Debate Now Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government

[JakeStarkey]

Who decides on your theory of contract?

The courts of course.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"And if you believe that the early Americans were justified in overthrowing the English crown and instituting the government they wanted, then you do believe that civil disobedience can be justified morally and ethically."

Depending on the type of civil disobedience, a qualified yes is my is my answer.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Certainly living with the social contract. We are not even vaguely close to any sort of revolution. Our government is very responsive to public reaction. Perhaps too responsive.

Is it? How do you account for the fact that we have such narrow Congressional votes on laws that profoundly affect us all? Or that such laws are passed without a strong consensus of the American people? I think that does not square with a concept of social contract.

I think you have described a long time congressional behavior. A veto proof congress would change the narrow votes, yes, and enrage the minority portion of the country.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Having had an amicable argument with another member recently over the issue of Social Contract--I think it an essential component of a liberated society and he thinks it doesn't exist or, if it does, it is a progressive tool for mischief--I think some might enjoy a discussion of what Social Contract is and what it isn't. So let's discuss Social Contract.

More specifically, let's discuss whether Social Contract is the single most important guiding principle in what our laws and government should be?

The concept of Social Contract is almost as old as recorded history with Socrates and Plato both offering thoughts on it. More recently, such historic figures as Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke became the poster children for a philosophy of Social Contract with each taking a somewhat different position on the best way to accomplish it for the maximum benefit of human kind.
Social Contract Theory by Hobbes Locke and Rousseau Manzoor Elahi - Academia.edu

The American Founders leaned strongly toward the concept put forth by John Locke summarized as:

. . .According to Locke, the purpose of the Government and law is to uphold and protect the natural rights of men. So long as the Government fulfils this purpose, the laws given by it are valid and binding but, when it ceases to fulfill it, then the laws would have no validity and the Government can be thrown out of power.

In Locke’s view, unlimited sovereignty is contrary to natural law.

Hence, John Locke advocated the principle of a state of liberty; not of license. Locke advocated a state for the general good of people. He pleaded for a constitutionally limited government. . .
Social Contract Theory Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy​

NOTE: The links provided are intended as information only and I do not regard them as necessarily any more or less authoritative than opinions written or expressed by others.

For purposes of this discussion only, one or both of the following will be the general definition for Social Contract that we will use:

Definition: Social Contract:

1. The process or system by which society organizes itself for the mutual benefit of all. This can be binding on all or informally understood.

2. An agreement between the people and government assigning specific responsibilities and limitations on power to each.​

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominem, personal insults, or challenge of the intent of the member making a post. Whether expressing approval, opinions, criticism, questions, or challenge, address the post itself. Keep it as civil as possible please.

2. Links or other sources may be useful but are not required to express an opinion or 'statement of fact.' If you use a link to an outside source, provide in your own words a short summary of what the source will show. (A short quoted excerpt can also be helpful.)

3. Rather than get bogged down in differences of opinion over definitions, the thread author reserves the right to determine, as she deems necessary, what definition(s) will be used for purposes of this discussion only. She will try to be as logical, accurate, fair, impartial, and apolitical in such rulings as possible.

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED:

Is Social Contract as defined above a valid concept?
If so, is the U.S. Constitution social contract? State and local governments?
If so, has the spirit and intent of social contract been preserved in current times?
Do you agree with Locke that laws and policies that violate social contract invalidates the law and the government that imposes them? That social contract should be the single most guiding principle in what government and laws should be?
And who should get to decide that?​

By definition the laws and Constitution of the United States are a social contract because all laws are ultimately ratified by We the People through the Congress which is elected to represent us.

When law is amended, nullified, and created by the Executive (through Executive Orders as an example) or by Judicial Fiat, or by unelected regulators, the social contract is broken and We the People are subject to tyranny.

Sic Semper Tryannis. Look it up.

 

[PratchettFan]

You can argue what the wording implies, but I point out that it is not there. If the FFs wanted it there, they could have put it there. They did not.

The purpose of the DOI was to gear the masses up for a war. It was pure propaganda.

If a right can be infringed upon, if it can be limited or removed, it if can be modified, if it can be granted or taken away, then it is neither natural nor inalienable. Those two words are meaningless adjectives which add nothing.

We'll just have to disagree on that point I suppose. Because I very definitely understand what the Founders meant and intended with the phrase 'natural' or 'unalienable' rights and why we cannot have liberty unless they are recognized and secured.

Perhaps we can disagree on that and still discuss social contract?

Certainly. Although I expect we agree on that issue, which tends to make a short discussion.

Oh come on. It's a very big issue. Surely we can find something to squabble a bit about.

It's late now and I need to head for bed, but I'll think of something tomorrow.

Ok. We both agree the social contract is a vital aspect of any society. I think you believe it to be more philosophical and I see it as more biological - or perhaps instinctual is a better word.

The contract is a two way street. The society has to provide an environment in which the individual can exist without undue uncertainty. Individuals will accept quite a bit of infringement of their options, but they need to know they can depend upon tomorrow being pretty much like today. If you look at a dictatorship, such as Iraq under Saddam, you did not have any indication of revolution or terrorist activities. People were not blowing up neighborhoods. Yet the level of actual freedom was limited. Remove the dictator and that certainty went away. Now the power could not be depended upon, the laws were flaky, the government in chaos. Enter terrorism as the people revolted. Not against the suppression of their rights but the loss of certainty.

In the other direction is the obligation of the individual to the society. Any freedoms or certainty an individual might have is the result of the stability of the society. By enjoying those benefits, the individual has an obligation to see to insuring that stability. So they can't just rob a bank because they need money, or kick their neighbor out of their house. They must comply with the rules of the society. This means their personal liberty must be limited. The extent to which it is limited is directly dependent upon how stable the society is. Push personal liberty to the point where it destabilizes society and those liberties will very quickly be curtailed or eliminated.

This is why I said that not only would Americans accept a totalitarian government but would wave flags at the parade. Americans are human beings, no different than anyone else. Remove the certainty from their lives and they will flock to totalitarianism to get it back.

I wonder. Certainly many Americans have accepted the current government which is about as close to a totalitarian government as we have ever had.

I am not at all convinced that most American people would embrace totalitarianism to obtain certainty. I think many Americans embrace the Founders' vision of liberty and would be willing to put their lives on the line to defend it.

The problem we Americans have is that we have been conditioned for generations now to accept loss of our liberties and more and more authoritarian government by virtue of a thousand tiny cuts imposed over time so everybody gets accustomed to the new pain before the next one is inflicted. And because we're busy with buying and selling and living our lives, we just swallow hard and go on with our own business. Just as the early Americans did before the Revolution.

Once you enjoy living peacefully, it is really tough to upset that by engaging in intentional conflict.

But at some point there was the last straw. Nothing more onerous or more terrible than other 'offenses' imposed on the people by an overreaching government. But enough of the American people did rebel and overthrew an unacceptable government.

Can it happen again? Do Americans still have the balls to demand that the unnecessary and irritating traffic light be removed?

I totally disagree our current is the most totalitarian. Not but a huge long shot. Quite the opposite.

I think many Americans embrace the vision they have of what the Founders vision of liberty, though I seriously doubt the Founders shared that particular vision. The first president sent the military to put down a revolt over taxation, which I doubt matches that particular vision. But it doesn't matter for embracing a vision is a far cry from doing anything.

Congress has a 15% approval rating but 85% of them got re-elected. You can't even get that much of a revolution going. What people want to know is that they are going to have a tomorrow much like today. If not, they want to know who they can blame for it. The vast majority of them will accept what they are told without question. Not the most pleasant truth about us, but it is true nonetheless.

 

[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.

Certainly living with the social contract. We are not even vaguely close to any sort of revolution. Our government is very responsive to public reaction. Perhaps too responsive.

Is it? How do you account for the fact that we have such narrow Congressional votes on laws that profoundly affect us all? Or that such laws are passed without a strong consensus of the American people? I think that does not square with a concept of social contract.

Because the members of congress are too responsive to public reaction. They vote not on what they think is best for the country but on what they think will please enough voters to keep them in office.

There is no consensus of the American people. There will never be consensus without some massive issue, like WWII. The entire point of a representative democracy is you have people with the time to evaluate the facts and make decisions for the benefit of the society. Of course, that assume the human beings elected cease to act like human beings. Since they don't, you get narrow votes.

 

[Foxfyre]

Having had an amicable argument with another member recently over the issue of Social Contract--I think it an essential component of a liberated society and he thinks it doesn't exist or, if it does, it is a progressive tool for mischief--I think some might enjoy a discussion of what Social Contract is and what it isn't. So let's discuss Social Contract.

More specifically, let's discuss whether Social Contract is the single most important guiding principle in what our laws and government should be?

The concept of Social Contract is almost as old as recorded history with Socrates and Plato both offering thoughts on it. More recently, such historic figures as Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke became the poster children for a philosophy of Social Contract with each taking a somewhat different position on the best way to accomplish it for the maximum benefit of human kind.
Social Contract Theory by Hobbes Locke and Rousseau Manzoor Elahi - Academia.edu

The American Founders leaned strongly toward the concept put forth by John Locke summarized as:

. . .According to Locke, the purpose of the Government and law is to uphold and protect the natural rights of men. So long as the Government fulfils this purpose, the laws given by it are valid and binding but, when it ceases to fulfill it, then the laws would have no validity and the Government can be thrown out of power.

In Locke’s view, unlimited sovereignty is contrary to natural law.

Hence, John Locke advocated the principle of a state of liberty; not of license. Locke advocated a state for the general good of people. He pleaded for a constitutionally limited government. . .
Social Contract Theory Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy​

NOTE: The links provided are intended as information only and I do not regard them as necessarily any more or less authoritative than opinions written or expressed by others.

For purposes of this discussion only, one or both of the following will be the general definition for Social Contract that we will use:

Definition: Social Contract:

1. The process or system by which society organizes itself for the mutual benefit of all. This can be binding on all or informally understood.

2. An agreement between the people and government assigning specific responsibilities and limitations on power to each.​

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. No ad hominem, personal insults, or challenge of the intent of the member making a post. Whether expressing approval, opinions, criticism, questions, or challenge, address the post itself. Keep it as civil as possible please.

2. Links or other sources may be useful but are not required to express an opinion or 'statement of fact.' If you use a link to an outside source, provide in your own words a short summary of what the source will show. (A short quoted excerpt can also be helpful.)

3. Rather than get bogged down in differences of opinion over definitions, the thread author reserves the right to determine, as she deems necessary, what definition(s) will be used for purposes of this discussion only. She will try to be as logical, accurate, fair, impartial, and apolitical in such rulings as possible.

THE TOPIC TO BE DISCUSSED:

Is Social Contract as defined above a valid concept?
If so, is the U.S. Constitution social contract? State and local governments?
If so, has the spirit and intent of social contract been preserved in current times?
Do you agree with Locke that laws and policies that violate social contract invalidates the law and the government that imposes them? That social contract should be the single most guiding principle in what government and laws should be?
And who should get to decide that?​

By definition the laws and Constitution of the United States are a social contract because all laws are ultimately ratified by We the People through the Congress which is elected to represent us.

When law is amended, nullified, and created by the Executive (through Executive Orders as an example) or by Judicial Fiat, or by unelected regulators, the social contract is broken and We the People are subject to tyranny.

Sic Semper Tryannis. Look it up.

Careful WQ. Those black helicopters really are out there I have been told.

But can social contract create a red line do you think? Obviously we may chaff and fret in frustration when we are required to go 15 mph in a school zone at midnight, but do we have justification in demanding no consequence for exceeding that 15 mph if we choose to do so? Or does a moral people petition the government to enforce that 15 mph only during the hours children are likely to be present?

That onerous red light used for illustration earlier. Let's say it got placed for the convenience of the mayor who wanted his elderly mother to have a protected turn. But otherwise there is very little traffic and no logical reason for it to be there. Should we be able to disobey it with impunity when there is no traffic in sight?

Many of us believe the courts too often step outside of their ordered role to determine guilt or innocence or settle legal disputes and interpret the law of the land. They now more and more changes the intent or purpose of the law and/or write their own law based on sociopolitical or ideological motivations. At what point do the people say enough and demand that the social contract re authority of courts be reinstated?

 

[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.

Certainly living with the social contract. We are not even vaguely close to any sort of revolution. Our government is very responsive to public reaction. Perhaps too responsive.

Is it? How do you account for the fact that we have such narrow Congressional votes on laws that profoundly affect us all? Or that such laws are passed without a strong consensus of the American people? I think that does not square with a concept of social contract.

Because the members of congress are too responsive to public reaction. They vote not on what they think is best for the country but on what they think will please enough voters to keep them in office.

There is no consensus of the American people. There will never be consensus without some massive issue, like WWII. The entire point of a representative democracy is you have people with the time to evaluate the facts and make decisions for the benefit of the society. Of course, that assume the human beings elected cease to act like human beings. Since they don't, you get narrow votes.

IMO, too many of those elected to office these days seek election for purely self-serving reasons. They are a permanent political class who are first and foremost interested in increased their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. And they do throw the people just enough bones or make empty promises or tell flat out lies to keep the people voting for them to stay in power. So I agree that the lie and bribe and buy themselves safe seats. I don't think it is bowing to public conscience though as it is just knowing what will assure them those safe seats.

It is a fact of human nature that it takes huge strength of ones convictions to give up a benefit or privilege we are receiving from government in favor of some higher or more noble goal--most especially when we might make of ourselves a martyr without making a difference.

But the Founders did just that. They risked everything. Their rank. Their privilege. Their property. Their fortunes. Their very lives. And they did it to accomplish a higher goal of liberty and the ability to govern themselves.

Are there any such Americans left?

 

[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.

Certainly living with the social contract. We are not even vaguely close to any sort of revolution. Our government is very responsive to public reaction. Perhaps too responsive.

Is it? How do you account for the fact that we have such narrow Congressional votes on laws that profoundly affect us all? Or that such laws are passed without a strong consensus of the American people? I think that does not square with a concept of social contract.

Because the members of congress are too responsive to public reaction. They vote not on what they think is best for the country but on what they think will please enough voters to keep them in office.

There is no consensus of the American people. There will never be consensus without some massive issue, like WWII. The entire point of a representative democracy is you have people with the time to evaluate the facts and make decisions for the benefit of the society. Of course, that assume the human beings elected cease to act like human beings. Since they don't, you get narrow votes.

IMO, too many of those elected to office these days seek election for purely self-serving reasons. They are a permanent political class who are first and foremost interested in increased their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. And they do throw the people just enough bones or make empty promises or tell flat out lies to keep the people voting for them to stay in power. So I agree that the lie and bribe and buy themselves safe seats. I don't think it is bowing to public conscience though as it is just knowing what will assure them those safe seats.

It is a fact of human nature that it takes huge strength of ones convictions to give up a benefit or privilege we are receiving from government in favor of some higher or more noble goal--most especially when we might make of ourselves a martyr without making a difference.

But the Founders did just that. They risked everything. Their rank. Their privilege. Their property. Their fortunes. Their very lives. And they did it to accomplish a higher goal of liberty and the ability to govern themselves.

Are there any such Americans left?

IMO, all of those elected to office do it for self-serving reasons. The only people who would put themselves and their families through the nonsense in order to get elected are the people who want the power. Our system of elections eliminates any other type. And if the process doesn't do it, the voters certainly will. No one not willing to lie will ever get elected. Being honest with the average American is the quickest way to lose.

You ask if there are any such American left. I doubt there were ever any such Americans at all. I am grateful they had a clear enough understanding of our nature that they created a government destined to be in a constant state of warfare with itself. But I don't believe they were anything but men with all of the failings of men.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Certainly living with the social contract. We are not even vaguely close to any sort of revolution. Our government is very responsive to public reaction. Perhaps too responsive.

Is it? How do you account for the fact that we have such narrow Congressional votes on laws that profoundly affect us all? Or that such laws are passed without a strong consensus of the American people? I think that does not square with a concept of social contract.

Because the members of congress are too responsive to public reaction. They vote not on what they think is best for the country but on what they think will please enough voters to keep them in office.

There is no consensus of the American people. There will never be consensus without some massive issue, like WWII. The entire point of a representative democracy is you have people with the time to evaluate the facts and make decisions for the benefit of the society. Of course, that assume the human beings elected cease to act like human beings. Since they don't, you get narrow votes.

IMO, too many of those elected to office these days seek election for purely self-serving reasons. They are a permanent political class who are first and foremost interested in increased their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. And they do throw the people just enough bones or make empty promises or tell flat out lies to keep the people voting for them to stay in power. So I agree that the lie and bribe and buy themselves safe seats. I don't think it is bowing to public conscience though as it is just knowing what will assure them those safe seats.

It is a fact of human nature that it takes huge strength of ones convictions to give up a benefit or privilege we are receiving from government in favor of some higher or more noble goal--most especially when we might make of ourselves a martyr without making a difference.

But the Founders did just that. They risked everything. Their rank. Their privilege. Their property. Their fortunes. Their very lives. And they did it to accomplish a higher goal of liberty and the ability to govern themselves.

Are there any such Americans left?

IMO, all of those elected to office do it for self-serving reasons. The only people who would put themselves and their families through the nonsense in order to get elected are the people who want the power. Our system of elections eliminates any other type. And if the process doesn't do it, the voters certainly will. No one not willing to lie will ever get elected. Being honest with the average American is the quickest way to lose.

You ask if there are any such American left. I doubt there were ever any such Americans at all. I am grateful they had a clear enough understanding of our nature that they created a government destined to be in a constant state of warfare with itself. But I don't believe they were anything but men with all of the failings of men.

I believe there are such men. (Men being the shortened symbol of men and women.) I believe the Founders, while certainly sinners as we all are, were such men or they wouldn't have risked everything to wrest this land away from England and give us a brilliant new social contract concept of government that limited their power along with everybody elses, but maximized liberty. And it produced the most successful, prosperous, innovative, creative, charitable, and free nation the world had ever known. . .

. . .at least until modern times when we have far too many who neither recognize nor appreciate nor respect that social contract and who are doing their damndest to destroy it in favor of a more authoritarian and all powerful government.

So I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that too.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Having had an amicable argument with another member recently over the issue of Social Contract--I think it an essential component of a liberated society and he thinks it doesn't exist or, if it does, it is a progressive tool for mischief--I think some might enjoy a discussion of what Social Contract is and what it isn't. So let's discuss Social Contract.

More specifically, let's discuss whether Social Contract is the single most important guiding principle in what our laws and government should be?

The concept of Social Contract is almost as old as recorded history with...

...

"the contractual basis of society and government" - Bailyn


"Bailyn?" I hear people ask "Bailyin?" yet they consider themselves well read and informed on what went into the forming of the United States.

excerpt:

The pamphlets of the American Revolution rely most heavily on these country whig thinkers for their coherence. Bailyn writes:

Their key concepts – natural rights, the contractual basis of society and government, the uniqueness of England’s liberty-preserving “mixed” constitution – were commonplaces of the liberal thought of the time. But if the elements of their thought were ordinary, the emphasis placed upon them and the use made of them were not. ​

Religion the Founding Bailyn s Ideological Origins of the American Revolution National Catholic Reporter

In post #41 you, the OP wrote "Personally I think the traffic light is an excellent non controversial and non partisan illustration to consider the principle of whether government action is social contract or violates social contract."

Government IS a social contract. I would think in a representative republic like ours any government action is done in the name of the people, the society. We are the government as it represents us. Us as a whole. Us as a society.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Certainly living with the social contract. We are not even vaguely close to any sort of revolution. Our government is very responsive to public reaction. Perhaps too responsive.

Is it? How do you account for the fact that we have such narrow Congressional votes on laws that profoundly affect us all? Or that such laws are passed without a strong consensus of the American people? I think that does not square with a concept of social contract.

Because the members of congress are too responsive to public reaction. They vote not on what they think is best for the country but on what they think will please enough voters to keep them in office.

There is no consensus of the American people. There will never be consensus without some massive issue, like WWII. The entire point of a representative democracy is you have people with the time to evaluate the facts and make decisions for the benefit of the society. Of course, that assume the human beings elected cease to act like human beings. Since they don't, you get narrow votes.

IMO, too many of those elected to office these days seek election for purely self-serving reasons. They are a permanent political class who are first and foremost interested in increased their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. And they do throw the people just enough bones or make empty promises or tell flat out lies to keep the people voting for them to stay in power. So I agree that the lie and bribe and buy themselves safe seats. I don't think it is bowing to public conscience though as it is just knowing what will assure them those safe seats.

It is a fact of human nature that it takes huge strength of ones convictions to give up a benefit or privilege we are receiving from government in favor of some higher or more noble goal--most especially when we might make of ourselves a martyr without making a difference.

But the Founders did just that. They risked everything. Their rank. Their privilege. Their property. Their fortunes. Their very lives. And they did it to accomplish a higher goal of liberty and the ability to govern themselves.

Are there any such Americans left?

IMO, all of those elected to office do it for self-serving reasons. The only people who would put themselves and their families through the nonsense in order to get elected are the people who want the power. Our system of elections eliminates any other type. And if the process doesn't do it, the voters certainly will. No one not willing to lie will ever get elected. Being honest with the average American is the quickest way to lose.

You ask if there are any such American left. I doubt there were ever any such Americans at all. I am grateful they had a clear enough understanding of our nature that they created a government destined to be in a constant state of warfare with itself. But I don't believe they were anything but men with all of the failings of men.

then you have to doubt there were ever any such human beings.

The framers did NOT create "a government destined to be in a constant state of warfare with itself" That was the law of unintended consequences. They abhorred political parties as they were known historically, yet almost immediately set out to create a political party system out of an inevitable need...

 

[Foxfyre]

Having had an amicable argument with another member recently over the issue of Social Contract--I think it an essential component of a liberated society and he thinks it doesn't exist or, if it does, it is a progressive tool for mischief--I think some might enjoy a discussion of what Social Contract is and what it isn't. So let's discuss Social Contract.

More specifically, let's discuss whether Social Contract is the single most important guiding principle in what our laws and government should be?

The concept of Social Contract is almost as old as recorded history with...

...

"the contractual basis of society and government" - Bailyn


"Bailyn?" I hear people ask "Bailyin?" yet they consider themselves well read and informed on what went into the forming of the United States.

excerpt:

The pamphlets of the American Revolution rely most heavily on these country whig thinkers for their coherence. Bailyn writes:

Their key concepts – natural rights, the contractual basis of society and government, the uniqueness of England’s liberty-preserving “mixed” constitution – were commonplaces of the liberal thought of the time. But if the elements of their thought were ordinary, the emphasis placed upon them and the use made of them were not. ​

Religion the Founding Bailyn s Ideological Origins of the American Revolution National Catholic Reporter

In post #41 you, the OP wrote "Personally I think the traffic light is an excellent non controversial and non partisan illustration to consider the principle of whether government action is social contract or violates social contract."

Government IS a social contract. I would think in a representative republic like ours any government action is done in the name of the people, the society. We are the government as it represents us. Us as a whole. Us as a society.

But that is the question. Has the government kept the social contract. Or has it taken the power that the people were intended to have?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Having had an amicable argument with another member recently over the issue of Social Contract--I think it an essential component of a liberated society and he thinks it doesn't exist or, if it does, it is a progressive tool for mischief--I think some might enjoy a discussion of what Social Contract is and what it isn't. So let's discuss Social Contract.

More specifically, let's discuss whether Social Contract is the single most important guiding principle in what our laws and government should be?

The concept of Social Contract is almost as old as recorded history with...

...

"the contractual basis of society and government" - Bailyn


"Bailyn?" I hear people ask "Bailyin?" yet they consider themselves well read and informed on what went into the forming of the United States.

excerpt:

The pamphlets of the American Revolution rely most heavily on these country whig thinkers for their coherence. Bailyn writes:

Their key concepts – natural rights, the contractual basis of society and government, the uniqueness of England’s liberty-preserving “mixed” constitution – were commonplaces of the liberal thought of the time. But if the elements of their thought were ordinary, the emphasis placed upon them and the use made of them were not. ​

Religion the Founding Bailyn s Ideological Origins of the American Revolution National Catholic Reporter

In post #41 you, the OP wrote "Personally I think the traffic light is an excellent non controversial and non partisan illustration to consider the principle of whether government action is social contract or violates social contract."

Government IS a social contract. I would think in a representative republic like ours any government action is done in the name of the people, the society. We are the government as it represents us. Us as a whole. Us as a society.

But that is the question. Has the government kept the social contract. Or has it taken the power that the people were intended to have?

We have an elected government and elections that have been fair. We have our problems, but our government is a representative one. Just because some people are never ever on the winning side does not equate unrepresentative government. Maybe they just dislike their fellow citizens? Government does NOT represent us as individuals. It would be unreasonable and irrational to think so.

Our government is not a far away foreign entity, nor is an abstract thing that we can attack without destroying the polity.

We can change anything we want with simple amendments. Seriously. We can change anything we want. We just have to convince others to go along with us.

It is the demagogues and populists who carry on about the electoral college, term limits, balance of power...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What I don't get is why most people who complain about our government never admit to disliking their fellow citizens and their choices.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

I would like some support for the assertions in the last pararaph about "one mind". A solid minority refused to sign the Constitution because it was considered too powerful. The ratification fights in the big states -- VA, Mass, NY -- reflected those differences with very narrow majorities for the Constitution. No, the American people never are of one mind, and that is why we the independent judiciary to try to find the right way.

Only three people refused to sign the Constitution and those three refused only because the Bill of Rights had not yet been included or because they were so strongly anti-federalist they thought the government should be more severely limited. Some other delegates didn't show up for the signing because they were otherwise occupied, but they did not object to the final document.

In the concept of social contract, an 'independent judiciary' is not to be trusted any more than anybody else is trusted to get it right.

Agreed.

Especially in today's world where our judiciary is anything but independent.

It does not directly compare law to the constitution.

It uses a variety of tools to determine the law to whatever end they feel is "right".

Roberts last minute reversal on Obamacare is a prime example.

There are others.

Our judiciary is a joke.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

I would like some support for the assertions in the last pararaph about "one mind". A solid minority refused to sign the Constitution because it was considered too powerful. The ratification fights in the big states -- VA, Mass, NY -- reflected those differences with very narrow majorities for the Constitution. No, the American people never are of one mind, and that is why we the independent judiciary to try to find the right way.

Only three people refused to sign the Constitution and those three refused only because the Bill of Rights had not yet been included or because they were so strongly anti-federalist they thought the government should be more severely limited. Some other delegates didn't show up for the signing because they were otherwise occupied, but they did not object to the final document.

In the concept of social contract, an 'independent judiciary' is not to be trusted any more than anybody else is trusted to get it right.

Agreed.

Especially in today's world where our judiciary is anything but independent.

It does not directly compare law to the constitution.

It uses a variety of tools to determine the law to whatever end they feel is "right".

Roberts last minute reversal on Obamacare is a prime example.

There are others.

Our judiciary is a joke.

The judiciary is independent, just ask President Obama or Bush

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

I would like some support for the assertions in the last pararaph about "one mind". A solid minority refused to sign the Constitution because it was considered too powerful. The ratification fights in the big states -- VA, Mass, NY -- reflected those differences with very narrow majorities for the Constitution. No, the American people never are of one mind, and that is why we the independent judiciary to try to find the right way.

Only three people refused to sign the Constitution and those three refused only because the Bill of Rights had not yet been included or because they were so strongly anti-federalist they thought the government should be more severely limited. Some other delegates didn't show up for the signing because they were otherwise occupied, but they did not object to the final document.

In the concept of social contract, an 'independent judiciary' is not to be trusted any more than anybody else is trusted to get it right.

Agreed.

Especially in today's world where our judiciary is anything but independent.

It does not directly compare law to the constitution.

It uses a variety of tools to determine the law to whatever end they feel is "right".

Roberts last minute reversal on Obamacare is a prime example.

There are others.

Our judiciary is a joke.

There was NO last minute reversal with Chief Justice Roberts and Obamacare. Please stop spreading myth as if it is fact

Even the unnamed bs sources claim Roberts changed his mind at least a month before the decision was announced. Many Justices especially Kennedy go back and forth ...it is called a deliberative process. Phrasing this as a switch with some kind of unnamed political intent is ridiculous

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Having had an amicable argument with another member recently over the issue of Social Contract--I think it an essential component of a liberated society and he thinks it doesn't exist or, if it does, it is a progressive tool for mischief--I think some might enjoy a discussion of what Social Contract is and what it isn't. So let's discuss Social Contract.

More specifically, let's discuss whether Social Contract is the single most important guiding principle in what our laws and government should be?

The concept of Social Contract is almost as old as recorded history with...

...

"the contractual basis of society and government" - Bailyn


"Bailyn?" I hear people ask "Bailyin?" yet they consider themselves well read and informed on what went into the forming of the United States.

excerpt:

The pamphlets of the American Revolution rely most heavily on these country whig thinkers for their coherence. Bailyn writes:

Their key concepts – natural rights, the contractual basis of society and government, the uniqueness of England’s liberty-preserving “mixed” constitution – were commonplaces of the liberal thought of the time. But if the elements of their thought were ordinary, the emphasis placed upon them and the use made of them were not. ​

Religion the Founding Bailyn s Ideological Origins of the American Revolution National Catholic Reporter

In post #41 you, the OP wrote "Personally I think the traffic light is an excellent non controversial and non partisan illustration to consider the principle of whether government action is social contract or violates social contract."

Government IS a social contract. I would think in a representative republic like ours any government action is done in the name of the people, the society. We are the government as it represents us. Us as a whole. Us as a society.

But that is the question. Has the government kept the social contract. Or has it taken the power that the people were intended to have?

We have an elected government and elections that have been fair. We have our problems, but our government is a representative one. Just because some people are never ever on the winning side does not equate unrepresentative government. Maybe they just dislike their fellow citizens? Government does NOT represent us as individuals. It would be unreasonable and irrational to think so.

Our government is not a far away foreign entity, nor is an abstract thing that we can attack without destroying the polity.

We can change anything we want with simple amendments. Seriously. We can change anything we want. We just have to convince others to go along with us.

It is the demagogues and populists who carry on about the electoral college, term limits, balance of power...

...and the Supreme Court being 'wrong.'

We're a Nation of laws, a people subject solely to the rule of law, and a Constitutional Republic that exists at the behest of the people – valid and legitimate because it is the creation of the people.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

I would like some support for the assertions in the last pararaph about "one mind". A solid minority refused to sign the Constitution because it was considered too powerful. The ratification fights in the big states -- VA, Mass, NY -- reflected those differences with very narrow majorities for the Constitution. No, the American people never are of one mind, and that is why we the independent judiciary to try to find the right way.

Only three people refused to sign the Constitution and those three refused only because the Bill of Rights had not yet been included or because they were so strongly anti-federalist they thought the government should be more severely limited. Some other delegates didn't show up for the signing because they were otherwise occupied, but they did not object to the final document.

In the concept of social contract, an 'independent judiciary' is not to be trusted any more than anybody else is trusted to get it right.

Agreed.

Especially in today's world where our judiciary is anything but independent.

It does not directly compare law to the constitution.

It uses a variety of tools to determine the law to whatever end they feel is "right".

Roberts last minute reversal on Obamacare is a prime example.

There are others.

Our judiciary is a joke.

There was NO last minute reversal with Chief Justice Roberts and Obamacare. Please stop spreading myth as if it is fact

Even the unnamed bs sources claim Roberts changed his mind at least a month before the decision was announced. Many Justices especially Kennedy go back and forth ...it is called a deliberative process. Phrasing this as a switch with some kind of unnamed political intent is ridiculous

One does not need a source to tell you what happened.

Sorry........