Debate Now Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government

[Procrustes Stretched]

I don't know you think I'm talking about political parties. I am talking about the basic structure of the government, which was designed to be in a constant state of conflict for the purpose of insuring no one branch was able to monopolize power.

The conflict we see today is not inherent in the system. Struggles between the branches (especially the Executive and the Congress) should be and would be non partisan in any battle over powers.

"A constant state of conflict" is what we get with the rise of extremism in party politics

 

[Foxfyre]

But IMO that has not been the case until a segment of society decided to destroy the social contract and use government for its own purposes.

Hmm...

name it please

then name how and why and could you list a source or two?

Name what? I am my own source on this one.

 

[PratchettFan]

I don't know you think I'm talking about political parties. I am talking about the basic structure of the government, which was designed to be in a constant state of conflict for the purpose of insuring no one branch was able to monopolize power.

The conflict we see today is not inherent in the system. Struggles between the branches (especially the Executive and the Congress) should be and would be non partisan in any battle over powers.

"A constant state of conflict" is what we get with the rise of extremism in party politics

It is inherent in the system. It might not be if one removed human beings from the equation but I think the FFs were aware that human beings were going to be involved and that they are, by nature, contentious. Political parties don't create the conflict, they just gave names to it.

 

[PratchettFan]

I disagree it was unintended. Political parties have nothing to do with it. The Founders created a government with three distinct branches - legislative, executive and judicial. None of them can hold total power and are in constant conflict with each other. That is what I meant by a government in warfare with itself.

The three branches were NEVER conceived as being hostile to each other. The current conflicts we have really stems from the party system. The framers conceived of a system that would share power.

The founding generation thought institutionalized conflict anathema to a free self governing system. The conflict we see is mostly party conflict with one party controlling one or two parts of the government. Of course there is always constitutional conflict over the prerogatives and powers of the Congress and the Executive, but those are usually technical issues that cross party lines.

While I don't think the FFs were saints, I also don't think they were fools. You could not create this system and think it wouldn't result in hostility. And if they did, they were certainly disabused of that idea very quickly.

Quickly?

You use a terms "quickly" that is so relative as to be useless here. Jefferson was NOT even part of the party he was to lead until after it was forming. The need presented itself in the years following the election of Adams, but their idea of a party was totally different than what you know of as a aprty

I KNOW as much as anyone can know, that the ff did not consider themselves either saintly or saints.

Your problem with understanding is your imprinting our times onto theirs, our knowledge onto the past. The ff viewed opposition as healthy, but viewed factionalism and parties as we know them as hostile to the system they put into place.

I am interested in the party system and it's development in American politics. I have read a little bit on this. Every single reading so far agrees on what I am suggesting. We today even acknowledge this by framing discussions of the party system in America by dividing it up into two phases: The party system of Jefferson/Madison leading into Monroe's years and the later system involving the Jackson/Van Buren years. The party systems we see are distinctly separate animals. Most people would DOUBT the founding generation would have recognized the second system: UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Without the party system the form of government instituted by the founding generation and the Constitution would have become history -- fallen apart.

While I don't think the FFs were saints, I also don't think they were fools. You could not create this system and think it wouldn't result in hostility. And if they did, they were certainly disabused of that idea very quickly.

btw, I mean no disrespect. I used to think like you do, until I decided to pursue an interest further. Your views are commonly held and actually quite logical if the issue is approached looking back at the past through the lens of the present

Careful here. The thread rules specifically disallow any ad hominem so how a member 'thinks' or the process by which he/she arrives at an opinion is not a topic of discussion here, even when presented in a non-insulting way.

Let's focus on the member's post and not anything about him/her personally when responding to it..

Excuse me?

You need to step back and reread the post. There was NO ad hominem attack

I don't see it either.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?​

Blah blah..
The problem with the term "social contract" is that the definition is an ambiguous and subjective political slogan. You might as well say better is good, or change you can believe in.

From the definition (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.

What does the term organize mean? What the the phrase for the mutual benefit of all mean? What does binding on all mean? What does informally understood mean?

From definitions (2) An agreement between the people and government assigning specific responsibilities and limitations on power to each.

What type of agreement? How do the people make this agreement? What people? What specific responsibilities? What types of limitations on power? Power of the people do do what? Power of the government to do what?

You might as well define a new term called "promise of nirvana":

Wherein the definition of a promise of nirvana is:
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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I disagree it was unintended. Political parties have nothing to do with it. The Founders created a government with three distinct branches - legislative, executive and judicial. None of them can hold total power and are in constant conflict with each other. That is what I meant by a government in warfare with itself.

The three branches were NEVER conceived as being hostile to each other. The current conflicts we have really stems from the party system. The framers conceived of a system that would share power.

The founding generation thought institutionalized conflict anathema to a free self governing system. The conflict we see is mostly party conflict with one party controlling one or two parts of the government. Of course there is always constitutional conflict over the prerogatives and powers of the Congress and the Executive, but those are usually technical issues that cross party lines.

While I don't think the FFs were saints, I also don't think they were fools. You could not create this system and think it wouldn't result in hostility. And if they did, they were certainly disabused of that idea very quickly.

Quickly?

You use a terms "quickly" that is so relative as to be useless here. Jefferson was NOT even part of the party he was to lead until after it was forming. The need presented itself in the years following the election of Adams, but their idea of a party was totally different than what you know of as a aprty

I KNOW as much as anyone can know, that the ff did not consider themselves either saintly or saints.

Your problem with understanding is your imprinting our times onto theirs, our knowledge onto the past. The ff viewed opposition as healthy, but viewed factionalism and parties as we know them as hostile to the system they put into place.

I am interested in the party system and it's development in American politics. I have read a little bit on this. Every single reading so far agrees on what I am suggesting. We today even acknowledge this by framing discussions of the party system in America by dividing it up into two phases: The party system of Jefferson/Madison leading into Monroe's years and the later system involving the Jackson/Van Buren years. The party systems we see are distinctly separate animals. Most people would DOUBT the founding generation would have recognized the second system: UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Without the party system the form of government instituted by the founding generation and the Constitution would have become history -- fallen apart.

I don't know you think I'm talking about political parties. I am talking about the basic structure of the government, which was designed to be in a constant state of conflict for the purpose of insuring no one branch was able to monopolize power.

But again I think the intent was not conflict. But you are correct that it was intended to be a system of checks and balances so that when competing interests existed, no one side would have undue power over the other. Everybody would have to be equally considered.

And, IMO, it is that aspect of social contract that has broken down.

I would take exception to the term "equally" being used here. Other than that I agree

 

[Foxfyre]

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........

That sounds Dopey, because a source would be who you rely on for events that happen outside your presence

Did you want to make a point ?

If so, please keep trying.

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........

That sounds Dopey, because a source would be who you rely on for events that happen outside your presence

Sure....I am sure you have to rely on a source to tell you that you were born and not hatched.

Or did you figure that out on your own ?

Gentle reminder to everybody please. We're having a good discussion here and let's not engage in even implied ad hominem and let it start getting personal. I

 

[Foxfyre]

The three branches were NEVER conceived as being hostile to each other. The current conflicts we have really stems from the party system. The framers conceived of a system that would share power.

The founding generation thought institutionalized conflict anathema to a free self governing system. The conflict we see is mostly party conflict with one party controlling one or two parts of the government. Of course there is always constitutional conflict over the prerogatives and powers of the Congress and the Executive, but those are usually technical issues that cross party lines.

While I don't think the FFs were saints, I also don't think they were fools. You could not create this system and think it wouldn't result in hostility. And if they did, they were certainly disabused of that idea very quickly.

Quickly?

You use a terms "quickly" that is so relative as to be useless here. Jefferson was NOT even part of the party he was to lead until after it was forming. The need presented itself in the years following the election of Adams, but their idea of a party was totally different than what you know of as a aprty

I KNOW as much as anyone can know, that the ff did not consider themselves either saintly or saints.

Your problem with understanding is your imprinting our times onto theirs, our knowledge onto the past. The ff viewed opposition as healthy, but viewed factionalism and parties as we know them as hostile to the system they put into place.

I am interested in the party system and it's development in American politics. I have read a little bit on this. Every single reading so far agrees on what I am suggesting. We today even acknowledge this by framing discussions of the party system in America by dividing it up into two phases: The party system of Jefferson/Madison leading into Monroe's years and the later system involving the Jackson/Van Buren years. The party systems we see are distinctly separate animals. Most people would DOUBT the founding generation would have recognized the second system: UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Without the party system the form of government instituted by the founding generation and the Constitution would have become history -- fallen apart.

I don't know you think I'm talking about political parties. I am talking about the basic structure of the government, which was designed to be in a constant state of conflict for the purpose of insuring no one branch was able to monopolize power.

But again I think the intent was not conflict. But you are correct that it was intended to be a system of checks and balances so that when competing interests existed, no one side would have undue power over the other. Everybody would have to be equally considered.

And, IMO, it is that aspect of social contract that has broken down.

I would take exception to the term "equally" being used here. Other than that I agree

My intent with the term 'equally' is that all would have representation by their government with no branch of government having more power than another branch of government. The vote of my elected representative has equal weight as the vote of any other elected representative. The vote my senator, representing the interests of my state, has equal weight as the vote of any other senator. That is how a good social contract is intended to work.

The system breaks down, however, when our representatives and senators no longer represent us but use their vote to increase their own personal power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. To me that is a violation of the social contract.

Which brings us to the second part of the question in the OP. How much obligation as citizens do we have to the law when it becomes beneficial to those chosen to represent us and detrimental to us?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

While I don't think the FFs were saints, I also don't think they were fools. You could not create this system and think it wouldn't result in hostility. And if they did, they were certainly disabused of that idea very quickly.

btw, I mean no disrespect. I used to think like you do, until I decided to pursue an interest further. Your views are commonly held and actually quite logical if the issue is approached looking back at the past through the lens of the present

I have no other lens to look through. However, I am not passing judgment on them. Quite the opposite. I think their solution to the natural tendency of governments (and private enterprises for that matter) towards oppression was eloquent and amazingly effective.

Oh I see. I was suggesting we have another lens to look through: history. One that can be distorted by agenda, misreading, and lack of information and available sources, but one that is less cloudy than the lens of the present.

I agree. The founding generation had people who understood human nature (specifically Adams and Madison to name the most popular). Mix that in with their enlightened sense of self, where they considered it a virtuous thing to self reflect and criticize, and we have people in a time and place where what was to unfold could have gone any way.

In the early days after ratification the founding generation had an emotional as well as an intellectual and investment in seeing the grand experiment NOT fail. I was surprised to find out how Hamilton, Madison and others less known, but powerful and influential in their day could sway others by appeals to their shared sense of vision, their virtue, and their shared sense of responsibility over appeals to personal gain and influence. At the same time there they knew how to and sometimes did appeal to those with little virtue by using flattery, promises of power and personal gain. But when the later was done it was usually done while holding the nose. I could suggest reading a few small books ... but ...

 

[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?​

Blah blah..
The problem with the term "social contract" is that the definition is an ambiguous and subjective political slogan. You might as well say better is good, or change you can believe in.

From the definition (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.

What does the term organize mean? What the the phrase for the mutual benefit of all mean? What does binding on all mean? What does informally understood mean?

From definitions (2) An agreement between the people and government assigning specific responsibilities and limitations on power to each.

What type of agreement? How do the people make this agreement? What people? What specific responsibilities? What types of limitations on power? Power of the people do do what? Power of the government to do what?

You might as well define a new term called "promise of nirvana":

Wherein the definition of a promise of nirvana is:
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.

So are you saying that you disagree with the concept of social contract? The definition does not include nirvana and to insert that seems as silly to me as saying that Qumquats are 'a process. . . .'

So what objection do you have to the definition as a definition of social contract?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

While I don't think the FFs were saints, I also don't think they were fools. You could not create this system and think it wouldn't result in hostility. And if they did, they were certainly disabused of that idea very quickly.

Quickly?

You use a terms "quickly" that is so relative as to be useless here. Jefferson was NOT even part of the party he was to lead until after it was forming. The need presented itself in the years following the election of Adams, but their idea of a party was totally different than what you know of as a aprty

I KNOW as much as anyone can know, that the ff did not consider themselves either saintly or saints.

Your problem with understanding is your imprinting our times onto theirs, our knowledge onto the past. The ff viewed opposition as healthy, but viewed factionalism and parties as we know them as hostile to the system they put into place.

I am interested in the party system and it's development in American politics. I have read a little bit on this. Every single reading so far agrees on what I am suggesting. We today even acknowledge this by framing discussions of the party system in America by dividing it up into two phases: The party system of Jefferson/Madison leading into Monroe's years and the later system involving the Jackson/Van Buren years. The party systems we see are distinctly separate animals. Most people would DOUBT the founding generation would have recognized the second system: UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Without the party system the form of government instituted by the founding generation and the Constitution would have become history -- fallen apart.

I don't know you think I'm talking about political parties. I am talking about the basic structure of the government, which was designed to be in a constant state of conflict for the purpose of insuring no one branch was able to monopolize power.

But again I think the intent was not conflict. But you are correct that it was intended to be a system of checks and balances so that when competing interests existed, no one side would have undue power over the other. Everybody would have to be equally considered.

And, IMO, it is that aspect of social contract that has broken down.

I would take exception to the term "equally" being used here. Other than that I agree

My intent with the term 'equally' is that all would have representation by their government with no branch of government having more power than another branch of government. The vote of my elected representative has equal weight as the vote of any other elected representative. The vote my senator, representing the interests of my state, has equal weight as the vote of any other senator. That is how a good social contract is intended to work.

The system breaks down, however, when our representatives and senators no longer represent us but use their vote to increase their own personal power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

I could not say the founding generation expected power to be distributed equally among the branches. For me to suggest that would suggest a misreading on my part of the intent of how the structure of the new system was to work.

The agricultural South and the mercantile East (north) battled over power in the legislative branch during and after ratification. The East was wary of Jefferson's acquisitions with the Louisiana Purchase because it was suspected Jefferson went against his own principles in order to give the South more power, more votes in the Congress. No one was ever looking for 'equality' in the way we moderns think of it.

I agree the system is clogged up. But this does not demand agreeing the social contract is broken. The fact that we still argue over what to do suggests we believe the social contract is intact or else there would be rebellion -- revolution

 

[RKMBrown]

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?​

Blah blah..
The problem with the term "social contract" is that the definition is an ambiguous and subjective political slogan. You might as well say better is good, or change you can believe in.

From the definition (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.

What does the term organize mean? What the the phrase for the mutual benefit of all mean? What does binding on all mean? What does informally understood mean?

From definitions (2) An agreement between the people and government assigning specific responsibilities and limitations on power to each.

What type of agreement? How do the people make this agreement? What people? What specific responsibilities? What types of limitations on power? Power of the people do do what? Power of the government to do what?

You might as well define a new term called "promise of nirvana":

Wherein the definition of a promise of nirvana is:
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.

So are you saying that you disagree with the concept of social contract? The definition does not include nirvana and to insert that seems as silly to me as saying that Qumquats are 'a process. . . .'

So what objection do you have to the definition as a definition of social contract?

You say the definition does not include nirvana, thus it's silly... Well, your definition also does not have any social aspects, nor does it have any actual contracts. Thus to include "social" and/or "contract" into your phrase is equally as silly.

I thought my objection to the definition was clear. The problem with the term "social contract" is that the definition is an ambiguous and subjective political slogan. You might as well say better is good, or change you can believe in. The phrase is almost meaningless. It's a term used for political slogans. It is meant to engender some warm fuzzy meaning that we can all be happy with. But, in point of fact, it is a completely subjective term with an ambiguous definition.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

But IMO that has not been the case until a segment of society decided to destroy the social contract and use government for its own purposes.

Hmm...

name it please

then name how and why and could you list a source or two?

Name what? I am my own source on this one.

Name the segment of society you have accused of violating the social contract

 

[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?​

Blah blah..
The problem with the term "social contract" is that the definition is an ambiguous and subjective political slogan. You might as well say better is good, or change you can believe in.

From the definition (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.

What does the term organize mean? What the the phrase for the mutual benefit of all mean? What does binding on all mean? What does informally understood mean?

From definitions (2) An agreement between the people and government assigning specific responsibilities and limitations on power to each.

What type of agreement? How do the people make this agreement? What people? What specific responsibilities? What types of limitations on power? Power of the people do do what? Power of the government to do what?

You might as well define a new term called "promise of nirvana":

Wherein the definition of a promise of nirvana is:
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.

So are you saying that you disagree with the concept of social contract? The definition does not include nirvana and to insert that seems as silly to me as saying that Qumquats are 'a process. . . .'

So what objection do you have to the definition as a definition of social contract?

You say the definition does not include nirvana, thus it's silly... Well, your definition also does not have any social aspects, nor does it have any actual contracts. Thus to include "social" and/or "contract" into your phrase is equally as silly.

I thought my objection to the definition was clear. The problem with the term "social contract" is that the definition is an ambiguous and subjective political slogan. You might as well say better is good, or change you can believe in. The phrase is almost meaningless. It's a term used for political slogans. It is meant to engender some warm fuzzy meaning that we can all be happy with. But, in point of fact, it is a completely subjective term with an ambiguous definition.

Perhaps it would help if you read Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke and the founding documents for the Constitution?

The definition is neither ambiguous nor subjective.

 

[Foxfyre]

But IMO that has not been the case until a segment of society decided to destroy the social contract and use government for its own purposes.

Hmm...

name it please

then name how and why and could you list a source or two?

Name what? I am my own source on this one.

Name the segment of society you have accused of violating the social contract

The U.S. Congress. Many of the state and city governments. Some of the special interest groups who want to use government for their own advantage and at the detriment of others. We could go on and on.

Whenever a decision is made that impedes my personal liberties or property or demands participation and/or contribution from me without giving me any say or power in the matter, that is violation of the social contract.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?​

Blah blah..
The problem with the term "social contract" is that the definition is an ambiguous and subjective political slogan. You might as well say better is good, or change you can believe in.

From the definition (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.

What does the term organize mean? What the the phrase for the mutual benefit of all mean? What does binding on all mean? What does informally understood mean?

From definitions (2) An agreement between the people and government assigning specific responsibilities and limitations on power to each.

What type of agreement? How do the people make this agreement? What people? What specific responsibilities? What types of limitations on power? Power of the people do do what? Power of the government to do what?

You might as well define a new term called "promise of nirvana":

Wherein the definition of a promise of nirvana is:
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.

So are you saying that you disagree with the concept of social contract? The definition does not include nirvana and to insert that seems as silly to me as saying that Qumquats are 'a process. . . .'

So what objection do you have to the definition as a definition of social contract?

You say the definition does not include nirvana, thus it's silly... Well, your definition also does not have any social aspects, nor does it have any actual contracts. Thus to include "social" and/or "contract" into your phrase is equally as silly.

I thought my objection to the definition was clear. The problem with the term "social contract" is that the definition is an ambiguous and subjective political slogan. You might as well say better is good, or change you can believe in. The phrase is almost meaningless. It's a term used for political slogans. It is meant to engender some warm fuzzy meaning that we can all be happy with. But, in point of fact, it is a completely subjective term with an ambiguous definition.

Perhaps it would help if you read Hobbes, Rousseau, Locke and the founding documents for the Constitution?

The definition is neither ambiguous nor subjective.

Oh so you mean "The Constitution?" Why not just say, "The Constitution and the Validity of Law and Government?" Why use an ambiguous term to imply some subjective meaning to the document?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I don't know you think I'm talking about political parties. I am talking about the basic structure of the government, which was designed to be in a constant state of conflict for the purpose of insuring no one branch was able to monopolize power.

The conflict we see today is not inherent in the system. Struggles between the branches (especially the Executive and the Congress) should be and would be non partisan in any battle over powers.

"A constant state of conflict" is what we get with the rise of extremism in party politics

It is inherent in the system. It might not be if one removed human beings from the equation but I think the FFs were aware that human beings were going to be involved and that they are, by nature, contentious. Political parties don't create the conflict, they just gave names to it.

now we are dangerously close to going off on what the framers meant by 'factions and factionalism"

"Oppositional politics" (phrase borrowed) was well established as part of the colonial system. The colonists and the Royal Governors had their battles. It is interesting to read that the term 'loyal opposition' and a tradition of oppositional politics (a system) were anathema to the English and the Americans.

I was surprised at graphs that showed the early Americans in Congress voting on issues and having little loyalty to anything resembling a party or opposition as we know it. So political parties did NOT give a name to what was already happening... there was a gradual realization that without political parties the grand experiment was going to fail. Unlike the French who fought their battles with brutal suppression and violence, the Americans fought their battles within a political party system they were creating on the fly. Both nations were battling over the issues of what republicanism should look like and more

 

[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 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?​

Blah blah..
The problem with the term "social contract" is that the definition is an ambiguous and subjective political slogan. You might as well say better is good, or change you can believe in.

From the definition (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.

What does the term organize mean? What the the phrase for the mutual benefit of all mean? What does binding on all mean? What does informally understood mean?

From definitions (2) An agreement between the people and government assigning specific responsibilities and limitations on power to each.

What type of agreement? How do the people make this agreement? What people? What specific responsibilities? What types of limitations on power? Power of the people do do what? Power of the government to do what?

You might as well define a new term called "promise of nirvana":

Wherein the definition of a promise of nirvana is:
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.

There is NOTHING ambiguous or subjective about the phrase "social contract"

so·cial
adjective
adjective: social
1.
of or relating to society or its organization.
---------------------------------------------------------
con·tract
noun
noun: contract; plural noun: contracts
1.
a written or spoken agreement, especially one concerning employment, sales, or tenancy, that is intended to be enforceable by law.

======================================

am·big·u·ous
adjective
adjective: ambiguous
(of language) open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning.

unclear or inexact because a choice between alternatives has not been made.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sub·jec·tive
adjective
adjective: subjective

1. 1.
   based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
   • dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.
2. 2.
   Grammar
   of, relating to, or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used for the subject of a sentence.

 

[Foxfyre]

Quickly?

You use a terms "quickly" that is so relative as to be useless here. Jefferson was NOT even part of the party he was to lead until after it was forming. The need presented itself in the years following the election of Adams, but their idea of a party was totally different than what you know of as a aprty

I KNOW as much as anyone can know, that the ff did not consider themselves either saintly or saints.

Your problem with understanding is your imprinting our times onto theirs, our knowledge onto the past. The ff viewed opposition as healthy, but viewed factionalism and parties as we know them as hostile to the system they put into place.

I am interested in the party system and it's development in American politics. I have read a little bit on this. Every single reading so far agrees on what I am suggesting. We today even acknowledge this by framing discussions of the party system in America by dividing it up into two phases: The party system of Jefferson/Madison leading into Monroe's years and the later system involving the Jackson/Van Buren years. The party systems we see are distinctly separate animals. Most people would DOUBT the founding generation would have recognized the second system: UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

Without the party system the form of government instituted by the founding generation and the Constitution would have become history -- fallen apart.

I don't know you think I'm talking about political parties. I am talking about the basic structure of the government, which was designed to be in a constant state of conflict for the purpose of insuring no one branch was able to monopolize power.

But again I think the intent was not conflict. But you are correct that it was intended to be a system of checks and balances so that when competing interests existed, no one side would have undue power over the other. Everybody would have to be equally considered.

And, IMO, it is that aspect of social contract that has broken down.

I would take exception to the term "equally" being used here. Other than that I agree

My intent with the term 'equally' is that all would have representation by their government with no branch of government having more power than another branch of government. The vote of my elected representative has equal weight as the vote of any other elected representative. The vote my senator, representing the interests of my state, has equal weight as the vote of any other senator. That is how a good social contract is intended to work.

The system breaks down, however, when our representatives and senators no longer represent us but use their vote to increase their own personal power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.

I could not say the founding generation expected power to be distributed equally among the branches. For me to suggest that would suggest a misreading on my part of the intent of how the structure of the new system was to work.

The agricultural South and the mercantile East (north) battled over power in the legislative branch during and after ratification. The East was wary of Jefferson's acquisitions with the Louisiana Purchase because it was suspected Jefferson went against his own principles in order to give the South more power, more votes in the Congress. No one was ever looking for 'equality' in the way we moderns think of it.

I agree the system is clogged up. But this does not demand agreeing the social contract is broken. The fact that we still argue over what to do suggests we believe the social contract is intact or else there would be rebellion -- revolution

Jefferson didn't acquire the Louisiana purchase to give more power to the south. Of course there were grumbles and complaints expressed, but the large bulk of popular opinion approved of the purchase.

Jefferson almost certainly had to wrestle with his conscience as it violated his own sense of social contract by exceeding Constitutional authority. He justified it as the means to avoid almost certain war with France which sort of--if you reeeeeallly stretch--fit in with providing the common defense against our enemies.

It was one of those slippery slope things of setting a precedent though which I am sure was in Jefferson's thoughts.

. . .What were the effects of Jefferson's decision to go against his own philosophy concerning a strict interpretation of the Constitution? It can be argued that his taking liberties with the Constitution in the name of need and expediency would lead to future Presidents feeling justified with a continual increase in the elasticity of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18. Jefferson should rightly be remembered for the great deed of purchasing this enormous tract of land. But one wonders if he might regret the means in which he earned this fame.​

Thomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase

As for rebellion and revolution--I am speaking only philosophically here as I continue to be wary of those black helicopters -- that is sort of what this thread is intended to be about. We first have to achieve a general understanding of what social contract is and what it is intended to accomplish and then. . .

. . .consider what is our response and/or responsibility when those we appoint to have authority violate the trust we put in them?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Blah blah..
The problem with the term "social contract" is that the definition is an ambiguous and subjective political slogan. You might as well say better is good, or change you can believe in.

From the definition (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.

What does the term organize mean? What the the phrase for the mutual benefit of all mean? What does binding on all mean? What does informally understood mean?

From definitions (2) An agreement between the people and government assigning specific responsibilities and limitations on power to each.

What type of agreement? How do the people make this agreement? What people? What specific responsibilities? What types of limitations on power? Power of the people do do what? Power of the government to do what?

You might as well define a new term called "promise of nirvana":

Wherein the definition of a promise of nirvana is:
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.

as was said before: There is NOTHING ambiguous or subjective about the phrase "social contract"

What you are doing is arguing over what the 'social contract' itself looks like