The "social contract" that doesn't exist

[ron4342]

In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devices—including the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programs—could fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.

The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage

Three points to make here:

• How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
  
  
• The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
  
  
• Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.

I am surprised you did not want to defend your position that you have no problem with Americans starving by saying "Are there no trash cans? Are there no dumpsters?"

 

[Intense]

And nowhere in our federal or states' constitutions does it even suggest such a thing?

All made up by lefties/liberals/socialists to increase their political power and has nothing to do with "helping" anyone but themselves.

Uh-huh....Right. It was originally referred to as the the Social Compact:

The Social Compact

The Social Compact
The First Principle of the Social Compact recognizes that governments are instituted by the people and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed

The Declaration of Independence recognizes as a self-evident truth that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . .”

There are two aspects to this First Principle of the Social Compact. First, that legitimate governments are instituted among the people; second, that the just powers of the government are derived from the consent of the people. The Founding Fathers derived much of their understanding of this First Principle from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and other like-minded philosophers.

The Founding Fathers believed that because conflict is inevitable in a state of nature, individuals united in civil societies and established government to secure the peace. James Madison reflected that “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” But men are not angels, Alexander Hamilton noted, and government becomes necessary to restrain “the passions of men.” Thus, paradoxically, legal restraints are necessary to preserve liberty. The alternative is vigilantism – which Hobbes aptly termed a “war of every one against every one.”

The second aspect of the Social Compact is that the people must consent to give the government its authority. Robert Bates, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, explained that “In every free government, the people must give their assent to the laws by which they are governed. This is the true criterion between a free government and an arbitrary one.”

Indeed, the American Revolution was strongly motivated by a defense of this First Principle. The cry of “no taxation without representation” was directly derived from the Social Compact.

The Social Compact is an indispensable First Principle of American freedom.

Good presentation, only problem is that it is past tense. Our Government abandoned government by the consent of the governed before either of us were born. There is no choice that you make politically, that is not controlled. Even the arguments are controlled.Follow the money, lets see who is sitting around who's Thanksgiving table.

When it comes to Government by the consent of the governed, and It's affinity with Justice, Conscience, Good Will, there is No construct of more value that It's Purpose for existing, and, in failing to meet that purpose, failing to amend, becomes part of the problem.

There is what is Just. There is our vain attempt at distributing it. Having failed to even recognize what Justice is, we compound misfortune, and expand even further, abandoning reason and condemning those that point out the errors along with the victims of the Tyranny of the masses. Good job there. You have almost totally destroyed Madison's, Jefferson's dream.

 

[P@triot]

In the past, Republicans thought that the market ought to set wages, and that a combination of government devices—including the earned-income tax credit, housing subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, and other social-welfare programs—could fill in the gaps to make that social contract work, while also trying to remove disincentives from work via welfare reform.

The Moral and Economic Case for Raising the Minimum Wage

Three points to make here:

• How is it possible that the left is incapable of comprehending that if the minimum wage for flipping a burger goes up 20%, the cost of the burger goes up 20%, which means the cost of shipping that burger to each store goes up 20%, which means the cost of electricity goes up 20%, which means the minimum wage worker is no further ahead than they were before the minimum wage went up 20%? I'm literally astounded by the left's ignorant belief that every action occurs in a vacuum. This is basic stuff that even small children understand.
  
  
• The solution to the problem is pretty damn simple. Stop subsidizing the failure of the individual. If they can't put food on their table, there are 6 mechanisms of safety nets to ensure food gets there that do not include government. If 6 safety nets are not enough, well, then you were destined to go hungry. Just accept it and move on (and we all know that will NEVER happen with 6 safety nets, but that won't stop the liberals on USMB from making outrageous scenario's where those safety nets aren't enough).
  
  
• Once again we see the left literally make stuff up out of thin air. What "social contract"?!? I've never seen one. And I sure as hell never signed one.

I am surprised you did not want to defend your position that you have no problem with Americans starving by saying "Are there no trash cans? Are there no dumpsters?"

And I am not surprised [MENTION=35790]ron4342[/MENTION] that you hoard everything you have while people starve. Liberal hypocrisy is utterly repulsive....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rottweiler and bripat completely failed to support the OP: the preamble to the Constitution remains.

Intense has made an interesting argument, but . . . does not refute noteapartyplz at all.

This is my last word. Unsubscribe.

 

[bripat9643]

Rottweiler and bripat completely failed to support the OP: the preamble to the Constitution remains.

Intense has made an interesting argument, but . . . does not refute noteapartyplz at all.

This is my last word. Unsubscribe.

You're babbling incoherently, Fakey. Your conclusions don't follow from your premises, and your premises have no connection to the posts you respond to. Apparently you have been lobotomized. That's the only explanation for the dribble you post.

 

[Intense]

Rottweiler and bripat completely failed to support the OP: the preamble to the Constitution remains.

Intense has made an interesting argument, but . . . does not refute noteapartyplz at all.

This is my last word. Unsubscribe.

Bottom line, Jake, "We The People" legally, means exactly what a majority of 5/4 sitting on the Supreme Court says it means, no more, no less, until they themselves, arbitrarily make up their minds to change their minds, anytime, and as many times, as they wish, and there is nothing the rest of "We The People" as dysfunctional and divided as we are, can do about it. Madison saw the threat, Jefferson saw the threat, and fought it through both the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, yet Hamilton and Marshal got their way. Birth of an Oligarchy. Death of a Federalist Republic. We The People. Past Tense. It is what it is.

 

[P@triot]

Rottweiler and bripat completely failed to support the OP: the preamble to the Constitution remains.

Intense has made an interesting argument, but . . . does not refute noteapartyplz at all.

This is my last word. Unsubscribe.

You're babbling incoherently, Fakey. Your conclusions don't follow from your premises, and your premises have no connection to the posts you respond to. Apparently you have been lobotomized. That's the only explanation for the dribble you post.

Of course he's "unsubscribing" - he's taken an epic ass-kicking in this thread. The preamble did not create a "social contract". It does not promise all of the fictional liberal fantasy entitlements that Dumbocrats wish it did.

 

[JoeB131]

Rottweiler and bripat completely failed to support the OP: the preamble to the Constitution remains.

Intense has made an interesting argument, but . . . does not refute noteapartyplz at all.

This is my last word. Unsubscribe.

Bottom line, Jake, "We The People" legally, means exactly what a majority of 5/4 sitting on the Supreme Court says it means, no more, no less, until they themselves, arbitrarily make up their minds to change their minds, anytime, and as many times, as they wish, and there is nothing the rest of "We The People" as dysfunctional and divided as we are, can do about it. Madison saw the threat, Jefferson saw the threat, and fought it through both the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, yet Hamilton and Marshal got their way. Birth of an Oligarchy. Death of a Federalist Republic. We The People. Past Tense. It is what it is.

I think that's a little extreme.

The Supreme Court usually reflects where the people are on an issue.

Now, yeah, the Right Wing hates the notion of Roe v. Wade and the left hates the Heller decision, but they really kind of reflect a national concensus.

 

[bripat9643]

Rottweiler and bripat completely failed to support the OP: the preamble to the Constitution remains.

Intense has made an interesting argument, but . . . does not refute noteapartyplz at all.

This is my last word. Unsubscribe.

Bottom line, Jake, "We The People" legally, means exactly what a majority of 5/4 sitting on the Supreme Court says it means, no more, no less, until they themselves, arbitrarily make up their minds to change their minds, anytime, and as many times, as they wish, and there is nothing the rest of "We The People" as dysfunctional and divided as we are, can do about it. Madison saw the threat, Jefferson saw the threat, and fought it through both the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, yet Hamilton and Marshal got their way. Birth of an Oligarchy. Death of a Federalist Republic. We The People. Past Tense. It is what it is.

I think that's a little extreme.

The Supreme Court usually reflects where the people are on an issue.

Now, yeah, the Right Wing hates the notion of Roe v. Wade and the left hates the Heller decision, but they really kind of reflect a national concensus.

The purpose of the Supreme court is not to "reflect a consensus." Its purpose is to interpret the document as the Framers intended it to be interpreted.

 

[JoeB131]

Bottom line, Jake, "We The People" legally, means exactly what a majority of 5/4 sitting on the Supreme Court says it means, no more, no less, until they themselves, arbitrarily make up their minds to change their minds, anytime, and as many times, as they wish, and there is nothing the rest of "We The People" as dysfunctional and divided as we are, can do about it. Madison saw the threat, Jefferson saw the threat, and fought it through both the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, yet Hamilton and Marshal got their way. Birth of an Oligarchy. Death of a Federalist Republic. We The People. Past Tense. It is what it is.

I think that's a little extreme.

The Supreme Court usually reflects where the people are on an issue.

Now, yeah, the Right Wing hates the notion of Roe v. Wade and the left hates the Heller decision, but they really kind of reflect a national concensus.

The purpose of the Supreme court is not to "reflect a consensus." Its purpose is to interpret the document as the Framers intended it to be interpreted.

Yeah. What's your point?

If there was a clear interpretation of what the framers wanted, we'd have less 5-4 decisions and a lot more 9-0 decisions.

Reality check, SCOTUS is a political body just like Congress or the White House.

 

[P@triot]

I think that's a little extreme.

The Supreme Court usually reflects where the people are on an issue.

Now, yeah, the Right Wing hates the notion of Roe v. Wade and the left hates the Heller decision, but they really kind of reflect a national concensus.

The purpose of the Supreme court is not to "reflect a consensus." Its purpose is to interpret the document as the Framers intended it to be interpreted.

Yeah. What's your point?

If there was a clear interpretation of what the framers wanted, we'd have less 5-4 decisions and a lot more 9-0 decisions.

Reality check, SCOTUS is a political body just like Congress or the White House.

So you're admitting they are failing miserably at their responsibility? So you're admitting they are not interpreting laws as they apply to the Constitution but instead are abusing their power to push their own personal political agenda?

It's very rare to catch a moment of honesty from JB

 

[bripat9643]

I think that's a little extreme.

The Supreme Court usually reflects where the people are on an issue.

Now, yeah, the Right Wing hates the notion of Roe v. Wade and the left hates the Heller decision, but they really kind of reflect a national concensus.

The purpose of the Supreme court is not to "reflect a consensus." Its purpose is to interpret the document as the Framers intended it to be interpreted.

Yeah. What's your point?

If there was a clear interpretation of what the framers wanted, we'd have less 5-4 decisions and a lot more 9-0 decisions.

Reality check, SCOTUS is a political body just like Congress or the White House.

That's what's wrong with SCOTUS. It was never meant to be a political body. You rights shouldn't be up for a vote. If the "consensus" determined that the First Amendment should be abolished, would you support that?

 

[P@triot]

No correlation between the taxation and employment, Rottweiler.

Your causation is nothing more than coincidence, and you can't prove anything more.

Also take a look at state population totals.

Wow [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION] - an astounding amount of "coincidence" is piling up here. Tell me FakeyJakey, how long can you dismiss fact as "coincidence"? In your mind, every time something falls to the ground, it's not proof of gravity - it's just "coincidence". Since Connecticut wasn't enough for you, how about Obama's home state?

Connecticut's Fiscal Suicide | International Liberty

89,240 Jobs Lost Since the 66% Tax Hike and Counting - Illinois Review

 

[JoeB131]

The purpose of the Supreme court is not to "reflect a consensus." Its purpose is to interpret the document as the Framers intended it to be interpreted.

Yeah. What's your point?

If there was a clear interpretation of what the framers wanted, we'd have less 5-4 decisions and a lot more 9-0 decisions.

Reality check, SCOTUS is a political body just like Congress or the White House.

So you're admitting they are failing miserably at their responsibility? So you're admitting they are not interpreting laws as they apply to the Constitution but instead are abusing their power to push their own personal political agenda?

It's very rare to catch a moment of honesty from JB

No, I'm admitting all things are political.

And frankly, the only reason they are failing is because we have mutants like Scalia, Uncle Thomas and Alito on the court.

 

[JoeB131]

The purpose of the Supreme court is not to "reflect a consensus." Its purpose is to interpret the document as the Framers intended it to be interpreted.

Yeah. What's your point?

If there was a clear interpretation of what the framers wanted, we'd have less 5-4 decisions and a lot more 9-0 decisions.

Reality check, SCOTUS is a political body just like Congress or the White House.

That's what's wrong with SCOTUS. It was never meant to be a political body. You rights shouldn't be up for a vote. If the "consensus" determined that the First Amendment should be abolished, would you support that?

It wouldn't matter if I supported that or not.

Reality check. I think that everyone can right now agree what was done to Japanese Americans in World War II was a horrible abuse of their constitutional rights. In fact, I would go so far as to say that left and right, you'd get a pretty clear concensus that this was wrong, except for a few Neo-Con idiots trying to rationalize Gitmo. (Sit down, Miss Malkin!)

But you know what, the concensus in 1942 was pretty different. These people were terrified the Battleship Yamato was going to show up off San Francisco and start shelling the City.

And you know what, the SCOTUS totally upheld the policies.


Korematsu v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hirabayashi v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yasui v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In short, they bowed to the political reality of the day.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The reactionary right wing nut brigade and anarchist nonsense by Rott and bripat has been irrevocably revealed as such by so many other posters in this thread.

Those who don't love and respect our Constitution need to keep posting so other Americans can always remember that we have enemies domestic among us.

 

[P@triot]

Yeah. What's your point?

If there was a clear interpretation of what the framers wanted, we'd have less 5-4 decisions and a lot more 9-0 decisions.

Reality check, SCOTUS is a political body just like Congress or the White House.

So you're admitting they are failing miserably at their responsibility? So you're admitting they are not interpreting laws as they apply to the Constitution but instead are abusing their power to push their own personal political agenda?

It's very rare to catch a moment of honesty from JB

No, I'm admitting all things are political.

And frankly, the only reason they are failing is because we have mutants like Scalia, Uncle Thomas and Alito on the court.

So know you're admitting the justices who actually do execute their duties properly and adhere to the U.S. Constitution properly are the problem in your mind, while applauding the justices who conduct political activism from the bench?

Wow. JoeB proving once again what a monumental asshole he is in a rare moment of honesty. A Supreme Court Justice was intended to put aside their personal feelings and without bias, judge whether issues where a violation of the Constitution. It is a very simple task which I could practically execute in my sleep. Only a Dumbocrat could complicate something so simple.

And to recap, Joe hates our founders, hates any Supreme Court Justice who actually adheres to the U.S. Constitution without bias, hates people who take the risk to start a business and become successful, but loves communsim because (and I quote) "it works". I'v never seen a more hateful and miserable asshole than Joe here. The question is, if you hate America so much and love communism, why don't you defect?

 

[P@triot]

The reactionary right wing nut brigade and anarchist nonsense by Rott and bripat has been irrevocably revealed as such by so many other posters in this thread.

Those who don't love and respect our Constitution need to keep posting so other Americans can always remember that we have enemies domestic among us.

And that's exactly what conservatives are doing fakey. So the question becomes - why don't you love and respect our Constitution? Why do you feel the need to warp it, pervert it, and twist it instead of either accepting the way it is and/or properly & legally amending it to what you feel it needs to be?

By the way, I noticed you ran from links packed with indisputable facts. Why is that?

 

[JoeB131]

[

So know you're admitting the justices who actually do execute their duties properly and adhere to the U.S. Constitution properly are the problem in your mind, while applauding the justices who conduct political activism from the bench?

Wow. JoeB proving once again what a monumental asshole he is in a rare moment of honesty. A Supreme Court Justice was intended to put aside their personal feelings and without bias, judge whether issues where a violation of the Constitution. It is a very simple task which I could practically execute in my sleep. Only a Dumbocrat could complicate something so simple.

And to recap, Joe hates our founders, hates any Supreme Court Justice who actually adheres to the U.S. Constitution without bias, hates people who take the risk to start a business and become successful, but loves communsim because (and I quote) "it works". I'v never seen a more hateful and miserable asshole than Joe here. The question is, if you hate America so much and love communism, why don't you defect?

Because America can be fixed as soon as we tell wingnut tools like you to sit down and shut the fuck up.

This is what you don't get. The "America" you love is DEAD, DEAD, DEAD. And honestly, it was racist, misogynistic, homophobic and greedy and no one is going to really miss it. It's being replaced by an America that is fair and just and equitable, and most people will be better off for it.

But back to the point I was making. The Supreme Court has become Politics by other means.

You guys can't squeal about "Judicial Activism" after Gore v. Bush, where the SCOTUS effectively ignored not only the popular vote, but decades of precedents to give Bush the win.

And that rotten old bastard Scalia ain't going to live forever. Heh, heh, heh.

 

[JoeB131]

The reactionary right wing nut brigade and anarchist nonsense by Rott and bripat has been irrevocably revealed as such by so many other posters in this thread.

Those who don't love and respect our Constitution need to keep posting so other Americans can always remember that we have enemies domestic among us.

And that's exactly what conservatives are doing fakey. So the question becomes - why don't you love and respect our Constitution? Why do you feel the need to warp it, pervert it, and twist it instead of either accepting the way it is and/or properly & legally amending it to what you feel it needs to be?

By the way, I noticed you ran from links packed with indisputable facts. Why is that?

Probably because of most of your links, they come from batshit crazy idiots.

Here's the thing. The Constitution is not Holy Writ.

It is not a substitute for common fuckin' sense.

Letting Adam Lanza get a gun is stupid, no matter what Scalia thinks about "original intent'.