Busting the myth of a "social contract"

What elements do you need to make a contract legal?

 

Involved parties and a sovereign entity to back it up. The involved parties for the Constitution are the "People of the United States" and the sovereign entity is the government they form.

 

Yes, the majority of humans want other people's ****. Who'd a thunk it?

 

Moronic argument.

Citizens agree to follow the rules of law of their society or they are locked away from society. Been that way for the last 2,000+ years.
That is a Social Contract. You may want to pretend it doesn't exist, or play with semantics, but it doesn't make it any less a truth.

 

Fair enough. I withdrawl my incorrect assumption.

To your actual point- the founders had a huge problem with slavery. However, they had a bigger problem with losing the economic and material support of the rich, oligarchic southern slaveholders and their industries with war against Britain looming on the horizon. Slavery was protected because those powerful slaveholders who were necessary for the very survival of the infant nation would have instead sided with Britain, which also allowed slavery until 1833. Quite simply, the options at the time were to allow slavery in the US or let the US become enslaved to the British Empire. As much as the majority of 'the founders' wanted to be rid of slavery, they couldn't without losing the nation, in which case slavery would have been protected anyway. Ending it simply wasn't a realistic option.

"Although many of the Founding Fathers acknowledged that slavery violated the core American Revolutionary ideal of liberty, their simultaneous commitment to private property rights, principles of limited government, and intersectional harmony prevented them from making a bold move against slavery. The considerable investment of Southern Founders in slave-based staple agriculture, combined with their deep-seated racial prejudice, posed additional obstacles to emancipation.

In his initial draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson condemned the injustice of the slave trade and, by implication, slavery, but he also blamed the presence of enslaved Africans in North America on avaricious British colonial policies. Jefferson thus acknowledged that slavery violated the natural rights of the enslaved, while at the same time he absolved Americans of any responsibility for owning slaves themselves. The Continental Congress apparently rejected the tortured logic of this passage by deleting it from the final document, but this decision also signaled the Founders’ commitment to subordinating the controversial issue of slavery to the larger goal of securing the unity and independence of the United States.

Nevertheless, the Founders, with the exception of those from South Carolina and Georgia, exhibited considerable aversion to slavery during the era of the Articles of Confederation (1781–89) by prohibiting the importation of foreign slaves to individual states and lending their support to a proposal by Jefferson to ban slavery in the Northwest Territory. Such antislavery policies, however, only went so far. The prohibition of foreign slave imports, by limiting the foreign supply, conveniently served the interests of Virginia and Maryland slaveholders, who could then sell their own surplus slaves southward and westward at higher prices. Furthermore, the ban on slavery in the Northwest tacitly legitimated the expansion of slavery in the Southwest.

Despite initial disagreements over slavery at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, the Founders once again demonstrated their commitment to maintaining the unity of the new United States by resolving to diffuse sectional tensions over slavery. To this end the Founders drafted a series of constitutional clauses acknowledging deep-seated regional differences over slavery while requiring all sections of the new country to make compromises as well. They granted slaveholding states the right to count three-fifths of their slave population when it came to apportioning the number of a state’s representatives to Congress, thereby enhancing Southern power in the House of Representatives. But they also used this same ratio to determine the federal tax contribution required of each state, thus increasing the direct federal tax burden of slaveholding states. Georgians and South Carolinians won a moratorium until 1808 on any congressional ban against the importation of slaves, but in the meantime individual states remained free to prohibit slave imports if they so wished. Southerners also obtained the inclusion of a fugitive slave clause (see Fugitive Slave Acts) designed to encourage the return of runaway slaves who sought refuge in free states, but the Constitution left enforcement of this clause to the cooperation of the states rather than to the coercion of Congress.

Although the Founders, consistent with their beliefs in limited government, opposed granting the new federal government significant authority over slavery, several individual Northern Founders promoted antislavery causes at the state level. Benjamin Franklin in Pennsylvania, as well as John Jay and Alexander Hamilton in New York, served as officers in their respective state antislavery societies. The prestige they lent to these organizations ultimately contributed to the gradual abolition of slavery in each of the Northern states."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery-1269536

On a side note, to better answer one of your previous questions, Benjamin Franklin, oft touted as one of the Founders of our nation and a 'liberal for his time' (classical liberal), was both an abolitionist (prior to 1785 he owned slaves, but 'converted' thereafter and joined a Quaker anti-slavery society) and tolerant of homosexuality.
http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_citizen_abolitionist.html
https://www.washingtonblade.com/201...writer-inventor-statesman-and-friend-to-gays/

 

Which makes YOU, the FREAK, not us. We are a social species, and like to know our boundaries, also restrict others, in the harm they can do.

 

All you have to do is appeal to the individual (as always when discussing lefty nonsense) to show how they are totalitarians.

Who is allowed to determine what this "social contract" involves? Society? Yes, because lefties are totalitarians, and they despise the individual.

They don't even bother denying that they hate the individual now.

 

I hate to break it to you, but the constitution was established between the states.

 

Hate to break it to you, but the Constitution applied to all People of the United States even if they didn’t live in a state. The US has from the very beginning included non-state territory.

 

Interesting, but how does this address the fact that the constitution was established between the states?

 

The problem is that a huge percentage only 'agree' to it because they know they will be able to opt out of participation .. because it's always sold as a luxury item, provided gratis. If you were to offer it conditional upon participation (the only way it can be sustained), few would agree to it.

 

Nobody is coercing you.

The threat of force is enforcing the contract. You voluntarily agreed to it. You are free to remove yourself from American soil, and American procelefes at any time. Nobody is stopping you.

 

You understand society is made up of individuals right?

 

It was established between the citizens.

 

Yeah, I'm a freak cuz you want to get your grubby mitts on other peoples stuff.
Pathetic

 

Incorrect. It was established between states.

 

These guys do know they are not prisoners.....right?

 

“Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.”

There is nothing here that “busts” the social contract. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t negate its existence.

This is also a bit backwards. The concept of the social contract puts restraint on governmental power under the condition that it must be agreed upon. Wanting to dismantle it means you except the conditions of tyranny.

 

Well if you think this it would probably be prudent for you to leave the country. Because such people haven't tendency toward violence and the only solution for this is violence. The people on your side can become Adolf Hitler and execute them all or they can become rebels and just undo the social fabric.

point is you really don't believe this otherwise you would flee because there is an imminent War and There Will be blood if it really was like this.

So the question is why do you try and get yourself to believe this?

 

Seems we're slowly drifting closer and closer to "originalism" or "tentherism".
Pretty soon we'll be down to just 1A and 2A, but let's not forget, jdog already said he is not party to the contract.
Cardboard license plates can't be far behind, not to mention lots of capital letters and red : colons...

Followed by admonitions about gold fringes on flags.

 

So whatever the majority wants the majority gets? What is the majority decided to enslave Polynesians? Polynesians aren't the majority so there is no way they could stop it.

I'd prefer constitutional republic to that style of dictatorship. you can move to Russia if you want to live like that they already have that there.

 

This so called "non-aggression" nonsense is one part fairy tale, one part Dungeons and Dragons and one part absolute utter lie. There is no guarantee or pact of non-aggression, just as there is no promise by loan sharks not to up the "juice" on a whim when they wish to collect.

 

Hysterical nonsense about pure democracy which has not been tried in 2500 years.

 

Sovereign citizen alert.

 

Well if it's hysterical nonsense then there's no need to argue about it. Just dismiss it as such and move on to someone more rational