The so-called "Social Contract"
- Thread starter The Question
- Start date
The Question
Eternal
How should I know when it's your birthday?
Donovan
beer, I want beer
I have no interest in trying to hash out whether Saint is an irascible welfare neocon retard or Jack is a liberal drooling feeb; neither of these things has any bearing on the OP. Saint's argument that the social contract is legalized extortion is flawed in that it presumes people would give voluntarily if they were not required by law. That is false.
I speak strictly from a historical perspective and have already spelled out exactly why the Social Contract i.e." those who have more, give more and each gives some" is a necessary fact of civilization going alllllll the way back to our caveman days.
But more recently, our own founding fathers recognized the need for social contract in many of their letters and speeches, often going on at length how the richer members of the confederation of states should and would be responsible for funding first the war effort, then the continued existence of the newly created United States of America. There are numerous examples, too many to mention individually, but the basic premise was that the founding fathers recognized A) some states and persons were richer than others, and B) SOMEbody was gonna have to pay for shit.
This leads us to the glaring flaw in Saint's premise: The articles of confederation, our first constitution, provided NO formal system for levying taxes, paying the debts of the country, funding a standing army, or any of the basic needs of the new nation. It was instead stated explicitly and implicitly that should the nation need to pay for something, money would be solicited from individual states ON A STRICTLY VOLUNTARY BASIS with richer states giving a larger share.
Care to guess how well that went?
Solicitations went unanswered. States rarely gave enough, or any, money to the central government. In fact, so little money was provided for the running of the country that the entire Articles of confederation had to be scrapped and a new document drafted that allowed for the mandatory levying of taxes in order to pay the country's current and future debts, and centralized the power of the government in order to make it a union instead of a bunch of selfish states with widely divergent interests and attitudes. We called it the Constitution and it basically saved us from bankruptcy as a country.
Therein lies the fatal flaw in Saint's theory that the social contract is extortion and unnecessary. Humans asked to give voluntarily simply don't. So in order to survive long enough for Jack and Saint to call each other dicks on the internet, our country forged a way to require everyone to give a little and some to give more. The REAL problem is not the social contract; it's the greedy fuckers who have managed to flip it on its head so that the lion's share of giving comes from those who can least afford it, while those who have the most get to keep nearly all.
I speak strictly from a historical perspective and have already spelled out exactly why the Social Contract i.e." those who have more, give more and each gives some" is a necessary fact of civilization going alllllll the way back to our caveman days.
But more recently, our own founding fathers recognized the need for social contract in many of their letters and speeches, often going on at length how the richer members of the confederation of states should and would be responsible for funding first the war effort, then the continued existence of the newly created United States of America. There are numerous examples, too many to mention individually, but the basic premise was that the founding fathers recognized A) some states and persons were richer than others, and B) SOMEbody was gonna have to pay for shit.
This leads us to the glaring flaw in Saint's premise: The articles of confederation, our first constitution, provided NO formal system for levying taxes, paying the debts of the country, funding a standing army, or any of the basic needs of the new nation. It was instead stated explicitly and implicitly that should the nation need to pay for something, money would be solicited from individual states ON A STRICTLY VOLUNTARY BASIS with richer states giving a larger share.
Care to guess how well that went?
Solicitations went unanswered. States rarely gave enough, or any, money to the central government. In fact, so little money was provided for the running of the country that the entire Articles of confederation had to be scrapped and a new document drafted that allowed for the mandatory levying of taxes in order to pay the country's current and future debts, and centralized the power of the government in order to make it a union instead of a bunch of selfish states with widely divergent interests and attitudes. We called it the Constitution and it basically saved us from bankruptcy as a country.
Therein lies the fatal flaw in Saint's theory that the social contract is extortion and unnecessary. Humans asked to give voluntarily simply don't. So in order to survive long enough for Jack and Saint to call each other dicks on the internet, our country forged a way to require everyone to give a little and some to give more. The REAL problem is not the social contract; it's the greedy fuckers who have managed to flip it on its head so that the lion's share of giving comes from those who can least afford it, while those who have the most get to keep nearly all.
The Question
Eternal
It's not even one iota misapplied. What happens if you don't pay? They kidnap you. What happens if you try to resist them kidnapping you? They shoot you. It's extortion.
The Question
Eternal
And that's where you fail. Requiring people to give up the fruit of what they have worked for is extortion. The fact that a government has written laws to justify it succeeds only in making it legalized extortion. Now stop dismissing that and start defending it. You're not going to win this argument when your starting position is to ignore the truth. Start defending it.
jack
The Legendary Troll Kingdom
You conveniently forget of course that it's the system that lets you earn the fruit of what you work for, and without that social contract you'd be reduced to simple barter for your skill. Good luck taking care of all your needs with that skill, as opposed to being allowed to enjoy everything you need as it flows into one accepted currency.
eloisel
Forever Empress E
Define what you mean by the term social contract.
If you mean that the collective we call the government which collects funds to purchase goods, resources, and services to provide and maintain public roads, libraries, parks, police, military, water towers, water treatment plants, water delivery systems, sewer systems, ... the list is huge ... for which citizens and people who buy things in this country pay taxes - sales, property, income, social security, medicare, gas, liquor ... the list is long ... then, whatever your complaint about having to pay such taxes for such services is not extortion. The government is an entity designed by a collective, voted for and put into place by a collective, maintained by a collective, operated by a collective at the will of a collective. If you can point to a government official or employee who is forcing you to give them something at the threat of illegal activity the purpose of which is to harm you, then that is extortion and a crime. You have recourse. If a private individual or individuals are forcing you to do something you do not want to do by threat of exposure of your secrets, then that is blackmail. Again, that is a crime and you have recourse. If you think you feel one or all of the taxes funding the government are unjust, then you are talking about unfair or illegal taxation.
Or, are you talking about the social contract where we all agree to comport ourselves in a certain manner in public so that we can all get along? Don't brush your hair or put on makeup at the dinner table, keep to the right, guys open the doors for gals, don't ask people directly their age, weight, income, religion, or politics, don't take candy from babies, etc.
eloisel
Forever Empress E
By the way, I don't see the guys opening the doors for the gals as sexist but practical.
You have two people come to a closed door at the same time. It is awkward if they both try to open it at the same time or stand around waiting for the other one to open it. If the two people in question are male and female, then the male opens the door. If the couple in question are two women, the younger able bodied woman opens the door for the older. Example - mother and daughter where daughter is older than 16, the daughter opens the door. Don't know how men make that decision - duke it out or flip a coin or something.
You have two people come to a closed door at the same time. It is awkward if they both try to open it at the same time or stand around waiting for the other one to open it. If the two people in question are male and female, then the male opens the door. If the couple in question are two women, the younger able bodied woman opens the door for the older. Example - mother and daughter where daughter is older than 16, the daughter opens the door. Don't know how men make that decision - duke it out or flip a coin or something.
'Gear
RIP 1970~2018
Guys open doors for women so if there's some impending doom waiting inside/outside we'll have a chance to get away while she's being killed, burnt, eaten or what have you.
We manipulated women into thinking it's a romantic, gentlemanly gesture so they'll demand to be catered to and pissed if it doesn't happen.
That's how it started anyway.
LOL, stupid women.
We manipulated women into thinking it's a romantic, gentlemanly gesture so they'll demand to be catered to and pissed if it doesn't happen.
That's how it started anyway.
LOL, stupid women.
eloisel
Forever Empress E
Dear, shut up and go build me a deck.
The Question
Eternal
Boring.
A Poem For Enlightenment Of The Soul; Or, Exotic Dancers
I know that you've seen 'em, I know that you know 'em
Cheap "inspiration" that's dressed up in a poem
Some doofs post that saccharin shit like it's wisdom
And we groan 'cause sincerity flew by and missed 'em
They're always predictable, always annoying
They're empty and patently fake and just cloying
The irritation bubbles up into wrath
Growing stronger with each of these turds in your path
With a picture of blossoming weeds and a teacup
I know I can't stand it, so I had to speak up
I'm not offering wisdom, ain't got any answers
So if you seek nirvana, fuck it:
Eat some bacon, drink some whiskey... and get lap dances from
Exotic dancers.
A Poem For Enlightenment Of The Soul; Or, Exotic Dancers
I know that you've seen 'em, I know that you know 'em
Cheap "inspiration" that's dressed up in a poem
Some doofs post that saccharin shit like it's wisdom
And we groan 'cause sincerity flew by and missed 'em
They're always predictable, always annoying
They're empty and patently fake and just cloying
The irritation bubbles up into wrath
Growing stronger with each of these turds in your path
With a picture of blossoming weeds and a teacup
I know I can't stand it, so I had to speak up
I'm not offering wisdom, ain't got any answers
So if you seek nirvana, fuck it:
Eat some bacon, drink some whiskey... and get lap dances from
Exotic dancers.
'Gear
RIP 1970~2018
The last stripper I got a lap dance from was not what I would call exotic.
She did offer to blow my brother. I believe her exact words were - I'd suck your dick, honey.
Which I'm sure is considered neighborly where she came from.
Talk about your social contract in a nutshell.
He declined.
Bacon is good though.
She did offer to blow my brother. I believe her exact words were - I'd suck your dick, honey.
Which I'm sure is considered neighborly where she came from.
Talk about your social contract in a nutshell.
He declined.
Bacon is good though.
The Question
Eternal
Y'know, as much as Libertarians get a reputation for lack of altruism, it strikes me as odd that you're asking me to pretend not to be altruistic on this. I don't want anybody subjected to confiscation via coercion.
eloisel
Forever Empress E
I don't want to be subjected to confiscation by coercion either. That is one thing I completely understand. Paid into social security for 27 years. Then, went to work at a government job from which I will receive a pension when I retire after working that job for nearly 20 years. Because I did not work in the private sector for 30 years and I will get a pension from the local government retirement plan I've paid into when I retire, my social security benefits will be reduced. It is considered a windfall. I didn't work the public and private sector jobs at the same time. So, I fully understand about my hard earned money being taken whether I agreed or not. It further chaps my hide when idiots refer to social security as an entitlement. Damn skippy I'm entitled to that money. I paid into it for 27 years. That system has had my money this whole time and done with it what they will. It is due me, with interest and fees.
Do I want Social Security to go away? No. And no. I would like to think that I would have saved the money taken from me for Social Security, invested it wisely, and would have a pot of money to fund my retirement years about now. More than likely not. Most of us live paycheck to paycheck. Most of us are but one or two paychecks from being out on the street. We are also a nation of big talk about helping people out as long as the money to do that doesn't come out of our pockets and we don't actually have to touch the poor.
The wealthy are the ones who fork over the biggest charitable donations. When my daughter had pancreatic cancer her medical care drained me financially, then her husband as well. She had lost her health insurance because she was fired from her job for missing too much work. Wealthy people donated money to the hospitals and doctors for her continued medical care. She'd be dead now otherwise. She is one of the few survivors of pancreatic cancer. Didn't come without a price - she's had serious health problems but she's been cancer free for about 4 years now. I thank Obama and the wealthy charitable donors.
Yes, some of the money that I have to pay in taxes is spent on things I don't approve - like wars. However, I do agree that we, as a society and as individuals, are better off pooling resources in order to achieve bigger things than we can as individuals. While we might want to think of ourselves as generous, as the type that will prepare for their retirement, that will help others in their time of need, truth is we probably won't. We'll always put off until tomorrow, be too busy, not have enough to share, won't want to help someone because we disapprove of them. Some wealthy people will, but those people can only give so much too.
So far as you, Saint, being Libertarian or altruistic, I don't know about that. You can profess those things but what makes you so? Actions speak louder than words.
Do I want Social Security to go away? No. And no. I would like to think that I would have saved the money taken from me for Social Security, invested it wisely, and would have a pot of money to fund my retirement years about now. More than likely not. Most of us live paycheck to paycheck. Most of us are but one or two paychecks from being out on the street. We are also a nation of big talk about helping people out as long as the money to do that doesn't come out of our pockets and we don't actually have to touch the poor.
The wealthy are the ones who fork over the biggest charitable donations. When my daughter had pancreatic cancer her medical care drained me financially, then her husband as well. She had lost her health insurance because she was fired from her job for missing too much work. Wealthy people donated money to the hospitals and doctors for her continued medical care. She'd be dead now otherwise. She is one of the few survivors of pancreatic cancer. Didn't come without a price - she's had serious health problems but she's been cancer free for about 4 years now. I thank Obama and the wealthy charitable donors.
Yes, some of the money that I have to pay in taxes is spent on things I don't approve - like wars. However, I do agree that we, as a society and as individuals, are better off pooling resources in order to achieve bigger things than we can as individuals. While we might want to think of ourselves as generous, as the type that will prepare for their retirement, that will help others in their time of need, truth is we probably won't. We'll always put off until tomorrow, be too busy, not have enough to share, won't want to help someone because we disapprove of them. Some wealthy people will, but those people can only give so much too.
So far as you, Saint, being Libertarian or altruistic, I don't know about that. You can profess those things but what makes you so? Actions speak louder than words.
The Question
Eternal
Then there's no argument. The so-called "Social contract" is confiscation by coercion. That's what it exists to justify. It does nothing else. The "Social contract" exists for no purpose but to justify legalized theft. And enough with the ad hominem shit -- "Oh, you're on Social Security Disability!" Tough shit. That doesn't mean I have to like it, and it sure as shit doesn't mean I have to defend it as justifiable. It isn't. Why do you think I'm trying to find a way up and off it with writing novels? It's not only morally unjustifiable, it's no way to live. $844 a month won't get a man by indefinitely, and with this administration putting a freeze on COLA for Social Security recipients while it gives that money away to import tens of thousands of Islamist extremists, that's more true now than ever.
So yes, I may be stuck on SSDI right now, but I have no intention of staying stuck on it and I have no obligation to defend the "social contract" from legitimate criticism, much less defend it from being described truthfully as what it is -- government-backed theft.
But when you do defend it, you're not just defending theft -- you're defending the notion that some percentage of your labor belongs to the government. Do you know what that means? Have you really given it some thought? You're defending the idea that some percentage of the time, slavery is good.
You're defending slavery. Do you understand that? I know you won't agree. I'm not asking whether or not you agree. There's nothing for you to agree or disagree with, because it's a fact. If the government owns any percentage of your earnings, the government owns a percentage of you. Some percentage of you -- if you agree with the "social contract" that you think obligates part of your earnings to a third party who had no part in earning them itself -- belongs to that third party. Meaning your activity belongs to that third party. Meaning you belong to that third party.
I don't believe in any justification for slavery. It's wrong. And because I believe it's wrong, I believe it will always be wrong, whether the slave owner is a private individual or a public (government) entity. Slavery is always wrong.
That's why there is no "social contract." Because, in the first place, it isn't a contract. You never agree to it, you can't opt out of it, and the other party to it (the government) can't be held in breach of it when they fail -- as they chronically and persistently fail -- to uphold their supposed end of it. It's not a contract. It's usury. It's extortion. And that's fucking all it is.
If it's a "contract", we are all getting fucking ripped off, and what's worse, we can't opt out. It's not a contract.
eloisel
Forever Empress E
So, the "social contract" of which you are complaining is the government taking of funds from your paycheck to fund social programs.
A. You don't have a paycheck.
B. You are reaping the benefit of such programs.
You would probably feel differently about the social contract if you were getting more than an $844 monthly award and were guaranteed the sum for the rest of your life with costs of living raises.
You can opt out of the program. You can quit taking the award. You can stay off the streets and sidewalks. You can not use the water, sewer, or sanitation systems. You can work only for people who will pay you off the books. You can throw away your driver's license and any other state/county identification. You can also move to a country that does not provide in any way, shape, or form for its citizens.
When you use public funded facilities and programs you are agreeing to and benefitting from the social contract.
A. You don't have a paycheck.
B. You are reaping the benefit of such programs.
You would probably feel differently about the social contract if you were getting more than an $844 monthly award and were guaranteed the sum for the rest of your life with costs of living raises.
You can opt out of the program. You can quit taking the award. You can stay off the streets and sidewalks. You can not use the water, sewer, or sanitation systems. You can work only for people who will pay you off the books. You can throw away your driver's license and any other state/county identification. You can also move to a country that does not provide in any way, shape, or form for its citizens.
When you use public funded facilities and programs you are agreeing to and benefitting from the social contract.
'Gear
RIP 1970~2018
I think you guys are over thinking this whole social contract thing -
One time I was sitting in my car eating a burrito and I saw a woman shit herself in the parking lot trying to make it to the toilet in the Taco bell. I actually saw the turds hit pavement as they fell out of her skirt.
Another time I saw a woman shouting at her daughter of maybe eight or nine yrs old in a grocery store. As the child sprawled spread-eagle on the floor, refusing to cooperate with her screaming, raging mother, I noticed she had her shoes on the wrong feet.
Both of these things actually happened.
I killed neither woman.
*BOOM*
Social contract.
One time I was sitting in my car eating a burrito and I saw a woman shit herself in the parking lot trying to make it to the toilet in the Taco bell. I actually saw the turds hit pavement as they fell out of her skirt.
Another time I saw a woman shouting at her daughter of maybe eight or nine yrs old in a grocery store. As the child sprawled spread-eagle on the floor, refusing to cooperate with her screaming, raging mother, I noticed she had her shoes on the wrong feet.
Both of these things actually happened.
I killed neither woman.
*BOOM*
Social contract.