Busting the myth of a "social contract"

During many political debates between conservatives and liberals, liberals often justify the imposition of their will on the masses by claiming we the people have agreed to their socialist agenda by being bound by something called a social contract.

The debunking and de-legitimizing of this idea of a non-voluntary “social contract’ is essential to understand to logically debate politics. When accepted, it marks a seal of approval on all abuses of power by the state.
The fact is that there is no such thing, and never has been in the United States. To fully understand this it will be necessary to learn what a social contract is and why it can never be something compatible with a Constitutional Republic.

To begin with we must define what a social contract is. The concept of a social contract was conceived in the 17th and 18th century's primarily, and was written about by writers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau to theorize on the hypothetical relationship between a King and his subjects.

The theory at the time was that God ruled the world, and that because Kings held all the power over his subjects, that the Kings power must be Gods will. The social contract was a theory that because the King was ordained by God, he should treat his subjects humanly in exchange for exploiting them in feudal slavery.
The churches supported this scam for centuries as it reinforced their position at the top of the hierarchy of society, as the King's position was predicated on Gods will and the Church was the link between God and man.

Today, we have liberals attempting to apply a feudal "social contract" on a free and sovereign people.
It is easy to see why this concept is complete fallacy. We are not a Monarchy, and are not slaves within a feudal system, although liberals are doing their best to make that a reality. It is really kind of comical that the left have adopted a system which at its roots is based on God and Religion.

So what is a contract? A Contract: An agreement between parties creating mutual obligations enforceable by law. The basic elements required for the agreement to be a legally enforceable contract are: mutual assent (mutual agreement or approval), expressed by a valid offer and acceptance; adequate consideration(Something bargained for and received by a promisor from a promisee).; capacity (Ability to pay); and legality.

You can see that this idea of a “social contract” is in direct defiance of the requirements qualifying a legally enforceable contract. The most obvious contradiction being the idea of an unspoken, unwritten agreement which you automatically consent too by simply existing. I don’t know about you but when I was born I never agreed to, or bargained for any such contract with the state.

The most vital qualification for legitimate contract is that it must be a clear mutual agreement, expressed by a valid offer and acceptance. In other words, all parties must knowingly and willingly submit to the terms and agreements in any given contract.

If such a social contract did exist (it doesn't), it still would not be enforceable due to a little something called contract coercion. Contract coercion is “When a contract agreement is entered into under conditions involving harm or threats of harm.” For an agreement to be legally enforceable, contracts must be entered into “knowingly” and “willingly” by all parties.

So the next time a liberal tries to legitimize their freedom robbing socialist agenda by invoking a mythical "social contract" you will now have the facts to show that their position is complete BS.

 

Wow, you better not tell the church, hu?

 

Right wing wants no rules. They don't want to be part of a social species. THEIR WAY or no way.

Youre not the boss of me. This is their religion.

 

The left want slavery and a feudal system. The right wants freedom and liberty. America was created by people desiring freedom.

 

Big problem with your erroneous theory. The majority want the social safety net programs you claim are being imposed by liberals.

 

The people that came here, became elitist intellectuals and decided to create a non king system. By and large, they were communist, till much later, as EVERYTHING had to be shared, FOR SURVIVAL.

 

Nope. The social contract today is simply a reference to the principle of:
"the voluntary agreement among individuals by which .... organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members." - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/social-contract

IOW, you want to live in a society? ...--then there are implicit requirements that, by participation, you agree to.

 

Hey, if there is no social contract, why is there a country? If everyone is in it for themselves, patriotism makes no sense.

 

They were communal not communist, but do not let the facts impact your opinion. Also what lifestyle the original colonists chose has nothing to do with the actual government that was established after the country cast off feudalism and established individual liberty and a system of sovereign citizens.

 

They were COMMUNIST, as each colonial settlement was its own gov. So, COMMUNIST. Like early Israelis. Commie.

The reason you hemen are able to flout civilization is due to all the YOU DIDNT BUILD THAT< AND NOW you wont pay for its upkeep. FOR REAL.

Civic mindedness was not an option.

 

Our government was constructed to be a Constitutional Republic, and not a democracy. Liberals have trampled the rights of the citizens by imposing socialist democracy and ignoring the Constitution. Most of this is illegal, and will be overturned when the people are educated to understand what has happened.

 

No social contract exists. It is a fallacy. If it exists then show us where it is written. A contract must exist in order for it to be legitimate. How can it exist if no one has consented to it and no one knows what it says.

 

Can you provide an actual, reliable definition of "communism"?

 

There is a country because a government was created by a contract known as the Constitution of the United States. That contract between the Government, States, and the people is what created the country.

 

Nope. I only know it when I see it. Like they all call us communists. Because they said so.




The Mayflower Compact.

In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, Etc.

Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience.

In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620
https://www.catholicamericanthinker.com/Colonial-Communism.html

 

LOL!!! That only shows you don't understand (or don't want to acknowledge and accept) the principle.

 

Oh. Ok. So you have an opinion and you declare that it is sufficient for you, and otherwise, you really don't care. Got it.

 

Well then, there seems to be a contract. If everyone was in it for themselves, why have a constitution?

 

Your hope that the people will be educated may produce the opposite of your desired result. The more they learn the more likely they'll come to the inevitable conclusion your theory is intellectually bankrupt.

 

I do not understand your question, please clairify.

 

This was the foundational ideology of the rennaisance and classical liberalism, the response to the autocracism of the dark ages.

To think reversing it will result in anything but a return to feudalism is moronic.

 

So it does not exist.

 

The constitution is a "contract" by the American people, who have common goals, setting the principles of governance. If people were in it for themselves only, there would be no need for such a document, or governance at all. In fact, having a constitution and a country means that countrymen care for each other, at least more so than they care for foreigners. That implies that there is already a social contract.

 

The lies of liberalism can easily be overcome by teaching logic and facts. That is why liberals are fanatical about keeping complete control over the government educational system.

 

The "contract" referenced in the term "social contract" never was written, signed, or codified. But that never stopped it from being a reality. Violate the social contract and you will have a hard life at least, and prison time at worst. And the prison time arises from the laws we have that are based on the implicit social contract without mentioning it explicitly.
https://legaldictionary.net/implied-contract/