit to a swift and immediate transfer of government to totalitarian power? I think they might resist, even though they have been gradually doing that via a thousand tiny cuts for some time now.

I would agree that laws are thought out, but not the social contract. That is really just an observation of natural human behavior.

The US was a compromise by people who understood the consequences of not forming a government after the revolution. If it were truly Lockean we would have seen universal sufferage and certainly not slavery. Yet only a minority was allowed the vote and an entire segment of the population was deemed property.

I hate to be cynical, but I think not only would Americans submit to a totalitarian power, they would wave flags at the parade.

The original Constitution did not specify who could vote and left that up to the states to decide. Most of the states originally limited voting rights to heads of households, presumed to be males, who were landowners or who produced taxable income. Some of the states extended the vote to women who were head of households; one or two extended the vote to freed slaves who were head of households.

After that it became a matter of custom and culture more than anything else and for a long time, outside of a few militant feminists--militant groups had little power in those days--it just wasn't important enough to women to care all that much. Most adult women were married and most agreed with their husbands in matters of politics, so one vote per household still seemed reasonable.

When women decided they did care and there was sufficient support for a correction of policy, the 19th Amendment gave women the vote in 1920. And that too was accomplished via social contract. It took 40 years to accomplish from the time it was first introduced until it finally passed Congress and was ratified by all 48 states existing that that time. But because it was accomplished by consent of the states and the people, it created barely a ripple and little or no resentment and was implemented seamlessly and painlessly. That is how social contract is supposed to work.

As to seamlessly and painlessly, I think you need to familiarize yourself with the history. However, I think you just demonstrated my point. The Founding Fathers themselves were content to limited freedom for most and the use of force to impose the will of the state. Those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion I am sure had very clear opinions on totalitarian government.

Well I would prefer to keep this discussion on social contract.

I disagree with your characterization of what the Founders were content with.

Social Contract, does limit certain liberties as a trade off to accomplish a desirable mutual goal, but the the operative word is mutual. Such as okay, the majority is willing to vote to have their right to drive unimpeded through a particular intersection restricted by installation of a traffic light that will make it much safer for both motorists and pedestrians and will facilitate a more orderly flow of traffic--mutual benefit to all. In order for the traffic light to accomplish its desired effect, it will be necessary to enforce some consequence for failure to obey the light.

Where the issue becomes sticky, however, is when somebody in government arbitrarily puts up a light that the citizens see as intrusive, unnecessary, and restrictive. Who should have the power to demand that the light stay or go?

The government should have that power. That is the purpose of government.

In our particular form of government the populace does have an influence on government. A fairly significant influence. So they can certainly petition for a change. But the change is and should be entirely under the control of the government.

The social contract limits all liberties without exception. You cannot act independently without regard for others. You can speak your mind, to the extent it does not harm the society. You can move about, to the extent you do not infringe upon society and other individuals. But both of those exist only because of government.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not sure I can agree that social contract is not intentional, deliberate, and very well thought out. I have seen it up close and personal and I believe history has shown that it can see humankind through extreme difficulty--even in the Nazi death camps of WWII.

It goes back to the chicken and egg kind of debate as to whether crime creates poverty or crime is a result of poverty. But we only have to look to our not-so-distant past when there was much more poverty and much less crime to call into question whether poverty breeds crime or even anti-social behavior.

And yes some societies submit to an authoritarian government and surrender their rights because they see that as the only way to self preservation. But such people have always known the "Hobbes" concept of social contract in which government is given authority and responsibility to take care of the people.

The USA was created under a "Lockean" social contract in which the people assign the government the power it will be allowed and then the people will govern themselves. And now more than two centuries later, there still remains remnants of that sense of liberty and self governance.

I wonder if Americans would willingly submit to a swift and immediate transfer of government to totalitarian power? I think they might resist, even though they have been gradually doing that via a thousand tiny cuts for some time now.

I would agree that laws are thought out, but not the social contract. That is really just an observation of natural human behavior.

The US was a compromise by people who understood the consequences of not forming a government after the revolution. If it were truly Lockean we would have seen universal sufferage and certainly not slavery. Yet only a minority was allowed the vote and an entire segment of the population was deemed property.

I hate to be cynical, but I think not only would Americans submit to a totalitarian power, they would wave flags at the parade.

The original Constitution did not specify who could vote and left that up to the states to decide. Most of the states originally limited voting rights to heads of households, presumed to be males, who were landowners or who produced taxable income. Some of the states extended the vote to women who were head of households; one or two extended the vote to freed slaves who were head of households.

After that it became a matter of custom and culture more than anything else and for a long time, outside of a few militant feminists--militant groups had little power in those days--it just wasn't important enough to women to care all that much. Most adult women were married and most agreed with their husbands in matters of politics, so one vote per household still seemed reasonable.

When women decided they did care and there was sufficient support for a correction of policy, the 19th Amendment gave women the vote in 1920. And that too was accomplished via social contract. It took 40 years to accomplish from the time it was first introduced until it finally passed Congress and was ratified by all 48 states existing that that time. But because it was accomplished by consent of the states and the people, it created barely a ripple and little or no resentment and was implemented seamlessly and painlessly. That is how social contract is supposed to work.

As to seamlessly and painlessly, I think you need to familiarize yourself with the history. However, I think you just demonstrated my point. The Founding Fathers themselves were content to limited freedom for most and the use of force to impose the will of the state. Those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion I am sure had very clear opinions on totalitarian government.

Well I would prefer to keep this discussion on social contract.

I disagree with your characterization of what the Founders were content with.

Social Contract, does limit certain liberties as a trade off to accomplish a desirable mutual goal, but the the operative word is mutual. Such as okay, the majority is willing to vote to have their right to drive unimpeded through a particular intersection restricted by installation of a traffic light that will make it much safer for both motorists and pedestrians and will facilitate a more orderly flow of traffic--mutual benefit to all. In order for the traffic light to accomplish its desired effect, it will be necessary to enforce some consequence for failure to obey the light.

Where the issue becomes sticky, however, is when somebody in government arbitrarily puts up a light that the citizens see as intrusive, unnecessary, and restrictive. Who should have the power to demand that the light stay or go?

The government should have that power. That is the purpose of government.

In our particular form of government the populace does have an influence on government. A fairly significant influence. So they can certainly petition for a change. But the change is and should be entirely under the control of the government.

The social contract limits all liberties without exception. You cannot act independently without regard for others. You can speak your mind, to the extent it does not harm the society. You can move about, to the extent you do not infringe upon society and other individuals. But both of those exist only because of government.

But government did not materialize out of thin air. In the USA the government was organized and given its authority by the people who formed it, with careful attention and specific intention to restrict the authority that was authorized.

And they were of one mind that should that government exceed the authority assigned to it by the people, that the people were justified and even morally required to overthrow it and replace it with the government of the people's choosing.

 

[PratchettFan]

I would agree that laws are thought out, but not the social contract. That is really just an observation of natural human behavior.

The US was a compromise by people who understood the consequences of not forming a government after the revolution. If it were truly Lockean we would have seen universal sufferage and certainly not slavery. Yet only a minority was allowed the vote and an entire segment of the population was deemed property.

I hate to be cynical, but I think not only would Americans submit to a totalitarian power, they would wave flags at the parade.

The original Constitution did not specify who could vote and left that up to the states to decide. Most of the states originally limited voting rights to heads of households, presumed to be males, who were landowners or who produced taxable income. Some of the states extended the vote to women who were head of households; one or two extended the vote to freed slaves who were head of households.

After that it became a matter of custom and culture more than anything else and for a long time, outside of a few militant feminists--militant groups had little power in those days--it just wasn't important enough to women to care all that much. Most adult women were married and most agreed with their husbands in matters of politics, so one vote per household still seemed reasonable.

When women decided they did care and there was sufficient support for a correction of policy, the 19th Amendment gave women the vote in 1920. And that too was accomplished via social contract. It took 40 years to accomplish from the time it was first introduced until it finally passed Congress and was ratified by all 48 states existing that that time. But because it was accomplished by consent of the states and the people, it created barely a ripple and little or no resentment and was implemented seamlessly and painlessly. That is how social contract is supposed to work.

As to seamlessly and painlessly, I think you need to familiarize yourself with the history. However, I think you just demonstrated my point. The Founding Fathers themselves were content to limited freedom for most and the use of force to impose the will of the state. Those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion I am sure had very clear opinions on totalitarian government.

Well I would prefer to keep this discussion on social contract.

I disagree with your characterization of what the Founders were content with.

Social Contract, does limit certain liberties as a trade off to accomplish a desirable mutual goal, but the the operative word is mutual. Such as okay, the majority is willing to vote to have their right to drive unimpeded through a particular intersection restricted by installation of a traffic light that will make it much safer for both motorists and pedestrians and will facilitate a more orderly flow of traffic--mutual benefit to all. In order for the traffic light to accomplish its desired effect, it will be necessary to enforce some consequence for failure to obey the light.

Where the issue becomes sticky, however, is when somebody in government arbitrarily puts up a light that the citizens see as intrusive, unnecessary, and restrictive. Who should have the power to demand that the light stay or go?

The government should have that power. That is the purpose of government.

In our particular form of government the populace does have an influence on government. A fairly significant influence. So they can certainly petition for a change. But the change is and should be entirely under the control of the government.

The social contract limits all liberties without exception. You cannot act independently without regard for others. You can speak your mind, to the extent it does not harm the society. You can move about, to the extent you do not infringe upon society and other individuals. But both of those exist only because of government.

But government did not materialize out of thin air. In the USA the government was organized and given its authority by the people who formed it, with careful attention and specific intention to restrict the authority that was authorized.

And they were of one mind that should that government exceed the authority assigned to it by the people, that the people were justified and even morally required to overthrow it and replace it with the government of the people's choosing.

Government is a natural aspect of any human society. Ours is in no way unique. Nor were the people who formed the government of one mind. Not even close. As to overthrowing the government, I would refer you to the only crime actually mentioned in the Constitution. Treason. That is what the Founding Fathers thought of replacing the government.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

A social contract is inherent in all societies. Those who violate the contract typically end up in prison, banished or dead. Governments which ignore it tend to be overthrown. It isn't so much philosophy as a fact of life.

Well that is close to how John Locke would have looked at it I think.

So do you see our government at federal, state, and social levels as living within the social contract? Or violating it? If the latter, how close are we to one or more of those governments being overthrown?

Disclaimer: This is a theoretical question please. I do not wish to have sinister looking guys in trench coats at my door or black helicopters hovering over my house.

Our Federal Government was not created to abide by any "Social Contract". It was created to maintain the viability of the Union so that the State and other governments could effectively carry out the wishes of their respective consitutents.

 

[PratchettFan]

A social contract is inherent in all societies. Those who violate the contract typically end up in prison, banished or dead. Governments which ignore it tend to be overthrown. It isn't so much philosophy as a fact of life.

Well that is close to how John Locke would have looked at it I think.

So do you see our government at federal, state, and social levels as living within the social contract? Or violating it? If the latter, how close are we to one or more of those governments being overthrown?

Disclaimer: This is a theoretical question please. I do not wish to have sinister looking guys in trench coats at my door or black helicopters hovering over my house.

Our Federal Government was not created to abide by any "Social Contract". It was created to maintain the viability of the Union so that the State and other governments could effectively carry out the wishes of their respective consitutents.

What you just described is a social contract.

 

[Foxfyre]

A social contract is inherent in all societies. Those who violate the contract typically end up in prison, banished or dead. Governments which ignore it tend to be overthrown. It isn't so much philosophy as a fact of life.

Well that is close to how John Locke would have looked at it I think.

So do you see our government at federal, state, and social levels as living within the social contract? Or violating it? If the latter, how close are we to one or more of those governments being overthrown?

Disclaimer: This is a theoretical question please. I do not wish to have sinister looking guys in trench coats at my door or black helicopters hovering over my house.

Our Federal Government was not created to abide by any "Social Contract". It was created to maintain the viability of the Union so that the State and other governments could effectively carry out the wishes of their respective consitutents.

What PrachettFan said. Remember that Social Contract is the means by which a people organize themselves for the mutual benefit of all. So you have just described that.

 

[Foxfyre]

The original Constitution did not specify who could vote and left that up to the states to decide. Most of the states originally limited voting rights to heads of households, presumed to be males, who were landowners or who produced taxable income. Some of the states extended the vote to women who were head of households; one or two extended the vote to freed slaves who were head of households.

After that it became a matter of custom and culture more than anything else and for a long time, outside of a few militant feminists--militant groups had little power in those days--it just wasn't important enough to women to care all that much. Most adult women were married and most agreed with their husbands in matters of politics, so one vote per household still seemed reasonable.

When women decided they did care and there was sufficient support for a correction of policy, the 19th Amendment gave women the vote in 1920. And that too was accomplished via social contract. It took 40 years to accomplish from the time it was first introduced until it finally passed Congress and was ratified by all 48 states existing that that time. But because it was accomplished by consent of the states and the people, it created barely a ripple and little or no resentment and was implemented seamlessly and painlessly. That is how social contract is supposed to work.

As to seamlessly and painlessly, I think you need to familiarize yourself with the history. However, I think you just demonstrated my point. The Founding Fathers themselves were content to limited freedom for most and the use of force to impose the will of the state. Those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion I am sure had very clear opinions on totalitarian government.

Well I would prefer to keep this discussion on social contract.

I disagree with your characterization of what the Founders were content with.

Social Contract, does limit certain liberties as a trade off to accomplish a desirable mutual goal, but the the operative word is mutual. Such as okay, the majority is willing to vote to have their right to drive unimpeded through a particular intersection restricted by installation of a traffic light that will make it much safer for both motorists and pedestrians and will facilitate a more orderly flow of traffic--mutual benefit to all. In order for the traffic light to accomplish its desired effect, it will be necessary to enforce some consequence for failure to obey the light.

Where the issue becomes sticky, however, is when somebody in government arbitrarily puts up a light that the citizens see as intrusive, unnecessary, and restrictive. Who should have the power to demand that the light stay or go?

The government should have that power. That is the purpose of government.

In our particular form of government the populace does have an influence on government. A fairly significant influence. So they can certainly petition for a change. But the change is and should be entirely under the control of the government.

The social contract limits all liberties without exception. You cannot act independently without regard for others. You can speak your mind, to the extent it does not harm the society. You can move about, to the extent you do not infringe upon society and other individuals. But both of those exist only because of government.

But government did not materialize out of thin air. In the USA the government was organized and given its authority by the people who formed it, with careful attention and specific intention to restrict the authority that was authorized.

And they were of one mind that should that government exceed the authority assigned to it by the people, that the people were justified and even morally required to overthrow it and replace it with the government of the people's choosing.

Government is a natural aspect of any human society. Ours is in no way unique. Nor were the people who formed the government of one mind. Not even close. As to overthrowing the government, I would refer you to the only crime actually mentioned in the Constitution. Treason. That is what the Founding Fathers thought of replacing the government.

It becomes a bit more difficult to discuss when one in the discussion does not recognize or believe in natural or inalienable rights as you have indicated.

But I disagree that our government is in no way unique. There has never been another government in the history of the world in which the people assigned the government the power it would have and the purpose of that government was to recognize and and secure the rights of the people and then leave them alone to govern themselves.

In all other cases the government was taken by force by somebody powerful enough to do that or the people raised up a king or ruler to govern them. In both cases those in power could assign and take away the rights the people would have. The U.S. government was never intended to have that power.

And I do believe the Founders intended that the people had the power to dissolve and replace a government that assumed more power that it was assigned or that failed to execute the responsibilities assigned to it.

 

[PratchettFan]

As to seamlessly and painlessly, I think you need to familiarize yourself with the history. However, I think you just demonstrated my point. The Founding Fathers themselves were content to limited freedom for most and the use of force to impose the will of the state. Those who participated in the Whiskey Rebellion I am sure had very clear opinions on totalitarian government.

Well I would prefer to keep this discussion on social contract.

I disagree with your characterization of what the Founders were content with.

Social Contract, does limit certain liberties as a trade off to accomplish a desirable mutual goal, but the the operative word is mutual. Such as okay, the majority is willing to vote to have their right to drive unimpeded through a particular intersection restricted by installation of a traffic light that will make it much safer for both motorists and pedestrians and will facilitate a more orderly flow of traffic--mutual benefit to all. In order for the traffic light to accomplish its desired effect, it will be necessary to enforce some consequence for failure to obey the light.

Where the issue becomes sticky, however, is when somebody in government arbitrarily puts up a light that the citizens see as intrusive, unnecessary, and restrictive. Who should have the power to demand that the light stay or go?

The government should have that power. That is the purpose of government.

In our particular form of government the populace does have an influence on government. A fairly significant influence. So they can certainly petition for a change. But the change is and should be entirely under the control of the government.

The social contract limits all liberties without exception. You cannot act independently without regard for others. You can speak your mind, to the extent it does not harm the society. You can move about, to the extent you do not infringe upon society and other individuals. But both of those exist only because of government.

But government did not materialize out of thin air. In the USA the government was organized and given its authority by the people who formed it, with careful attention and specific intention to restrict the authority that was authorized.

And they were of one mind that should that government exceed the authority assigned to it by the people, that the people were justified and even morally required to overthrow it and replace it with the government of the people's choosing.

Government is a natural aspect of any human society. Ours is in no way unique. Nor were the people who formed the government of one mind. Not even close. As to overthrowing the government, I would refer you to the only crime actually mentioned in the Constitution. Treason. That is what the Founding Fathers thought of replacing the government.

It becomes a bit more difficult to discuss when one in the discussion does not recognize or believe in natural or inalienable rights as you have indicated.

But I disagree that our government is in no way unique. There has never been a government in the history of the world in which the people assigned the government the power it would have and the purpose of that government was to recognize and and secure the rights of the people and then leave them alone to govern themselves.

In all other cases the government was taken by force by somebody powerful enough to do that or the people raised up a king or ruler to govern them. In both cases those in power could assign and take away the rights the people would have. The U.S. government was never intended to have that power.

I think the operative word in that first sentence is "believe". Because belief is the only thing which demonstrates such rights exist. If I shoot you, where is your inalienable right to live? If the government incarcerates you, where is your inalienable right to liberty. In fact, where was the inalienable right to liberty of the human beings owned by Jefferson? Rights exist only because the society in which you live say they exist. They disappear the second the society no longer does so. They are not natural nor inalienable. They are a myth we happen to pretend is true and I don't accept myths.

Ours is merely the first of a particular form, and really just a variation of an ongoing theme at that. All governments operate under the authority of the people governed. Even authoritarian ones. Once they lose that authority, they go away. If you don't believe me, ask the French kings. A small minority cannot control a large majority unless that majority is willing to be controlled.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well I would prefer to keep this discussion on social contract.

I disagree with your characterization of what the Founders were content with.

Social Contract, does limit certain liberties as a trade off to accomplish a desirable mutual goal, but the the operative word is mutual. Such as okay, the majority is willing to vote to have their right to drive unimpeded through a particular intersection restricted by installation of a traffic light that will make it much safer for both motorists and pedestrians and will facilitate a more orderly flow of traffic--mutual benefit to all. In order for the traffic light to accomplish its desired effect, it will be necessary to enforce some consequence for failure to obey the light.

Where the issue becomes sticky, however, is when somebody in government arbitrarily puts up a light that the citizens see as intrusive, unnecessary, and restrictive. Who should have the power to demand that the light stay or go?

The government should have that power. That is the purpose of government.

In our particular form of government the populace does have an influence on government. A fairly significant influence. So they can certainly petition for a change. But the change is and should be entirely under the control of the government.

The social contract limits all liberties without exception. You cannot act independently without regard for others. You can speak your mind, to the extent it does not harm the society. You can move about, to the extent you do not infringe upon society and other individuals. But both of those exist only because of government.

But government did not materialize out of thin air. In the USA the government was organized and given its authority by the people who formed it, with careful attention and specific intention to restrict the authority that was authorized.

And they were of one mind that should that government exceed the authority assigned to it by the people, that the people were justified and even morally required to overthrow it and replace it with the government of the people's choosing.

Government is a natural aspect of any human society. Ours is in no way unique. Nor were the people who formed the government of one mind. Not even close. As to overthrowing the government, I would refer you to the only crime actually mentioned in the Constitution. Treason. That is what the Founding Fathers thought of replacing the government.

It becomes a bit more difficult to discuss when one in the discussion does not recognize or believe in natural or inalienable rights as you have indicated.

But I disagree that our government is in no way unique. There has never been a government in the history of the world in which the people assigned the government the power it would have and the purpose of that government was to recognize and and secure the rights of the people and then leave them alone to govern themselves.

In all other cases the government was taken by force by somebody powerful enough to do that or the people raised up a king or ruler to govern them. In both cases those in power could assign and take away the rights the people would have. The U.S. government was never intended to have that power.

I think the operative word in that first sentence is "believe". Because belief is the only thing which demonstrates such rights exist. If I shoot you, where is your inalienable right to live? If the government incarcerates you, where is your inalienable right to liberty. In fact, where was the inalienable right to liberty of the human beings owned by Jefferson? Rights exist only because the society in which you live say they exist. They disappear the second the society no longer does so. They are not natural nor inalienable. They are a myth we happen to pretend is true and I don't accept myths.

Ours is merely the first of a particular form, and really just a variation of an ongoing theme at that. All governments operate under the authority of the people governed. Even authoritarian ones. Once they lose that authority, they go away. If you don't believe me, ask the French kings. A small minority cannot control a large majority unless that majority is willing to be controlled.

I think it is important to understand the concept of 'natural rights' as opposed to 'legal rights'. Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke, all the Founders understood the difference between those two things. "Legal" rights are indeed assigned by government or society. But they are a different thing. The right to be seated in a restaurant is not a 'natural right' but a 'legal right.' There is no 'natural right' to require another to provide you with a meal.

The concept is not whether somebody can deny a person the ability to exercise his/her natural or unalienable rights. Of course in a world of survival of the fittest or the strong and/or ruthless requiring the weak and/or timid to submit, natural rights will be neither recognized nor respected. Both a state of anarchy and all power placed in government take away the people's ability to benefit from natural rights.

The Founders rightly knew that if recognition and security of natural rights were not the sole function of government, then there could be no liberty. Natural rights are to think, say, believe, act, and possess that which requires no participation or contribution by any other and that does not infringe on anybody else's rights.

 

[midcan5]

May I ask what you are trying to prove with this discussion? These word arguments have purposes that are often hidden behind piles of BS. Tell us where you'd like to take us. That would be the interesting and telling point - the rest is just words and subterfuge.

The opportunity is offered those with the interest and intellect or curiosity to accept it to discuss concepts of social contract as related to laws and government. The direction is takes is up to those discussing it.

I get that, but I want to know where you want to take us. For instance you write:

"Where the issue becomes sticky, however, is when somebody in government arbitrarily puts up a light that the citizens see as intrusive, unnecessary, and restrictive. Who should have the power to demand that the light stay or go?"

Which kinda gives away your motives. Does it simply come down to quibbling over some subjective aspect of government regulation? Using your example, we have lots of lights (Philly PA) and sometimes they are removed as they serve no real purpose. Give us something concrete, something big, not trivial examples. I want something we can bite on. Later I'll reference a piece that touches on the topic of social contract.

 

[Hossfly]

Well I would prefer to keep this discussion on social contract.

I disagree with your characterization of what the Founders were content with.

Social Contract, does limit certain liberties as a trade off to accomplish a desirable mutual goal, but the the operative word is mutual. Such as okay, the majority is willing to vote to have their right to drive unimpeded through a particular intersection restricted by installation of a traffic light that will make it much safer for both motorists and pedestrians and will facilitate a more orderly flow of traffic--mutual benefit to all. In order for the traffic light to accomplish its desired effect, it will be necessary to enforce some consequence for failure to obey the light.

Where the issue becomes sticky, however, is when somebody in government arbitrarily puts up a light that the citizens see as intrusive, unnecessary, and restrictive. Who should have the power to demand that the light stay or go?

The government should have that power. That is the purpose of government.

In our particular form of government the populace does have an influence on government. A fairly significant influence. So they can certainly petition for a change. But the change is and should be entirely under the control of the government.

The social contract limits all liberties without exception. You cannot act independently without regard for others. You can speak your mind, to the extent it does not harm the society. You can move about, to the extent you do not infringe upon society and other individuals. But both of those exist only because of government.

But government did not materialize out of thin air. In the USA the government was organized and given its authority by the people who formed it, with careful attention and specific intention to restrict the authority that was authorized.

And they were of one mind that should that government exceed the authority assigned to it by the people, that the people were justified and even morally required to overthrow it and replace it with the government of the people's choosing.

Government is a natural aspect of any human society. Ours is in no way unique. Nor were the people who formed the government of one mind. Not even close. As to overthrowing the government, I would refer you to the only crime actually mentioned in the Constitution. Treason. That is what the Founding Fathers thought of replacing the government.

It becomes a bit more difficult to discuss when one in the discussion does not recognize or believe in natural or inalienable rights as you have indicated.

But I disagree that our government is in no way unique. There has never been a government in the history of the world in which the people assigned the government the power it would have and the purpose of that government was to recognize and and secure the rights of the people and then leave them alone to govern themselves.

In all other cases the government was taken by force by somebody powerful enough to do that or the people raised up a king or ruler to govern them. In both cases those in power could assign and take away the rights the people would have. The U.S. government was never intended to have that power.

I think the operative word in that first sentence is "believe". Because belief is the only thing which demonstrates such rights exist. If I shoot you, where is your inalienable right to live? If the government incarcerates you, where is your inalienable right to liberty. In fact, where was the inalienable right to liberty of the human beings owned by Jefferson? Rights exist only because the society in which you live say they exist. They disappear the second the society no longer does so. They are not natural nor inalienable. They are a myth we happen to pretend is true and I don't accept myths.

Ours is merely the first of a particular form, and really just a variation of an ongoing theme at that. All governments operate under the authority of the people governed. Even authoritarian ones. Once they lose that authority, they go away. If you don't believe me, ask the French kings. A small minority cannot control a large majority unless that majority is willing to be controlled.

That's the reasons for The Bill of Rights.Without them we could have anarchy.