Busting the myth of a "social contract"

The Koch Bros. are not Libertaritans in any way shape or form so that dog won't hunt. That entire argument is fallacy. I would not give up anything to live in a democracy because democracy is mob rule. The sacrifice of some rights to establish certain necessary services by government is a given, but this is very dangerous ground, and must be aproached carefully and only when no other options exist. Government is evil by nature, because people are corrupt, and power given to people over others will always be misused. The point is that today, large amounts of money are stolen from citizens by force to support policies they do not agree with under the pretex of a "social contract" which in reallity, does not exist.

 

The definition of a social contract is an unwritten contract between a King and its subjects. There is no social contract in the US no matter how much you pretend there is.
Participation in the function of the US does not imply any sort of contract and if you think it does it is your responsibilty to prove that with some sort of documentation.

 

The Constitution is no less mob rule, it just requires a bigger mob. Instead of 2 wolves and sheep deciding what's for dinner, its 3 wolves passing a Constitutional amendment allowing sheep eating over the sheep minority's wishes.

 

You bullshit made up definition, not one found in any dictionary.

So wait, you have voluntarily participated (no one is forced to vote) in the US government, which is codified by the Constitution, but you want to claim that you are not party to that contract? How can you voluntarily participate in a contract and not be party to it?

 

1. "Social contract" is an abstract term in political philosophy subject to all manner of interpretation. Conflating it with either laws or legally enforceable contracts in this or that jurisdiction towards whatever ends is an error. Those are different kinds of contracts entirely in the same way that a cow is not a cowbell.
2. Laws are not contracts between the government and the governed. Contracts require consideration among other elements, depending on jurisdiction, and the enforcement of laws does not unless specifically allowed for in the statute. Whether this or that contract is enforceable versus whether this or that law is enforceable have absolutely -nothing- to do with each other.
3. Contracts in the U.S. are near universally creatures of state and not federal law. When federal courts are put in a position to interpret the enforceability and effects of contracts, they apply state common and statutory law. There are rules for contracting with this or that level of government, but those rules are not "laws of contract" or even contractual elements.
4. The right "to contract freely" is a foundational right in the U.S., is subject to regulation and all manner of other legal arcana, but that right itself is not a contract.

 

abolitionists, to name a few.

shall I take your avoidance of my question as an unwillingness or inability to answer?

 

Wrong, I pay my taxes because of the threat of prison. There is no social contract, which is why you cannot quote it or present it in any way shape or form. It does not exist.

 

Abolitionists supported equal rights for homosexuals?

 

What contract? Quote the contract. Tell me what it says.

 

Does the US Constitution not spell out elections for President and Congress? If you are not subject to the contract of the Constitution, why have you voluntarily participated in its processes?

 

"Social contract, in political philosophy, an actual or hypothetical compact, or agreement, between the ruled and their rulers, defining the rights and duties of each. In primeval times, according to the theory, individuals were born into an anarchic state of nature, which was happy or unhappy according to the particular version."

Encyclopedia Britanica

You stand corrected.

 

So you are saying that the Constitution is the "social contract" and will agree that anything not written in the Constitution is not part of the social contract?

 

I notice you didn't link to article, and I understand why: it would show how you are being deliberately dishonest when you claim that social contracts only apply to kings and their subjects.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-contract

It clearly shows that is not the case, so why do you insist on using the false definition you made up?

 

I'll answer this question when you answer mine. How can you claim to not be party to a contract (the Constitution) when you voluntarily participate in its processes?

 

of course. some of them were homosexuals.

for the second time: shall I take your avoidance of my question as an unwillingness or inability to answer?

 

No - it's between the people and the government, no matter what form of government that may be.

so·cial con·tract
Dictionary result for social contract
noun

1. 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.

 

Name one from that era (Colonial to signing of the Constitution).

 

I would LOVE to see your source for this claim.

Are you talking about the false strawman question you posed to me that I never claimed? (IE that all classic liberals are racist homophobes)

 

He does seem to be rather stuck on Hobbes, doesn't he?

 

The era being discussed in the conversation that you've inserted yourself into was early US history... but to answer your question, Benjamin Lay (1720s) was a devout abolitionist.

 

I highly doubt a devout Quaker would have supported anything like real small government social freedoms like equal rights for homosexuals.

 

Details, details...

 

OMG I hate you. You said it so much better than I did.

 

yes, you voluntarily pay your taxes, and have agreed to the social contract.

pretending this hasn't been answered already doesn't actually alter reality.

 

You do not seem to understand the terminology you are using. To be a party to a contract, you must be named in that contract or be a signature to that contract. Are you named or did you sign the Constitution? I know I didn't therefore I am not a party to it. The Constitution is a contract between the States and the Federal Government. You really should sue whomever it was that was supposed to have been responsible for teaching you these things.