Busting the myth of a "social contract"

Ok

US constitution.

 

Come on. The federal government can't do anything it wants. And if it did, there's no way that you could claim that every citizen tacitly agrees to what it might do. That's ridiculous.

 

Making **** up isn’t a valid argument.

 

If I offer you five dollars to mow my lawn, and you mow it, I give you five dollars for completing your end of the contract.

Is there something I'm missing?

 

Not making anything up. Please feel free to refute if you can.

The federal government can act in any way it wishes. All citizens tacitly agree with everything the federal government does. Therefore, all citizens tacitly agree with everything the federal government does.

 

Dude. Making **** up isn't a valid argument.

 

Well okay, my lawn doesn't need to be mowed, and I really don't pay people to mow it when it does because it's one of those things I enjoy doing myself. It's a middle class thing, I think.

Still, as a hypothetical, it does show a rudimentary knowledge of the concept of a contract. Two parties enter into a contract that involves both parties agreeing to do something in exchange for something.

And I think Rahl has decided that now might be a great time to clip her toenails...

 

You would move away from the US (doesn't have to be Somalia) if you didn't like the deal you were getting while living here under US laws. If you consider the social contract and benefits in the US superior to other countries, or just living out in the wild, then I suggest you stay.

Let me try to explain the social contract. Lets say you are a hunter gatherer who lives alone. You hunt for animals and live off the land. You start cultivating some land and therefore begin owning it by mixing it with your labor. If someone attacks you or takes your land away, then they have attacked you. In the wild, there is no moral right or wrong, so if someone can get away with it and better themselves at your expense then why not?

But maybe you and other hunter farmers don't like being constantly attacked and want to live in peace. So you make a contract that you don't attack each other and will defend each other from attacks. Eventually though everyone gets tired or always having to go out a defend all the time, and decide to provide for a select group that defends everyone all the time called warriors. So maybe, everyone has to pitch in a certain amount every year to provide for the warriors.

In order to be part of that group, you must agree to pitch in part of that labor. Your labor is your own, but if you don't give away part of what is your own, you can't be part of this group, just like if you don't pay the gym, you can't be a part of it. This is a basic social contract and taxation system. If you don't like this social contract and hate paying taxes to support the warriors, you are free to leave and live out in the wild on your own, or find another group.

As societies advance technologically, groups become larger and the community services become more complex. Lets say that an advanced group requires very wealthy members who hire many other group members and earn far more than them, to contribute more to community services to help the poorer workers survive the winter. That is just another social contract for a group that values egalitarianism and their group members being able to live comfortably and get a share when things get better.

 

Still, we're talking about individuals entering into that contract. It doesn't mean moving to Somalia, or moving anywhere. If we don't like the "social contract" then we just start killing each other.

Sorry, but not going to move to Somalia just because some buttard decides that I need to do something I didn't personally agree with.

 

You don't have to move to Somalia. There are a lot of developing countries with much lower taxes in the US, virtually no welfare system or socialism, and poor enforcement of their taxes. You also can go out and live in the wild by yourself somewhere. If you don't want to move, then the only choices you have are to violate the contract and hope you don't get caught, or try to get that contract changed.

 

Then I propose that all people who turn the age of 18 sign a contract of agreement that they will follow all the laws of the government. If you do not sign this contract, then you must leave the country. But the difference between that and what we have now is just a legal signing that 99.9% of people will sign.

 

You don't seem to be very familiar with American history. We are a nation of traitors to your "social contract" and a lot of blood has been spilled retaining our freedom.

Sorry, but I don't think you want to go there.

Much more blood can be spilled if you do, but... I don't think you want to.

You are free to move to Somalia, or...

bleh. stay or go, but stay and you will have to accept being free or become purina worm chow.

 

That doesn't prove that the Constitution is a social contract. I contend that it isn't.

Please provide a credible scholarly paper that backs your assertion that the Constitution is a social contract. I've provided one with an in depth analysis of why it is not, so either provide the requested paper as a counterpoint or directly address the part of the link I provided that is errant as well as an explanation as to why in your analysis that it is in error.

Thank you.

 

this is where I say there's no sovereignty. I did not elect my representative I can't stand my representative but I have no choice who represents me. I can vote but so can everyone else. and because they pick that retard to represent my district my sovereignty evaporates.

I would agree that the association of individuals has sovereignty but the individual does not.

I did not vote for my congressman I did not elect him but I have no power because I'm outnumbered by people that did.

but without the association of other individuals I have no power.

okay so if an individual commits arson and they get arrested and before their court date they can use their power to remove the law against arson? You'll have to explain that to me.

but an individual is not an association of individuals so you have to have an association to have any power therefore how is there any individual sovereignty?

I agree with you on Siri that's how it should be, but my original argument that actually started this whole thing is a citizen cannot be a sovereign.

Those two terms are mutually exclusive.

 

if I am to understand sovereignty to be supreme power that's absolutely false.

Take for instance my representative I did not vote for him I never voted for him I don't like him but more people that live in my district did. That is not power that's powerlessness.

honestly I very much appreciate you taking the time to explain this I've already warned everyone else out and I appreciate your willingness to continue talking to me about it.

That being said an association of individuals is not an individual. If the association of individuals has supreme power or sovereignty then the individual absolutely cannot.

this is something I've never understood about this whole thing.

Me the individual or me the association of individuals? I don't have sovereignty within the association of individuals. Because again I did not vote for my congressional representative. Because within my district there are more people that vote for him then vote against. Therefore sovereignty only exist with the association of individuals that elect him.

my contention is that sovereignty never existed in the first place. Because let's say my congressman gets elected against my wishes my sovereignty was null and void. I have no power with regard to that.

I don't see that simile at all. natural rights as a concept exists independently of what a government does. Your power does not. If a government and flex power over you you don't have sovereignty because as I understand it sovereignty is supreme power there's nothing more Supreme than Supreme.

I also understand sovereignty to be superlative. There is no varying degree of it supreme power is supreme power everything else is beneath Supreme.

Well the nuance that I'm wanting you to explain is that Sovereign t means something other than supreme power. You might have explained that it means something else but I didn't see it and I apologize for that if you did explain it please show me what post to explain it in and I'll go back and read it.

 

Completely understandable, but the sovereignty of the individual says that you don't have to put up with that. Lots of good young men died during the war of independence because they believed that freedom is better than the alternative.

Many of them died, but they did so as free men.

What you see is the "******nit!!!! my guy lost, so now I'm just stuck with this moron, so I'm screwed!!!!" mentality. Believe me, I understand that well. I guess the difference is being quietly led to the gallows, and fighting them the entire way. There's no difference in the outcome, but who went out like a trained mouse, and who went out like a lion?

 

I can't start a one-man revolution.

this isn't about living or dying this is about if I did wage war against my district I would just be arrested or possibly killed as a lone nut. It would be worthless it would counter the goal.

if I was to charge against this character that's my representative what if the people that voted for him that wanted him to be their representative whatever person I can manage to get put in there is against them so they don't have any Sovereignty.

I wouldn't be fighting a foreign entity I would be fighting against my own countrymen.

Further I'm not really being led to the gallows I just have a crummy representative. I had to Google who it was because I had forgotten since election in 2018.

 

What if you don't want to be part of that group?

 

"Citizen, you tacitly agree to a boot stomping on your face forever. Because social contract!"

 

That has to be one of the stupidest posts I have ever read, and that is saying something.
In human history, there has always been within the human race psychopaths and sociopaths who desired to control and exploit their fellow people.

Several thousand years ago they invented a scheme called religion where they would convince others that they were justified in there exploitation because they were chosen by a god to do so.
Of course that god was fictitious, just a fabrication which allowed the psychopaths to claim powers and to steal the lives and properties of others. The practice was named feudalism.

Today we see that same principal at work by liberals who would justify the theft and redistribution of wealth by another fictitious invention called the social contract. They attempt to usurp powers and dictate rules and policies over others using this fictitious social contract as their justification, just as priests and kings used ficticious gods in the past. You see nothing ever really changes, we are playing the same basic game we have always played, with only slight modifications, the psychopaths trying to rule over the rest of humanity.

 

Lets replace "group" with "gym". If you don't want to be part of that gym, then you can't work out in that gym. You can either not join a gym or find another gym to join.

 

okay, so nobody needs to join the gym if they don't want to.

 

yes.

 

since I never posted the argument you are attributing to me........................yes you are.

addressed and refuted this already.

 

your contention is irrelevant to reality. Breach the contract, and you will face penalties for doing so.

don't need to. I gave you the actual contract.

I don't care what the opinion of some libertarian is. The legal facts don't go away because you don't like them.