Busting the myth of a "social contract"

They were writing in relation to monarchs, but their work was a major influence in establishing the representative democracies we see all over the world today.

The term “social contract” comes from the title of Rousseau’s work, and has become the expression for the concept. Associating it with a literal business contract is silly and is no more than an attempt to dismiss something without having to actually dismantle it. Think of it more as a principal of how government should operate, or in our case, how government does operate (for the most part). The closest we have to a written document is the Bill of Rights.

Laws relating to anything outside of the Bill of Rights are given to the jurisdiction of the states. I agree that the War on Drugs shouldn’t exist, it is a clear example of federal overreach initiated mostly for the purpose of attacking political dissidents, and has a history of class and racial bias. Along with creating bloated federal law enforcement bureaucracies such as the; DEA, ATF, ICE, along with numerous others.

Seems that your objection has less to do with social contract theory and more to do with our social contract being overstepped and disregarded by federal administrations.

 

because that would be stupid. I have proven your position has no basis in reality.

and you of course know all of that is entirely false.

 

I think that when discussing the "social contract" and mentioning Locke and Rousseau while omitting Hobbes, Proudhon and Mills is a travesty. Too often I find this as a tactic used by those wishing to impose the "social contract" on those who oppose it.

 

We are not a representative democracy, nor a monarchy, we are a republic. There is no social contract in America, if there were it would be written down and someone would be able to verbalize it. Instead it is a concept invented by liberals to attempt to lend legitimacy to the practice of illegally and immorally confiscating the property of some, and redistributing it to others. Our government has been usurped by banking interests and corporations who have instilled a system which is much closer to the feudal system we fought to escape, than the republic that was established to replace it.

 

There is no clearer example of representative democracy than the House of Representatives. But arguing semantics is a boring, tiresome game.

The country is not responsive in responding to the will of the public, these labels of democracy and a republic are a mirage to what is effectively an oligarchy. This has become an amalgamation of totalitarianism by pseudo-opposition.

Special interests have garnered too much power and the balance must be restored. This begins with small-d democracy, not wishing the best out of executive federalism.

 

The elemination of oligarchy begins with the citizens understanding their natural rights and their place within the republic. Socialism is the weapon by which the oligarchs use government to exploit the people.

 

There is some big flaws in your post - starting with your understanding of the "Social Contract. The Enlightenment thinkers were trying to come up with a justification for authority that was "NOT" divine right - you seem to think the reverse is true. This is written into the Declaration of Independence "Consent of the Governed".

Previous to this the authority of Gov't came from "divine right"/God. The objective of the enlightenment thinkers and founders was to usurp and replace this justification for authority.

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88 ) , from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?-- John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816

When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it.-- John Adams, from Rufus K Noyes, Views of Religion, quoted from from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief

The social contract is merely a construct by which "we the people" grant limited authority to Gov't. The question is then what the limits to this authority are. According to the DOI - essential liberty is "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781

In a nutshell - rights (essential liberty) ends where the nose of another begins. This is also where Authority of Gov't is supposed to begin and end. The legitimate authority of Gov't - with respect to essential liberty - is for protection of harm .. direct harm - one person on another - murder, rape, theft and so on. Gov't is to have no legitimate authority to make any law outside this legitimate purview. This is what the social contract is about.

Last - Liberals do not use this argument. The favorite tactic of Liberals is to use "Utilitarianism" as justification for law. This justification looks only at "what will increase happiness for the collective".

This justification does not even consider the rights of the individual. It does not consider the "will of the people". The problem with this justification (aside from not considering individual liberty which should be enough for anyone to throw this justification into the trash bin) is "who gets to decide" ? One man's poison is another mans pleasure.

This justification then allows for an end run around the principles on which this nation was founded .. and around the safeguards put in place to prevent totalitarianism. Under this justification for law - individual liberty is no longer "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't.

It is then usurping the social contract - not abiding by it.

 

I must disagree. I have had literally hundreds of debates on this forum with liberals arguing that a "social contract" exists, and that it justifies taxation by force along with justification for prosecution of victimless crimes.

 

And every time you've made the argument, it's been refuted. We know the social contract exists. And so do you, which is why you pay your taxes.

 

I did not claim that there were not dumb liberals out there that do not understand the social contract - so I do not know what you are disagreeing with ?

The main justification - regardless of the debates you allude to - is "Utilitarianism". You seem to think that only Liberals are guilty of the above. Red establishment are just as guilty of the above evils you describe.

One could make a Social contract argument for taxation and prosecution of victimless crimes - I have never had any liberal make this argument however - nor anyone on the right either. I am the only one I have heard making this argument.

As per my previous post - Gov't has no legitimate authority "of its own volition" to make any law - never mind one that messes with individual liberty.

The Gov't can however appeal to "we the people" for a change to the social contract - construct by which we the people give Gov't authority.

The mistake most make is thinking that this is some 50+1 vote or Simple Majority Mandate ( where some politician claims a mandate on the basis of being elected).

This is not the "social contract". The above is referred to in both Republicanism and Classical Liberalism as "Tyranny of the Majority".

By definition of our system "Republic/Constitutional Republic" we are not supposed to be living in this kind of Tyranny.

12 years of school and we manage not to teach the basic principles on which this nation was founded. This is a big part of the problem.

The bar is not 50+1. The bar is "overwhelming majority" - at least 2/3rs if not 75%. There would be no point in putting essential liberty "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't is Simple majority mandate was enough.

Take Pot vs Meth for example. Obviously there is more than 33% who think pot should not be illegal. In fact the reverse is true .. over 60% think Pot should be legal. The law is then completely illegitimate. Not only is it tyranny of the majority - it is tyranny of the "minority".

Meth on the other hand is a different story. An overwhelming majority think that this drug is so dangerous that Gov't should be given the power to punish.