The "social contract" that doesn't exist

[P@triot]

Social Contract - an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.

Other than this theory, what do you suppose is the purpose of government and the obligations of citizens?

Describe for us the utopia assumed by the Libertarian Ideology you seem to be in support of, and explain how such a theory might govern a nation of 300 Million diverse inhabitants.

you know if this social contract you claim existed actually did exist, we wouldn't have crime. we wouldn't have 16,000 homicides a year. we wouldn't have assaults, rapes, robberies, bullying, cheating, drunk driving, drug addiction, scams, corporate theft. this so called contract is a big fail. we're giving up rights and freedoms for this?

ok, hows this, since we are willing to give up rights and freedoms for state protection. Racial profiling is ok. demanding a federal id is ok. the patriot act is ok.

hey taintwallow your the side who wants IDs for voting remember?

And you're actually proud that you don't want ID's to ensure a fair & clean election?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why should I have to walk away from anything? When did I agree to do that?

You're only proving that you're a moron.

Social Contract - an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.

Other than this theory, what do you suppose is the purpose of government and the obligations of citizens?

Describe for us the utopia assumed by the Libertarian Ideology you seem to be in support of, and explain how such a theory might govern a nation of 300 Million diverse inhabitants.

you know if this social contract you claim existed actually did exist, we wouldn't have crime. we wouldn't have 16,000 homicides a year. we wouldn't have assaults, rapes, robberies, bullying, cheating, drunk driving, drug addiction, scams, corporate theft. this so called contract is a big fail. we're giving up rights and freedoms for this?



ok, hows this, since we are willing to give up rights and freedoms for state protection. Racial profiling is ok. demanding a federal id is ok. the patriot act is ok.

I claim? The Social Contact is a Theory, and a framework for Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence. What do these words mean to you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

 

[Avorysuds]

so you think cheating in elections is warrented because your too stupid to figure out how to leave a country you hate?

You're the one that likes to starve and murder children... I don't think you should be attacking anyone let along showing your face outdoors.

 

[Spoonman]

Social Contract - an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.

Other than this theory, what do you suppose is the purpose of government and the obligations of citizens?

Describe for us the utopia assumed by the Libertarian Ideology you seem to be in support of, and explain how such a theory might govern a nation of 300 Million diverse inhabitants.

you know if this social contract you claim existed actually did exist, we wouldn't have crime. we wouldn't have 16,000 homicides a year. we wouldn't have assaults, rapes, robberies, bullying, cheating, drunk driving, drug addiction, scams, corporate theft. this so called contract is a big fail. we're giving up rights and freedoms for this?



ok, hows this, since we are willing to give up rights and freedoms for state protection. Racial profiling is ok. demanding a federal id is ok. the patriot act is ok.

I claim? The Social Contact is a Theory, and a framework for Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence. What do these words mean to you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

oh, those inalienable rights that you liberal wack jobs keep trying to infringe on

 

[Londoner]

It would be nice if the OP could broaden his talking points, rather than terminally repeating stuff we've heard before.

We understand that he favors an economic policy that provides incentives to producers (though lower taxes and fewer regulations) along with disincentives against laziness (by removing the Welfare hammock). We get it. People started making this argument long ago, and they put it more elegantly and convincingly than the OP. Here is my point: if the OP is just going to "cut & paste" tired slogans and talking points, than he's not advancing the issue or helping us understand it.

Is there any chance the OP could give us a comparative analysis of postwar Keynesian demand-side policies versus post-Carter supply side policies - and the resultant economic growth from those eras? Seriously, if he could help us compare the economic growth of the demand-side era (50s-60s) to the supply-side era (80s-90s), than we can get our hands dirty with the specifics and learn more about this very complicated issues. Instead, he creates these silly straw men about welfare so he can attack his policy opponents without ever really discussing the policy. We know he hates Liberals but we never see him do any actual heavy lifting or make any actual arguments. He just cuts and pastes and screams and yells.

I wish he understood that this is a truly interesting issue that is worthy of an actual discussion as opposed to romper room name calling. For instance, there are people who think that both demand and supply side polices have, at different times in our history, played productive roles in growing the economy; however, each policy has been over applied (e.g., demand-side lead to inflation whereas supply side choked demand), and each policy has, sadly, seen the formation of crusty special interest groups which became entrenched in Washington (and prevented us from solving the problems that occurred when their policies were over applied).

Meaning: If the OP is going to bring these issues up, it would be nice if he did it in a more enlightening way (rather than his terminal partisan buggery).

I'm just asking him to make an argument that demonstrates a clear understanding of all sides of the issue. C'mon dude, help us understand this shit. Say something new or interesting.

 

[Avorysuds]

there is NOTHING more important in a democracy than elections.


when you have a party that cheats because they cant get the people votes you have a problem that will need to be fixed.


Your party will not be allowed to cheat anymore because you refuse to talk about it

This thread isn't about cheating in elections.

Go derail some other thread.

I admit, now seeing TM back for going on day 2 now I was simply was not ready to see the level of terminally stupid that only TM can provide. She was out of order for some time but now appears to be back.

I apologize to anyone that I claimed were trying to take TM's seat at the throne of willful ignorance, intellectual incompetence and blinding partisanship and hypocrisy.

TM, you stun me solid.

 

[P@triot]

Social Contract - an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.

Other than this theory, what do you suppose is the purpose of government and the obligations of citizens?

Describe for us the utopia assumed by the Libertarian Ideology you seem to be in support of, and explain how such a theory might govern a nation of 300 Million diverse inhabitants.

you know if this social contract you claim existed actually did exist, we wouldn't have crime. we wouldn't have 16,000 homicides a year. we wouldn't have assaults, rapes, robberies, bullying, cheating, drunk driving, drug addiction, scams, corporate theft. this so called contract is a big fail. we're giving up rights and freedoms for this?

ok, hows this, since we are willing to give up rights and freedoms for state protection. Racial profiling is ok. demanding a federal id is ok. the patriot act is ok.

I claim? The Social Contact is a Theory, and a framework for Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence. What do these words mean to you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

God liberals on USMB are so nonsensical. This has NOTHING to do with a "social contract". Where does that say that you have the right to my property, my money, my food, my clothing, my transportation, or any of the tangible, material items that you liberals spend your life lusting over but refuse to pursue honestly?

All men are created equal in their rights - not in their income or material goods.

 

[Londoner]

The French Revolution was in no way communist. Not at all. That is fact, unfortunately ignored by Glenn Beck and his followers.

Well said. And...

The French Revolution sought in part to move power from French Nobility and lingering feudal hierarchies to a newly emerging merchant class (the Bourgeoisie) - who would replace heredity privilege with [things like] broadly inclusive elections and legal property rights. It was also modernity's first fight between the liberal defenders of individual freedom and the Conservative protectorate of Tradition and the Old Regime. This is why men like Glenn Beck are dangerous, not least because his reading of the French Revolution is so dangerously and ironically close to Hitler's, who thought the French Revolution was replacing tradition with a leveling and abstract universalism ("Rights of Man" as opposed to the "Glory of Germans").

Tragically, we have an entire generation of Republicans who get nearly 100% of their information from charismatic hucksters like Beck, Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, Levine and Coulter, all of whom are emphatically not qualified to teach history, not least because they never cover all sides of an issue. They literally cherry pick "facts" and distort the truth based on a deeply political agenda.

Even more interesting is how the conflict between the emerging commercial class and the feudal landlords made intellectual partners of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. Both sided against the rentier class who based its pricing authority on heredity privilege and the rule of divine right (two very conservative principals that had to do with preserving tradition/religion over the crass materialism and cold rationalism of home economicus). If you look at the post-Carter American economy, with its mega-mergers and the advantages it gives capital over labor, you see a similar rentier class entrenched over most domestic sectors. From the cable/internet companies and big media giants all the way to Elly Lilly and Johnson&Johnson, we see massive corporations without sufficient competition. We have reproduced the same rentier class, but this one is smart enough to embed its pricing powers in a rhetoric of "freedom".

 

[bripat9643]

Social Contract - an implicit agreement among the members of a society to cooperate for social benefits, for example by sacrificing some individual freedom for state protection. Theories of a social contract became popular in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries among theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as a means of explaining the origin of government and the obligations of subjects.

Other than this theory, what do you suppose is the purpose of government and the obligations of citizens?

Describe for us the utopia assumed by the Libertarian Ideology you seem to be in support of, and explain how such a theory might govern a nation of 300 Million diverse inhabitants.

you know if this social contract you claim existed actually did exist, we wouldn't have crime. we wouldn't have 16,000 homicides a year. we wouldn't have assaults, rapes, robberies, bullying, cheating, drunk driving, drug addiction, scams, corporate theft. this so called contract is a big fail. we're giving up rights and freedoms for this?



ok, hows this, since we are willing to give up rights and freedoms for state protection. Racial profiling is ok. demanding a federal id is ok. the patriot act is ok.

I claim? The Social Contact is a Theory, and a framework for Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence. What do these words mean to you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Jefferson isn't saying a thing about any supposed "social contract." All he's saying is that the only reason to have a government is to protect your individual rights. If government does anything else, then it's illegitimate and we have a right to abolish it.

 

[Listening]

Social Contract theory today is the basis for forced coercion. It essentially says that you owe something to somebody else by virtue of their existence.

The earlier version were more pointed towards the kind of point John Jay made when he said people give up some rights to form government in order to protect the rest.

They are not the same thing.

 

[Wry Catcher]

you know if this social contract you claim existed actually did exist, we wouldn't have crime. we wouldn't have 16,000 homicides a year. we wouldn't have assaults, rapes, robberies, bullying, cheating, drunk driving, drug addiction, scams, corporate theft. this so called contract is a big fail. we're giving up rights and freedoms for this?



ok, hows this, since we are willing to give up rights and freedoms for state protection. Racial profiling is ok. demanding a federal id is ok. the patriot act is ok.

I claim? The Social Contact is a Theory, and a framework for Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence. What do these words mean to you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

oh, those inalienable rights that you liberal wack jobs keep trying to infringe on

Since you can't respond with a thoughtful comment you default to posting an idiotgram. Were you trying to be seen as stupid or ... well others can figure it out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Really now. Maybe you just haven't been paying attention for the last 50 or 60 years? You certainly never took political science or philosophy at the community college you went to for a couple of years....


Social Contract Theory
Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. Socrates uses something quite like a social contract argument to explain to Crito why he must remain in prison and accept the death penalty. However, social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes.

After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory, which has been one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the modern West. In the twentieth century, moral and political theory regained philosophical momentum as a result of John Rawls’ Kantian version of social contract theory, and was followed by new analyses of the subject by David Gauthier and others.

More recently, philosophers from different perspectives have offered new criticisms of social contract theory. In particular, feminists and race-conscious philosophers have argued that social contract theory is at least an incomplete picture of our moral and political lives, and may in fact camouflage some of the ways in which the contract is itself parasitical upon the subjugations of classes of persons.

LMAO! Thank you for proving what idiots liberals are [MENTION=41423]NoTeaPartyPleez[/MENTION]. There is no "social contract". Just a made up liberal "theory" to justify that which liberals cannot justify with facts and law...

Rottweiler should be fired by his handlers for this thread alone.

Boring, shot down immediately, stepped on, and kicked into the gutter.

Rott, you want to be sanctioned? Act as if there is not a compact.

 

[Wry Catcher]

you know if this social contract you claim existed actually did exist, we wouldn't have crime. we wouldn't have 16,000 homicides a year. we wouldn't have assaults, rapes, robberies, bullying, cheating, drunk driving, drug addiction, scams, corporate theft. this so called contract is a big fail. we're giving up rights and freedoms for this?

ok, hows this, since we are willing to give up rights and freedoms for state protection. Racial profiling is ok. demanding a federal id is ok. the patriot act is ok.

I claim? The Social Contact is a Theory, and a framework for Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence. What do these words mean to you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

God liberals on USMB are so nonsensical. This has NOTHING to do with a "social contract". Where does that say that you have the right to my property, my money, my food, my clothing, my transportation, or any of the tangible, material items that you liberals spend your life lusting over but refuse to pursue honestly?

All men are created equal in their rights - not in their income or material goods.

You are an idiot. "To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men". The other idiot said that all government is evil and unnecessary. That Government when established is supported by all responsible men who are not idiots. That doesn't mean they agree with everything a government does, and, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish".

The vast majority of our citizens support our government, only radicals, anarchists and morons do not. The majority may disagree on policy and the direction of government but never support the abolishment of government itself as do radicals, morons and anarchists.

 

[Spoonman]

I claim? The Social Contact is a Theory, and a framework for Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence. What do these words mean to you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

oh, those inalienable rights that you liberal wack jobs keep trying to infringe on

Since you can't respond with a thoughtful comment you default to posting an idiotgram. Were you trying to be seen as stupid or ... well others can figure it out.

so tell me wry, what do you think it is that gives you the right to try to alter our inalienable rights?

 

[Wry Catcher]

you know if this social contract you claim existed actually did exist, we wouldn't have crime. we wouldn't have 16,000 homicides a year. we wouldn't have assaults, rapes, robberies, bullying, cheating, drunk driving, drug addiction, scams, corporate theft. this so called contract is a big fail. we're giving up rights and freedoms for this?



ok, hows this, since we are willing to give up rights and freedoms for state protection. Racial profiling is ok. demanding a federal id is ok. the patriot act is ok.

I claim? The Social Contact is a Theory, and a framework for Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence. What do these words mean to you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Jefferson isn't saying a thing about any supposed "social contract." All he's saying is that the only reason to have a government is to protect your individual rights. If government does anything else, then it's illegitimate and we have a right to abolish it.

Really. You want to abolish the U.S. Government. You claim to know what Jefferson was thinking even when his words suggests otherwise: " Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes".

 

[Spoonman]

I claim? The Social Contact is a Theory, and a framework for Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence. What do these words mean to you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Jefferson isn't saying a thing about any supposed "social contract." All he's saying is that the only reason to have a government is to protect your individual rights. If government does anything else, then it's illegitimate and we have a right to abolish it.

Really. You want to abolish the U.S. Government. You claim to know what Jefferson was thinking even when his words suggests other wise: " Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes".

interesting. now you are concerned about what on of the founders words suggest. of course when it comes to the 2nd amendment you totally dismiss what Madison, the person who wrote it, said about it. why the lack of consistency?

 

[bripat9643]

Really now. Maybe you just haven't been paying attention for the last 50 or 60 years? You certainly never took political science or philosophy at the community college you went to for a couple of years....


Social Contract Theory
Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. Socrates uses something quite like a social contract argument to explain to Crito why he must remain in prison and accept the death penalty. However, social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes.

After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory, which has been one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the modern West. In the twentieth century, moral and political theory regained philosophical momentum as a result of John Rawls’ Kantian version of social contract theory, and was followed by new analyses of the subject by David Gauthier and others.

More recently, philosophers from different perspectives have offered new criticisms of social contract theory. In particular, feminists and race-conscious philosophers have argued that social contract theory is at least an incomplete picture of our moral and political lives, and may in fact camouflage some of the ways in which the contract is itself parasitical upon the subjugations of classes of persons.

LMAO! Thank you for proving what idiots liberals are [MENTION=41423]NoTeaPartyPleez[/MENTION]. There is no "social contract". Just a made up liberal "theory" to justify that which liberals cannot justify with facts and law...

Rottweiler should be fired by his handlers for this thread alone.

Boring, shot down immediately, stepped on, and kicked into the gutter.

The irony of your posts is always precious, Fakey.

Rott, you want to be sanctioned? Act as if there is not a compact.

How would that prove the so-called "social compact" exists? All it proves is that government is willing to force you to pretend it exists.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Jefferson isn't saying a thing about any supposed "social contract." All he's saying is that the only reason to have a government is to protect your individual rights. If government does anything else, then it's illegitimate and we have a right to abolish it.

Really. You want to abolish the U.S. Government. You claim to know what Jefferson was thinking even when his words suggests other wise: " Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes".

interesting. now you are concerned about what on of the founders words suggest. of course when it comes to the 2nd amendment you totally dismiss what Madison, the person who wrote it, said about it. why the lack of consistency?

Jefferson didn't suggest, his remarks are quite clear. Frankly I don't give a damn what Madison said, that's the fodder for another thread. Anyone who fails to recognize the harm done by guns in our society is a fool, IMO.

 

[bripat9643]

I claim? The Social Contact is a Theory, and a framework for Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence. What do these words mean to you:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Jefferson isn't saying a thing about any supposed "social contract." All he's saying is that the only reason to have a government is to protect your individual rights. If government does anything else, then it's illegitimate and we have a right to abolish it.

Really. You want to abolish the U.S. Government.

I think I have made that quite plain. That's what it means to be an anarchist.

You claim to know what Jefferson was thinking even when his words suggests otherwise: " Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes".

Nevertheless, Jefferson said there comes a time when we have the right to abolish it. That time was long long ago.

 

[Londoner]

Social Contract theory today is the basis for forced coercion.

Agreed. Also, I know what you mean about government coercion and its benefactors.

The public is forced into spending billions protecting private sector oil fields and trade routes all over the globe, yet it exercises zero ownership rights/privileges in exchange for this corporate welfare. And the public is also forced to spend millions a year on a patent system. This is where the nanny government builds a monopoly fence around private sector investments; which means, in essence, that the public is paying handsomely to support a government-protected rentier class who lord over most major domestic sectors. And the public is also forced to fund a truly massive subsidy and bailout system so that our owners/investors get loads of government help on both the cost & risk end. (I'm sure you've studied lobbying and you understand why our corporations invest billions a year in their nanny protectorate. I'm sure you know about welfare in all its forms, and you're not just listening to news sources that only talk about the evil of food stamps and unemployment benefits)

The coercion doesn't end. The public is forced to spend trillions through the Pentagon/NASA budgets to develop a satellite system which is then simply given to private sector telecoms (and host of other sectors), thus converting my money into private profit for others.

If large corporations are going to benefit from publicly funded infrastructure, research, technology, subsidies and bailouts, than they should expect a corresponding tax burden. (that is, unless you create a media system which suppresses all the things government does for business by strategically moving the public's gaze to welfare queens, gay marriage and the commie terrorist baby killer hiding under the bed)

Before you tell us about coercion, you need to be able to supply an itemized list of the benefits our profit makers get from government. Meaning: welfare goes in many directions, but the talk radio republican has been trained only to see one side of the story. For instance, do you know how much money Boeing has received through the the defense budget? The public has done as much or more to subsidize commercial aviation than any collection of private investors (who draw 100% of the ownership benefits). We keep hearing about confiscatory taxes to support the welfare state, but we NEVER hear about who gets the most welfare. Do you know how much money the public has invested in the Colorado Rive Basin so that profit makers have access to a population center of over 25 million? This is why those same profit makers can't invest in most of Sub-Saharan Africa, because there is no nanny state to give them the required industrial infrastructure. (But your side strategically suppresses the public investment into the infrastructure required by a robust profit system)

During the postwar years there was an unstated compact between business and government. Business was given truly fucking massive subsidies along with all the advantages of the world's most expensive, most advanced industrial infrastructure. (Do you know the kind of technology that flowed from the Cold War Space Program into the 80's consumer electronics boom? Do you know the profits this technology made possible? Have you ever studied it?) Which is to say: we bestow lavish gifts upon our capitalist class, which is why we have the wealthiest private sector in history. In exchange for these gifts to our suppliers, our well subsidized capitalists accepted a tax rate which would allow the public to 1) continue to invest in advanced industrial infrastructure (rather than borrowing money from China for this stuff), and 2) create well funded school/health/transportation systems so that those born poor would have the tools of upward mobility, and 3) support a network of demand-centered economic policies that made sure the middle class had the purchasing power to drive economic growth without having to go into crippling debt. If you don't like this compact, the story goes, than move to Africa and try investing in a country that doesn't have first world infrastructure. Unfortunately, the postwar compact was ultimately destroyed. With Reagan we managed to increase the subsidies/bailouts to business but we deeply undermined the tax, trade and labor policies that allowed us to support a thriving middle class of consumers. We divested from the consumer/demand side and thus created a class of indebted, low-wage serfs.

But the fact remains. Government coercion takes many forms and has many benefactors.