Debate Now Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government

[PratchettFan]

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?

The problem with all such concepts is that eventually they have to be applied to real life. IOW, people get involved. There is a maxim that no one who desires power should ever be allowed to attain it. However, the reality is that the only people who do attain power are those who desire it. People who desire power do so for exactly the reasons you have enumerated. There perhaps have been a few who are exceptions, but I would be skeptical of that.

So the obligation of the citizen is to pay attention and vote out those who can't seem to control their natural inclination for personal interest to at least attempt to do the work of the state. The problem there, of course, is that the citizen is also a human being.

 

[PratchettFan]

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 ...

Perhaps a better term would be "filter". We are all products of our times.

I have read a few small books myself. One of the things about history is that it tends to focus on the large things, not the small. But we live in the small and that is where who we are really comes out. The Founders were men of position, power and wealth. You don't attain that without a very strong streak of practicality. So while the speeches and letters are full of philosophical musings, their lives were in the here and now (or there and then, if you prefer). Jefferson wrote eloquently on the rights and dignity of man, but it didn't stop him from owning human beings and having sex with women who were in no position to say no.

While the filter we look through changes, people don't. The Founders were no different than us.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Those who made the suggestion that Jefferson was hypocritical in his actions on the Louisiana Purchase were addressing his change of principles and this is especially relevant: Jefferson held others to principle in such a strict manner that even his most loyal admirers suspected him of hypocrisy here. The intent? I believe most honest people would see Jefferson looking for way to preserve the agricultural way of life he fought for all of his life. He was a bit nutty in his beliefs. Madison had to pull him back often.

 

[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. 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?

The problem with all such concepts is that eventually they have to be applied to real life. IOW, people get involved. There is a maxim that no one who desires power should ever be allowed to attain it. However, the reality is that the only people who do attain power are those who desire it. People who desire power do so for exactly the reasons you have enumerated. There perhaps have been a few who are exceptions, but I would be skeptical of that.

So the obligation of the citizen is to pay attention and vote out those who can't seem to control their natural inclination for personal interest to at least attempt to do the work of the state. The problem there, of course, is that the citizen is also a human being.

Without any accusation that it was your intention to do so, your phrase 'to do the work of the state' is unfortunate within a discussion of 'social contract'.
Okay, I know I am splitting hairs here, but we have had a dedicated effort by the state and, IMO, its surrogate media, to make the state an entity in its own right rather than a functional arm of the will of the people.

Too many now look to the state instead of to themselves as the authority--they see their rights, their benefits, their privileges, their ability to be as eminating from the state. This gets away from the principle of the sole reason for the existance of the state is to serve the will of the people.

If we look to social contract as the means by which people choose to organize themselves for the mutual benefit of all, it stands to reason that when government or any segment of society becomes a privileged class that can demand that others serve them, the social contract is broken.

 

[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.

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.

Phrase - a small group of words standing together as a conceptual unit, typically forming a component of a clause.
Word - a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.

I said "social contract" is ambiguous as defined in this OP. You separated the two words of the phrase to give the phrase an unambiguous definition. If the OP is good with your new definition, fine.

 

[Foxfyre]

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 ...

Perhaps a better term would be "filter". We are all products of our times.

I have read a few small books myself. One of the things about history is that it tends to focus on the large things, not the small. But we live in the small and that is where who we are really comes out. The Founders were men of position, power and wealth. You don't attain that without a very strong streak of practicality. So while the speeches and letters are full of philosophical musings, their lives were in the here and now (or there and then, if you prefer). Jefferson wrote eloquently on the rights and dignity of man, but it didn't stop him from owning human beings and having sex with women who were in no position to say no.

While the filter we look through changes, people don't. The Founders were no different than us.

But the topic is not the character or sins of the Founders but rather the social contract that they gave us via the Constitution and what we the people should do, if anything, when those we put in authority to administer that Constitution violate the principles it is intended to protect.

The Louisisana Purchase was at least partially in violation of those principles but, as previously posted, could be rationalized as necessary to keep us out of war with France. But of course such rationalization could be used for many things in that regard including our government giving away billions of dollars to countries who don't like us very much just to keep those countries peaceful towards us. "Buying friends" was certainly not part of the original social contract.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

No I'm directly answering the OP. You made incorrect assumptions about what the OP meant by the phrase "social contract." I went EXACTLY by what the OP said it meant. Not by what you are now saying it means.

 

[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.

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?

The problem with all such concepts is that eventually they have to be applied to real life. IOW, people get involved. There is a maxim that no one who desires power should ever be allowed to attain it. However, the reality is that the only people who do attain power are those who desire it. People who desire power do so for exactly the reasons you have enumerated. There perhaps have been a few who are exceptions, but I would be skeptical of that.

So the obligation of the citizen is to pay attention and vote out those who can't seem to control their natural inclination for personal interest to at least attempt to do the work of the state. The problem there, of course, is that the citizen is also a human being.

Without any accusation that it was your intention to do so, your phrase 'to do the work of the state' is unfortunate within a discussion of 'social contract'.
Okay, I know I am splitting hairs here, but we have had a dedicated effort by the state and, IMO, its surrogate media, to make the state an entity in its own right rather than a functional arm of the will of the people.

Too many now look to the state instead of to themselves as the authority--they see their rights, their benefits, their privileges, their ability to be as eminating from the state instead of the sole reason for the existance of the state is to serve the will of the people.

If we look to social contract as the means by which people choose to organize themselves for the mutual benefit of all, it stands to reason that when government or any segment of society becomes a privileged class that can demand that others serve them, the social contract is broken.

The purpose of an elected official is to do the work of the state. They aren't supposed to come down to the store and pull a shift. They are there to make the government work.

I have no idea why you think all of that is happening. We are currently in one of the freest times of human history. A privileged class has always been with us from the time we were small clans and probably always will. No change there. What is different is this notion that they can't just order everyone by right and that we have any say in the matter at all.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

The fact that one has to stretch it suggests other motivations. Many believe the primary motivation was cementing power in the hands of the agricultural South. It had it's own unintended consequences and the future would have intervened anyway (industrial revolution). Jefferson was always looking backwards on this.

Jefferson is remembered for his hypocrisy that benefited the nation, yet helped seal the inevitable fate of his beloved imaginary agricultural utopia. Popular history is a great primer, but it is hardly a good argument

 

[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.

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.

Phrase - a small group of words standing together as a conceptual unit, typically forming a component of a clause.
Word - a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed.

I said "social contract" is ambiguous as defined in this OP. You separated the two words of the phrase to give the phrase an unambiguous definition. If the OP is good with your new definition, fine.

The OP reserved the right to declare, as necessary, what definition(s) would be used for purpose of this discussion only. This is clearly stated in the rules for this thread. The definition in the OP, or any reasonable facsimile of that defintiion, is the one we will use for discussion in this thread.

The one Dante pulled up was close enough for me. So let's discuss the context of social contract and what we the people should do about breaches or violations of it please.

 

[PratchettFan]

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 ...

Perhaps a better term would be "filter". We are all products of our times.

I have read a few small books myself. One of the things about history is that it tends to focus on the large things, not the small. But we live in the small and that is where who we are really comes out. The Founders were men of position, power and wealth. You don't attain that without a very strong streak of practicality. So while the speeches and letters are full of philosophical musings, their lives were in the here and now (or there and then, if you prefer). Jefferson wrote eloquently on the rights and dignity of man, but it didn't stop him from owning human beings and having sex with women who were in no position to say no.

While the filter we look through changes, people don't. The Founders were no different than us.

But the topic is not the character or sins of the Founders but rather the social contract that they gave us via the Constitution and what we the people should do, if anything, when those we put in authority to administer that Constitution violate the principles it is intended to protect.

The Louisisana Purchase was at least partially in violation of those principles but, as previously posted, could be rationalized as necessary to keep us out of war with France. But of course such rationalization could be used for many things in that regard including our government giving away billions of dollars to countries who don't like us very much just to keep those countries peaceful towards us. "Buying friends" was certainly not part of the original social contract.

The only sin the Founders had was being human. My only point is that they were not some special breed so much more enlightened than the rest of us. They weren't. Just men who found themselves in a difficult time and accomplished something special. But still just men.

Had Jefferson followed a strict interpretation of the Constitution then he would not have made the purchase. Instead he saw an opportunity and took it. To the betterment of our nation. Many people at the time screamed like banshees, but that is also the nature of people. Take a look at this Jefferson Political Cartoons - AP US History you might find it interesting.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

The fact that one has to stretch it suggests other motivations. Many believe the primary motivation was cementing power in the hands of the agricultural South. It had it's own unintended consequences and the future would have intervened anyway (industrial revolution). Jefferson was always looking backwards on this.

Jefferson is remembered for his hypocrisy that benefited the nation, yet helped seal the inevitable fate of his beloved imaginary agricultural utopia. Popular history is a great primer, but it is hardly a good argument

Okay about any real or presumed 'agricultural utopia' is not the topic of this thread so let's take any further discussion of that to a different thread please. It would likely make for an interesting discussion to those with an interest in that aspect of history.

For now I prefer to use Jefferson as an example of how social contract can be breached, the slippery slope of consequences that can result from that, and what we the people should do about it.

 

[Foxfyre]

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 ...

Perhaps a better term would be "filter". We are all products of our times.

I have read a few small books myself. One of the things about history is that it tends to focus on the large things, not the small. But we live in the small and that is where who we are really comes out. The Founders were men of position, power and wealth. You don't attain that without a very strong streak of practicality. So while the speeches and letters are full of philosophical musings, their lives were in the here and now (or there and then, if you prefer). Jefferson wrote eloquently on the rights and dignity of man, but it didn't stop him from owning human beings and having sex with women who were in no position to say no.

While the filter we look through changes, people don't. The Founders were no different than us.

But the topic is not the character or sins of the Founders but rather the social contract that they gave us via the Constitution and what we the people should do, if anything, when those we put in authority to administer that Constitution violate the principles it is intended to protect.

The Louisisana Purchase was at least partially in violation of those principles but, as previously posted, could be rationalized as necessary to keep us out of war with France. But of course such rationalization could be used for many things in that regard including our government giving away billions of dollars to countries who don't like us very much just to keep those countries peaceful towards us. "Buying friends" was certainly not part of the original social contract.

The only sin the Founders had was being human. My only point is that they were not some special breed so much more enlightened than the rest of us. They weren't. Just men who found themselves in a difficult time and accomplished something special. But still just men.

Had Jefferson followed a strict interpretation of the Constitution then he would not have made the purchase. Instead he saw an opportunity and took it. To the betterment of our nation. Many people at the time screamed like banshees, but that is also the nature of people. Take a look at this Jefferson Political Cartoons - AP US History you might find it interesting.

This is true. Jefferson knew he was violating the letter and law of the Constitution when he did it, and he chose to do it anyway. Was he right or wrong to do it? History has been both critical of and complimentary to him in that.

What would the USA look like if France owned that territory now? What would have been the implications for us? So did Jefferson actually keep the social contract in an act that he saw as in for the mutual benefit of all? If you look at it that way, then that would be keeping the social contract.

But if you look at it that way, the same argument could also be made for Obamacare and many other government programs.

 

[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

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.

are you saying you believe the Congress and state and local governments set out to destroy the social contract?

 

[PratchettFan]

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 ...

Perhaps a better term would be "filter". We are all products of our times.

I have read a few small books myself. One of the things about history is that it tends to focus on the large things, not the small. But we live in the small and that is where who we are really comes out. The Founders were men of position, power and wealth. You don't attain that without a very strong streak of practicality. So while the speeches and letters are full of philosophical musings, their lives were in the here and now (or there and then, if you prefer). Jefferson wrote eloquently on the rights and dignity of man, but it didn't stop him from owning human beings and having sex with women who were in no position to say no.

While the filter we look through changes, people don't. The Founders were no different than us.

But the topic is not the character or sins of the Founders but rather the social contract that they gave us via the Constitution and what we the people should do, if anything, when those we put in authority to administer that Constitution violate the principles it is intended to protect.

The Louisisana Purchase was at least partially in violation of those principles but, as previously posted, could be rationalized as necessary to keep us out of war with France. But of course such rationalization could be used for many things in that regard including our government giving away billions of dollars to countries who don't like us very much just to keep those countries peaceful towards us. "Buying friends" was certainly not part of the original social contract.

The only sin the Founders had was being human. My only point is that they were not some special breed so much more enlightened than the rest of us. They weren't. Just men who found themselves in a difficult time and accomplished something special. But still just men.

Had Jefferson followed a strict interpretation of the Constitution then he would not have made the purchase. Instead he saw an opportunity and took it. To the betterment of our nation. Many people at the time screamed like banshees, but that is also the nature of people. Take a look at this Jefferson Political Cartoons - AP US History you might find it interesting.

This is true. Jefferson knew he was violating the letter and law of the Constitution when he did it, and he chose to do it anyway. Was he right or wrong to do it? History has been both critical and complimentary to him in that.

What would the USA look like if France owned that territory now? What would have been the implications for us? So did Jefferson actually keep the social contract in an act that he saw as in for the mutual benefit of all? If you look at it that way, then that would be keeping the social contract.

But if you look at it that way, the same argument could also be made for Obamacare and many other government programs.

He was right to do it. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. I don't recall who said that, but it is true. It is a framework for a government, not a straightjacket.

 

[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.

are you saying you believe the Congress and state and local governments set out to destroy the social contract?

Set out to destroy it? No.

But if you compare what we have now with what the Constitution intended for government to be, IMO in many respects it has.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

are you saying you believe the Congress and state and local governments set out to destroy the social contract?

Set out to destroy it? No.

But if you compare what we have now with what the Constitution intended for government to be, IMO in many respects it has.

Such as?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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 ...

Perhaps a better term would be "filter". We are all products of our times.

I have read a few small books myself. One of the things about history is that it tends to focus on the large things, not the small. But we live in the small and that is where who we are really comes out. The Founders were men of position, power and wealth. You don't attain that without a very strong streak of practicality. So while the speeches and letters are full of philosophical musings, their lives were in the here and now (or there and then, if you prefer). Jefferson wrote eloquently on the rights and dignity of man, but it didn't stop him from owning human beings and having sex with women who were in no position to say no.

While the filter we look through changes, people don't. The Founders were no different than us.

But the topic is not the character or sins of the Founders but rather the social contract that they gave us via the Constitution and what we the people should do, if anything, when those we put in authority to administer that Constitution violate the principles it is intended to protect.

The Louisisana Purchase was at least partially in violation of those principles but, as previously posted, could be rationalized as necessary to keep us out of war with France. But of course such rationalization could be used for many things in that regard including our government giving away billions of dollars to countries who don't like us very much just to keep those countries peaceful towards us. "Buying friends" was certainly not part of the original social contract.

The only sin the Founders had was being human. My only point is that they were not some special breed so much more enlightened than the rest of us. They weren't. Just men who found themselves in a difficult time and accomplished something special. But still just men.

Had Jefferson followed a strict interpretation of the Constitution then he would not have made the purchase. Instead he saw an opportunity and took it. To the betterment of our nation. Many people at the time screamed like banshees, but that is also the nature of people. Take a look at this Jefferson Political Cartoons - AP US History you might find it interesting.

This is true. Jefferson knew he was violating the letter and law of the Constitution when he did it, and he chose to do it anyway. Was he right or wrong to do it? History has been both critical of and complimentary to him in that.

What would the USA look like if France owned that territory now? What would have been the implications for us? So did Jefferson actually keep the social contract in an act that he saw as in for the mutual benefit of all? If you look at it that way, then that would be keeping the social contract.

But if you look at it that way, the same argument could also be made for Obamacare and many other government programs.

Jefferson did not violate the letter of the law. Jefferson can be accused of that as a matter of opinion. If it was true he violated the law he would have been brought up on impeachment charges.

What most every sentient being agrees is that Jefferson violated his own principles and his personal view of the spirit of the law

 

[Foxfyre]

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 ...

Perhaps a better term would be "filter". We are all products of our times.

I have read a few small books myself. One of the things about history is that it tends to focus on the large things, not the small. But we live in the small and that is where who we are really comes out. The Founders were men of position, power and wealth. You don't attain that without a very strong streak of practicality. So while the speeches and letters are full of philosophical musings, their lives were in the here and now (or there and then, if you prefer). Jefferson wrote eloquently on the rights and dignity of man, but it didn't stop him from owning human beings and having sex with women who were in no position to say no.

While the filter we look through changes, people don't. The Founders were no different than us.

But the topic is not the character or sins of the Founders but rather the social contract that they gave us via the Constitution and what we the people should do, if anything, when those we put in authority to administer that Constitution violate the principles it is intended to protect.

The Louisisana Purchase was at least partially in violation of those principles but, as previously posted, could be rationalized as necessary to keep us out of war with France. But of course such rationalization could be used for many things in that regard including our government giving away billions of dollars to countries who don't like us very much just to keep those countries peaceful towards us. "Buying friends" was certainly not part of the original social contract.

The only sin the Founders had was being human. My only point is that they were not some special breed so much more enlightened than the rest of us. They weren't. Just men who found themselves in a difficult time and accomplished something special. But still just men.

Had Jefferson followed a strict interpretation of the Constitution then he would not have made the purchase. Instead he saw an opportunity and took it. To the betterment of our nation. Many people at the time screamed like banshees, but that is also the nature of people. Take a look at this Jefferson Political Cartoons - AP US History you might find it interesting.

This is true. Jefferson knew he was violating the letter and law of the Constitution when he did it, and he chose to do it anyway. Was he right or wrong to do it? History has been both critical and complimentary to him in that.

What would the USA look like if France owned that territory now? What would have been the implications for us? So did Jefferson actually keep the social contract in an act that he saw as in for the mutual benefit of all? If you look at it that way, then that would be keeping the social contract.

But if you look at it that way, the same argument could also be made for Obamacare and many other government programs.

He was right to do it. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. I don't recall who said that, but it is true. It is a framework for a government, not a straightjacket.

And how then do you avoid the slippery slope effect? If he can do it, then other Presidents can use his action as a justification for their own, etc.?

And I don't want to limit this question to the Louisiana Purchase or discuss the pros and of that really. I want us to look at the snowball effect of little actions turning into major ones, the effect of a military advisory team eventually embroiling us in a full scale war, the tiny unobstrusive and negligible effect social security tax that has become the largest tax many citizens pay for anything, etc. The truth that once government takes power in just about anything, it feels justified in taking more.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

are you saying you believe the Congress and state and local governments set out to destroy the social contract?

Set out to destroy it? No.

But if you compare what we have now with what the Constitution intended for government to be, IMO in many respects it has.

Okay, because you did write "a segment of society decided to destroy the social contract and use government for its own purposes." I'm still curious about whom this segment of society actually is

and...

The Constitution intended nothing. The people who ratified the document gave it power and legitimacy:. Not the founders, not the framers, but the ratifiers -- the people. After the Constitution was ratified the founding generation started battling over meanings and interpretations. There was NEVER any agreement as you assume it. Never