The so-called "Social Contract"

[The Question]

There it is in a nutshell. Adherents to the lie of the so-called "social contract" believe it works in only one direction -- what the individual "owes" the State. The State, however -- according to them -- owes the individual nothing. Well, that's not a contract. That's extortion.

 

[Donovan]

It's also not remotely accurate. The social contract is the very framework of what makes a society a society. The idea that multiple individuals gather together and set aside a certain part of individual gain for the greater good of the group is not only fundamentally sound, it's the ONLY reason a relatively weak species such as humankind was able to thrive and survive. Social contract goes back to the first set of cavemen who ever had the idea that tracking prey in larger groups led to larger kills and therefore more meat for everyone.

We as a society haven't evolved past the need for a social contract: we've corrupted and destroyed it. Our own greed will be our downfall, just as greed has destroyed a great many empires before ours.

The irony in all this is that the social contract applies in direct correlation to a person's stature within the community, so that the richest and most influential of us is called upon to provide the largest share. Yet somehow our own rich and powerful have convinced our poorest--those who would most benefit from the social contract--that such a mutual societal structure is a horrible thing.

AS IF any of the elites would have the likes of you anywhere near their inner circles. Unless you were pushing a broom.

Without a social contract, an agreement of mutual peace and cooperation and contribution, there is no society. Period.

 

[eloisel]

I agree with Donovan on this subject.

 

[The Question]

Shifting meaning -- from "monopoly on legalized extortion" to "mutually beneficial cooperation". Nice. Not a unique approach, by any means, but you played it with subtlety. Problem is, the latter concept doesn't require the former; therefore, it doesn't justify the former.

 

[eloisel]

Saint, this is a bad subject for you to argue.
Social services are a benefit of the social contract, as are the numerous public facilities funded, built, and maintained by entities created to perform services related to the social contract.

What is your gripe, specifically?

 

[The Question]

What is your gripe, specifically?

That it's involuntary and that its extortive nature is defended with deception. A good starting point would be, "Okay, yes, it's extortion -- here's why that's justifiable..." But the flat refusal to acknowledge its genuine nature is annoying. Start with acknowledging that it's legalized theft, which it clearly is, then tell me why that's acceptable.

 

[jack]

First you'd have to acknowledge and agree that it's legalized theft (or extortion), which it isn't and most of us in the system don't view it that way either.

 

[eloisel]

If you weren't forced to pay into Social Security or to pay taxes, even though you agreed what the money would be used for was of great benefit to you and others, would you voluntarily pay into Social Security or taxes of any kind? If you say yes, I will call bullshit.

 

[The Question]

If you weren't forced to pay into Social Security or to pay taxes, even though you agreed what the money would be used for was of great benefit to you and others, would you voluntarily pay into Social Security or taxes of any kind? If you say yes, I will call bullshit.

So you'll only accept the answer to that question that fits your narrative?

 

[jack]

It doesn't fit into her narrative. The person paying the wages that you are earning pays the same taxes plus the wages.

Never mind you know you're wrong, you just need to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

[eloisel]

So you'll only accept the answer to that question that fits your narrative?

Answer the question honestly. Then, if you say you would voluntarily contribute to the betterment of society through contribution of your hard earned money, explain to who, when, how, and how much you donated voluntarily.

 

[The Question]

I would have contributed to a retirement- or disability-focused savings account voluntarily. But no more, from you, posing questions to which you won't accept answers that don't fit your extortion-excusing narrative. Got that?

There's a HUGE difference between people supporting their own retirement/disability needs, and supporting their communities -- VOLUNTARILY -- and those same people being extorted by force. It's time for you to grow up, mature, and realize that.

Extortion is a CRIME. Extortion is ALWAYS a crime. EVERY TIME. Face it. Force is ALWAYS wrong.

 

[eloisel]

Think what you want. Complain all you want. Quit receiving any benefit from the concept and the programs created because of the concept.
No more welfare or government funded social services of any kind for you, stay off the streets, don't use the water facilities and toilets in your house, don't go to the library, and don't accept any help from anyone.

While you may have paid something into the system that makes you feel entitled to receive anything in return, it has been awhile since you contributed and you've probably already received more than you contributed. You're on your own. Happy?

 

[jack]

It's very sad that he's just completely full of it in any real discussion. Just a lot of gum flapping and chaotic rhetoric that doesn't apply to any given discussion at hand.

Moving along now. Point well made E.

 

[The Question]

And then there's Jack. I haven't looked at his derp yet, but I know it's derp. I know, before I even look, that he's contributed exactly nothing substantive to this discussion.

 

[The Question]

Think what you want. Complain all you want. Quit receiving any benefit from the concept and the programs created because of the concept.

So that's your answer? Either it's supplied by government by virtue of forcible extortion, or nobody has any support mechanism? Government monopoly or nothing? Seriously?

 

[The Question]

And yet you still can't or won't admit that the system is extortive. Called that.

 

[The Question]

And seriously, what is this shit? "Oh, you're on Social Security Disability, so you can't know how evil that is and you can't feel regret over it"? The fuck outta here with that shit. I know what it is. I may have no choice, at the moment, but to depend on it, but that doesn't mean I don't understand what it is or feel bad about it. I know what it is. I know it's based on extortion.

If I understand it and acknowledge what it is, you sure as hell can, too.

 

[eloisel]

I think you want to argue because you have nothing better to do, you want to whine that you aren't receiving a big enough chunk of society's largess, you want to feel sorry for yourself because you have a physical ailment, and you want to use your physical ailment as an excuse for anything and everything in which you consider yourself a failure. Go ahead.

This really isn't the best argument for you to claim standing. If not for the societal contract you rail against, you're corpse would be decomposing in a ditch with no one to mourn you.

Donovan stated it clear enough. It is in the interest of human survival and evolution for us to work together. It is better for the many to lift up the few than the few to hold up the many. The evil, the lazy, and the greedy lessen the good achievements of the concept but the concept still works.

Wouldn't you love to live in a world where we take care of one another and lift each other up? There will always be people and things you don't like or agree with but you can learn to put those feelings aside to achieve a good outcome from which you also benefit.

 

[The Question]

you want to whine that you aren't receiving a big enough chunk of society's largess, you want to feel sorry for yourself because you have a physical ailment, and you want to use your physical ailment as an excuse for anything and everything in which you consider yourself a failure.

Now where have I done any of that?

Seriously, stop ignoring what the so-called "social contract" is, admit what it is, and defend it. But bare minimum, refrain from just making shit up in order to manufacture red herrings.

Fuck's sake, how much more pathetically inept at argumentation can you possibly get? Stick to the topic and quit inventing shit.