Busting the myth of a "social contract"

And what kind of government did Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau live under? Oh yes it was a Monarchy (King)

 

So you are not one of "We the People of the United States of America"?

Because that is the party named by the Constitution.

 

A legal contract cannot be entered into under coersion. The threat of force is coersion. Therefore no contract exists.

 

You do realize you are quoting the preamble and not the Constitution... Right?

 

Is the preamble not part of the Constitution?

 

Right wingers don't want to be the boss of you. They just don't want to be harassed by an overbearing and omnipotent nanny state.

They want to be left alone. Freedom, man.

 

No, it is the preamble to the Constitution. It explains the reason for the Constitution

 

...So is the problem you don't know what a preamble is?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/preamble

Britannica (the source you used before) doesn't have an article specifically on preambles, but it notes in its article on treaties that preambles define the parties involved in a contract.

So the preamble of the Constitution clearly states that the party involved is "the People of the United States".

Are you one of the people of the United States?

 

doubt all you want. The (unprogrammed) Quakers were one of the first groups to openly accept homosexuality in the US, and while I can't find any indication one way or the other regarding Benjamin Lay, I'd wager his liberal mindset toward slavery combined with his dwarfism equated to an acceptance of many unconventional viewpoints and lifestyles. Feel free to prove me wrong, if you can.

You'll be hard pressed to find anyone from any group vocally active in support of homosexual rights before about a hundred years ago. This goes for classical liberals, authoritarians, revolutionaries and all other groups. It simply wasn't a popular issue.

What I can find is that Quakerism and Classical Liberalism were very much in line with eachother in the 1700-1800s. Qakerism largely developed out of mercantilism, and the laissez-faire market of the late/post colonial Americas attracted many of them.
https://acton.org/pub/religion-liberty/volume-13-number-1/political-ideology-unprogrammed-quakers

 

You haven't proved yourself right. You made an unevidenced assumption.

 

Once again if you do not return to the topic of this thread I will report you for deliberately attempting to derail it. Last warning

 

I would love to see that stick. We have repeatedly argued that the Constitution IS the social contract of the United States and your (bullshit) defense was that social contracts only apply to kings and their subject WHICH EVEN YOUR OWN SOURCE PROVES YOU WRONG.

 

No, "social contract" is the ficticious entity that liberals use to justify taking property from others by force and using it for purposes that at least a minority of the population disagree with.

 

One that you havn't disproved.

 

The Constitution is a contract between the people of the United States which includes allowing the conglomeration of those citizens formed by the contract (the government) to take property from others by force (taxes, eminent domain) and using it for purposes that at least a minority of the population disagree with.

It is exactly the Social Contract of the United States.

 

That's not how proof works.

 

Are you asserting that your unproven claim has more validity than mine? I've at least proffered a reasoning to my claim... you have offered nothing but a lack of proof to the contrary.

...some things are simply not provable. my inability to build a time machine to go back and record that which was not recorded does not make you automatically right.

 

How is my claim unproven? Society was socially conservative even if they were economically or politically liberal until the 20th century.

 

The "social contract" of today is a way to justify the concept that if you have more than I do- I'm entitled to part of what you have..... and of course the others concept-
Since, I'm here, somebody owes me.

Just a few days ago, there was a report of a man suing his parents for a large sum of money- to compensate for the offense was giving birth to him without his permission...
A born socialist.

 

Hypothetically, I could through my hat in da' ring in NY's 14th District (AOC's); under my own 'whimsically acquired tenets' - A morally concocted / arbitrary 'social contract' & win... I hale from the Middle East; 'twould be interesting if the perceptions of the 14ths' constituency on MOI - a "Progressive cookie cutter" candidate - might win out over AOC's... (Too bad I have a track record grounded in the rudiments of Constitutional originalism)... lol.

 

Your claim: "the "You are not the boss of me" folks have traditionally had no problem being the boss of other people if those people had a different skin color, different gender, different sexual orientation, etc." was, according to you, based on the notion that "That tiny minority controlled the government and its laws." You have yet to provide the line of reasoning that led you to conclude that the oppression by the ruling class is representative of The People as a whole, and/or how the "You are not the boss of me" folks were responsible for that oppression. Additionally, I think the onus of proof is upon you to provide evidence that the "You are not the boss of me" folks still have "no problem being the boss of other people if those people had a different skin color, different gender, different sexual orientation, etc" unless, of course, you aren't suggesting that the "You are not the boss of me" folks have carried on those supposed 'traditions' to modern day.

 

I haven't once made that claim.

 

No, you havn't. However, if your intent was not to insinuate that the "You are not the boss of me" folks are still holding on to their supposed 'tradition' of oppressing minorities, what is your purpose in addressing it in the context of the OP?

 

The preamble of the Constitution clearly spells out the involved parties: "the People of the United States".

It then puts forth the conditions of the contract, including allowing the contractually created body (the government) to take property from others by force (taxes, eminent domain) and then using that property for purposes that at least a minority of the population disagree with.

 

I'm countering the idea that at the time of the foundation of the United States that the founders were somehow libertarian. They weren't. They had no problem using government to squash the rights of people that weren't part of their oligarchic in-group (white male landowners).