PDA

View Full Version : "Social" Contract???




Truth Warrior
06-10-2008, 04:12 AM
( We've all heard of the "Social Contract" -- the unwritten agreement between individuals and "society" (i.e. the government.) Rarely do people actually try to write down the exact terms of this social contract. Below is the contract between the individual and the state as it currently exists in the United States. Would you sign this contract? Is this the sort of society envisioned by this country's founders? If you find this contract too restrictive, you may be interested in learning more about the Libertarian Party. )



SOCIAL CONTRACT


between an individual and the United States Government


WHEREAS I wish to reside on the North American continent, and

WHEREAS the United States Government controls the area of the continent on which I wish to reside, and

WHEREAS tacit or implied contracts are vague and therefore unenforceable,

I agree to the following terms:

SECTION 1: I will surrender a percentage of my property to the Government. The actual percentage will be determined by the Government and will be subject to change at any time. The amount to be surrendered may be based on my income, the value of my property, the value of my purchases, or any other criteria the Government chooses. To aid the Government in determining the percentage, I will apply for a Government identification number that I will use in all my major financial transactions.

SECTION 2: Should the Government demand it, I will surrender my liberty for a period of time determined by the government and typically no shorter than two years. During that time, I will serve the Government in any way it chooses, including military service in which I may be called upon to sacrifice my life.

SECTION 3: I will limit my behavior as demanded by the government. I will consume only those drugs permitted by the Government. I will limit my sexual activities to those permitted by the Government. I will forsake religious beliefs that conflict with the Government's determination of propriety. More limits may be imposed at any time.

SECTION 4: In consideration for the above, the Government will permit me to find employment, subject to limits that will be determined by the Government. These limits may restrict my choice of career or the wages I may accept.

SECTION 5: The Government will permit me to reside in the area of North America which it controls. Also, the Government will permit me to speak freely, subject to limits determined by the Government's Congress and Supreme Court.

SECTION 6: The Government will attempt to protect my life and my claim to the property it has allowed me to keep. I agree not to hold the Government liable if it fails to protect me or my property.

SECTION 7: The Government will offer various services to me. The nature and extent of these services will be determined by the Government and are subject to change at any time.

SECTION 8: The Government will determine whether I may vote for certain Government officials. The influence of my vote will vary inversely with the number of voters, and I understand that it typically will be minuscule. I agree not to hold any elected Government officials liable for acting against my best interests or for breaking promises, even if those promises motivated me to vote for them.

SECTION 9: I agree that the Government may hold me fully liable if I fail to abide by the above terms. In that event, the Government may confiscate any property that I have not previously surrendered to it, and may imprison me for a period of time to be determined by the Government. I also agree that the Government may alter the terms of this contract at any time without my permission.


-------------------------------------------------
signature / date


Copyright 1989 by Robert E. Alexander.
May be distributed freely.

http://www.worldtrans.org/sov/soccont.html

Kludge
06-10-2008, 10:40 AM
No ;)

electronicmaji
06-10-2008, 01:58 PM
Maybe if it had some guarantees on social services and freedoms....but this is a hyperbole

Truth Warrior
06-10-2008, 02:07 PM
Maybe if it had some guarantees on social services and freedoms....but this is a hyperbole
Do you mean like the Constitution has? :rolleyes:

AutoDas
06-10-2008, 02:10 PM
How do anarchists envision a society when they don't believe in the social contract? I think social contracts are a myth, they are not even contracts.

Truth Warrior
06-10-2008, 02:18 PM
How do anarchists envision a society when they don't believe in the social contract? I think social contracts are a myth, they are not even contracts.
It appears that is not what is being taught in US law schools these days. :rolleyes:

An anarchist vision of society: Today minus government.

What almost everyone in the world, experiences almost every day, almost everywhere, almost all of the time. :)

Think about it.

AutoDas
06-10-2008, 02:49 PM
I'm supposed to believe everyone is going to get a long without laws? There are murderers, thieves and socialists and that's why I'm a libertarian.

Danke
06-10-2008, 02:56 PM
I'm supposed to believe everyone is going to get a long without laws? There are murderers, thieves and socialists and that's why I'm a libertarian.

"thieves and socialists"? No need to repeat yourself.

Truth Warrior
06-10-2008, 03:08 PM
I'm supposed to believe everyone is going to get a long without laws? There are murderers, thieves and socialists and that's why I'm a libertarian.Believe whatever you want. I ain't promising you utopia nor nirvana.

BTW, I'm a libertarian too. :D

With laws: There are murderers, thieves and socialists, etc., etc., etc. Many are in and paid for by governments. So what's your point?

Truth Warrior
06-10-2008, 03:29 PM
If man is basically good, he does not need government. If man is basically evil, he dare not have government.

Raditude
06-10-2008, 03:48 PM
I'm an Anarchist.

Anarchism is a form of government, in which without regulation no one infringes on the rights of anyone else. Self Government.

In theory, Anarchy is awesome, but unfortunately true Anarchism is impossible, because people would infringe on other's rights, someone would rise up and try to take power, or there would be no guarantee that we could organize ourselves for a greater cause if there was a need to do so.

As for that contract, hellz no I wouldn't sign that. I will choose free will.

RideTheDirt
06-10-2008, 04:07 PM
I'm an Anarchist.

Anarchism is a form of government, in which without regulation no one infringes on the rights of anyone else. Self Government.

In theory, Anarchy is awesome, but unfortunately true Anarchism is impossible, because people would infringe on other's rights, someone would rise up and try to take power, or there would be no guarantee that we could organize ourselves for a greater cause if there was a need to do so.

As for that contract, hellz no I wouldn't sign that. I will choose free will.
what rights?
self government?
hellz?!
geez you're stupid

(not to mention the fact you believe in something that is impossible, which you stated yourself)

familydog
06-10-2008, 04:24 PM
It is interesting that the link in the original post asked whether or not our founders envisioned a society proposed by this contract. Many of our founders, particularly the men of letters like Thomas Jefferson, were very much inspired by Locke's idea of a social contract. Although this social contractualism is very different than one that would be proposed by Hobbes or Rosseau (much like in the original post), it is nonetheless a contract between the people on their state.

Raditude
06-10-2008, 04:26 PM
what rights?

The right to our own bodies. The right to choose what we do with our bodies.


self government?

Not being told what to do, but doing what you want as not to interfere with the rights of others.


hellz?!

I can talk in the dialect that I so choose, get over it.


geez you're stupid

I'm one who brings ideas to the table. You on the other hand tell people their idea sucks with no factual evidence backing your position, and don't offer any ideas yourself. Who's stupid?


(not to mention the fact you believe in something that is impossible, which you stated yourself)

I'm a dreamer. Was Lennon stupid for writing the song "Imagine?"

Truth Warrior
06-10-2008, 05:11 PM
I'm an Anarchist.

Anarchism is a form of government, in which without regulation no one infringes on the rights of anyone else. Self Government.

In theory, Anarchy is awesome, but unfortunately true Anarchism is impossible, because people would infringe on other's rights, someone would rise up and try to take power, or there would be no guarantee that we could organize ourselves for a greater cause if there was a need to do so.

As for that contract, hellz no I wouldn't sign that. I will choose free will.
The anarchists would just ignore the idiot "ruler"wannabe, or just laugh at him. :D

Voluntary organization often works. Look around!

Truth Warrior
06-10-2008, 05:15 PM
It is interesting that the link in the original post asked whether or not our founders envisioned a society proposed by this contract. Many of our founders, particularly the men of letters like Thomas Jefferson, were very much inspired by Locke's idea of a social contract. Although this social contractualism is very different than one that would be proposed by Hobbes or Rosseau (much like in the original post), it is nonetheless a contract between the people on their state.
The Constitution doesn't even CLAIM to be contract, social or otherwise. It's just a schema for proposed government organization. :p

Raditude
06-10-2008, 05:29 PM
The anarchists would just ignore the idiot "ruler"wannabe, or just laugh at him. :D

In theory they would, but eventually someone would convince others to follow him, and there'd be a problem.


Voluntary organization often works. Look around!

True, but it may not always work when it's needed.

hypnagogue
06-10-2008, 05:29 PM
It this absurd contract supposed to be an argument against the utility of social contracts? Or is it supposed to lampoon the apparent social contract that we Americans find ourselves in?

familydog
06-10-2008, 06:11 PM
The Constitution doesn't even CLAIM to be contract, social or otherwise. It's just a schema for proposed government organization. :p

I was simply making an observation. Many of our founders agreed with the social contract theory in one form or another.

The Constitution is a contract though. Whether is claims to be or not.

Truth Warrior
06-11-2008, 03:27 AM
In theory they would, but eventually someone would convince others to follow him, and there'd be a problem.

Yeah, that whole shepherd / sheeple phenomenon does need some more work. Hey, I know, HUMANITY GROW UP!

True, but it may not always work when it's needed.

Well we know $3 trillion/year here currently, and a 6,000 year world history of "state" SOS abject failure doesn't work.

I think it's worth a try. If it's a FUBAR, then you can bring your beloved government back, only for those that want it, this time please.

ALL of the people get the governments that only MOST of the people deserve.

:D

Truth Warrior
06-11-2008, 03:30 AM
I was simply making an observation. Many of our founders agreed with the social contract theory in one form or another.

The Constitution is a contract though. Whether is claims to be or not.

Hey, you and I have an "implied" contract between us, binding on you, because I read Rousseau. :rolleyes: I'm impatiently waiting for your bank certified payment check, per the contract specifications, BTW.

Perhaps in the Mafia sense of "contract". :D "Do it my way, or sleep wit da fishys."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contract

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/social%20contract

Based on what evidence?

Here's some of mine, that it's not.

NO TREASON.
The Constitution of no Authority
By Lysander Spooner
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no6

Truth Warrior
06-11-2008, 04:07 AM
It this absurd contract supposed to be an argument against the utility of social contracts? Or is it supposed to lampoon the apparent social contract that we Americans find ourselves in?
Your choice! :D

kombayn
06-11-2008, 04:19 AM
It appears that is not what is being taught in US law schools these days. :rolleyes:

An anarchist vision of society: Today minus government.

What almost everyone in the world, experiences almost every day, almost everywhere, almost all of the time. :)

Think about it.

Then who makes the laws and who upholds them? That's what I don't get about Anarchists either.

Truth Warrior
06-11-2008, 04:31 AM
Then who makes the laws and who upholds them? That's what I don't get about Anarchists either.
PEOPLE, just like now! Who else is there?

Are ALL of your human relationships and interactions LAW based?

Here's my suggestion replacement for 99% of the laws. "Do as you please, but harm no other in their person or property."

I'm not authorized to be the spokesman for the anarchists.

Nobody is, that's the whole point.

They'll either sort it out, work it out, among themselves, or they won't.

"Prediction is difficult, especially when it's about the future." -- Yogi Berra

kombayn
06-11-2008, 04:34 AM
^No they're not all law based but what happens when someone abuses the trust of Anarchy through criminal behavior? What's the punishment going to be?

Truth Warrior
06-11-2008, 04:43 AM
^No they're not all law based but what happens when someone abuses the trust of Anarchy through criminal behavior? What's the punishment going to be?
Ask the anarchists, I'm a libertarian.

We have a multi light year trip to go, in the opposite direction before we even start to get to anarchy. Why fret and worry about the last 100 miles now?

The direction that we're going now, is GUARANTEED to not end up any where that we want to be.

kombayn
06-11-2008, 04:55 AM
^Agreed. I'm not trying to look 100 years down the line, I'm just questioning the ideology in general.

Truth Warrior
06-11-2008, 05:05 AM
^Agreed. I'm not trying to look 100 years down the line, I'm just questioning the ideology in general.
Question away! :D

In the meantime, how about YOU getting YOUR government, out of my life, off my back, and out of my pocket? :) I never agreed to nor signed any frickin' "social contract" (so called )? :rolleyes:

Truth Warrior
06-11-2008, 05:21 AM
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/lewrock0305a.gif

Hmmm? Why does Ron Paul strongly ENDORSE this site?

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
06-11-2008, 06:23 AM
Then who makes the laws and who upholds them? That's what I don't get about Anarchists either.

I think what you wind up with is natural law, enforceable by any and all. Many government functions would fall back to families where they once were. I haven't given this a lot of thought, btw.



If man is basically good, he does not need government. If man is basically evil, he dare not have government.

So... this basically evil mankind... who do they get to set up and maintain government? Some more friendly animal?

Truth Warrior
06-11-2008, 06:34 AM
So... this basically evil mankind... who do they get to set up and maintain government? Some more friendly animal?
What government? The same as all of the OTHER "life" species have? :D

We're 99% the same as the chimps DNA wise, correct?

What government do the chimps have? ( Better than ours, BTW. )

Human government is a failed concept, with at least a 6,000 year world human history of often tragic failure.

How many chances to succeed should be given to failed concepts? To me, enough is much more than enough.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-11-2008, 06:40 AM
( We've all heard of the "Social Contract" -- the unwritten agreement between individuals and "society" (i.e. the government.) Rarely do people actually try to write down the exact terms of this social contract. Below is the contract between the individual and the state as it currently exists in the United States. Would you sign this contract? Is this the sort of society envisioned by this country's founders? If you find this contract too restrictive, you may be interested in learning more about the Libertarian Party. )



SOCIAL CONTRACT


between an individual and the United States Government


WHEREAS I wish to reside on the North American continent, and

WHEREAS the United States Government controls the area of the continent on which I wish to reside, and

WHEREAS tacit or implied contracts are vague and therefore unenforceable,

I agree to the following terms:

SECTION 1: I will surrender a percentage of my property to the Government. The actual percentage will be determined by the Government and will be subject to change at any time. The amount to be surrendered may be based on my income, the value of my property, the value of my purchases, or any other criteria the Government chooses. To aid the Government in determining the percentage, I will apply for a Government identification number that I will use in all my major financial transactions.

SECTION 2: Should the Government demand it, I will surrender my liberty for a period of time determined by the government and typically no shorter than two years. During that time, I will serve the Government in any way it chooses, including military service in which I may be called upon to sacrifice my life.

SECTION 3: I will limit my behavior as demanded by the government. I will consume only those drugs permitted by the Government. I will limit my sexual activities to those permitted by the Government. I will forsake religious beliefs that conflict with the Government's determination of propriety. More limits may be imposed at any time.

SECTION 4: In consideration for the above, the Government will permit me to find employment, subject to limits that will be determined by the Government. These limits may restrict my choice of career or the wages I may accept.

SECTION 5: The Government will permit me to reside in the area of North America which it controls. Also, the Government will permit me to speak freely, subject to limits determined by the Government's Congress and Supreme Court.

SECTION 6: The Government will attempt to protect my life and my claim to the property it has allowed me to keep. I agree not to hold the Government liable if it fails to protect me or my property.

SECTION 7: The Government will offer various services to me. The nature and extent of these services will be determined by the Government and are subject to change at any time.

SECTION 8: The Government will determine whether I may vote for certain Government officials. The influence of my vote will vary inversely with the number of voters, and I understand that it typically will be minuscule. I agree not to hold any elected Government officials liable for acting against my best interests or for breaking promises, even if those promises motivated me to vote for them.

SECTION 9: I agree that the Government may hold me fully liable if I fail to abide by the above terms. In that event, the Government may confiscate any property that I have not previously surrendered to it, and may imprison me for a period of time to be determined by the Government. I also agree that the Government may alter the terms of this contract at any time without my permission.


-------------------------------------------------
signature / date


Copyright 1989 by Robert E. Alexander.
May be distributed freely.

http://www.worldtrans.org/sov/soccont.html

F
You totally need to rewrite this. I would recommend not reading any more books for awhile. Try going fishing. Are you a foreign exchance student? If so, perhaps you need to find a real American to discuss things with before you start another thread. I've already mentioned a major problem with your theory of political science. Rather than changing the United States into another China, just move to China. Dress like a peasant. Enjoy yourself.

Truth Warrior
06-11-2008, 06:46 AM
F
You totally need to rewrite this. I would recommend not reading any more books for awhile. Try going fishing. Are you a foreign exchance student? If so, perhaps you need to find a real American to discuss things with before you start another thread. I've already mentioned a major problem with your theory of political science. Rather than changing the United States into another China, just move to China. Dress like a peasant. Enjoy yourself.
Tell the author! :D

Authoritarian collectivist socialism, AKA CCP, is much more up your alley than mine, based on what I've read from and by you. :p

familydog
06-11-2008, 07:12 AM
Hey, you and I have an "implied" contract between us, binding on you, because I read Rousseau. :rolleyes: I'm impatiently waiting for your bank certified payment check, per the contract specifications, BTW.

Perhaps in the Mafia sense of "contract". :D "Do it my way, or sleep wit da fishys."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/contract

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/social%20contract

Based on what evidence?

Here's some of mine, that it's not.

NO TREASON.
The Constitution of no Authority
By Lysander Spooner
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no6

Um. Lysander Spooner will tell you that the Constitution was a contract (a social contract) that was violated during the Civil War. I'm not sure what you are arguing. It may be void now, because it was violated, but that doesn't change anything of what he thought about the Constitution before the Civil War.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-11-2008, 07:22 AM
Tell the author! :D

Authoritarian collectivist socialism, AKA CCP, is much more up your alley than mine, based on what I've read from and by you. :p

Oh. I forgot. You are that person who never types anything for himself.

This Authoritarian collectivist socialism horseshit you speak belongs over in Europe where politics is primitive. We have a very simple system over here in the United States. We just need to go fishing more instead of reading so many books. The Queen of England didn't get where she is today by readig thousands of books. No, she got where she is by being born.

Speaking of the Queen of England, while she was visiting the United States once a poor black woman stepped forward to give her a hug. Well, what wasn't readily apparent to Americans was how horrified the Queen of England was at this display of touching. People just figured that her majesty eats at the same table as the rest of the commoners in England but this is not true, no sir. The Queen of England is not Princess Diana. She has a nature reserve for a front yard after all.

The Queen of England represented something different in the heart of the poor black woman than she does to a British commoner.

I recommend that you move to England so you can sit in a smoked filled room, drink brandy, smoke cigars, talk about your weird political science while praising the Queen mother.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-11-2008, 08:22 AM
Um. Lysander Spooner will tell you that the Constitution was a contract (a social contract) that was violated during the Civil War. I'm not sure what you are arguing. It may be void now, because it was violated, but that doesn't change anything of what he thought about the Constitution before the Civil War.

Let me see if I can give you an example to clarify "Social Contract Theory."
Think of the genre "humor." The genre humor has existed for hundreds of years with authors not knowing exactly the science involved with its use.

Cervantes used humor brilliantly in the world's first modern novel entitled "Don Quixote de la manche." Others since him have certainly used the genre likewise but it isn't until you get to Mark Twain that he could define it as a science. So, Mark Twain gets credited with developing the genre even though he didn't invent its usage.

Okay, the "Social Contract Theory" is similar in that it has existed since its conception with Socrates. The idea was then captured by disciple Plato who expressed it brilliantly in writing. From there the concept existed as a slow burn for thousands of years having its effect certainly on Machiavelli and then later where it was finally grasped by Rousseau and expressed as a science.

Okay, first Socrates. Socrates is the one who had both the courage and the intelligence to take on the world's caste system. Some might argue Moses did the same thing thousands of years before and this is a great argument. Anyway, in Plato's dialogue "Meno," Socrates noticed how a slave boy could learn just as a prince could be trained.

There is a subtle difference between "learning" and "training" here in that the first endeavor requires a teacher to serve. So, Socrates then referred to himself as a "Midwife philosopher." This is a major break in history in that it is the birth of western civilization. It is this concept of "positive" government not Democracy that ushered in modern civilization. The idea here is that a slave boy could learn to improve his life, his happiness, if an elite would take up the role of a servant to teach him.

This is far more significant of an event than our lesser cultures of pagan, refried beans and voodoo that we celebrate in the United States.

Machiavelli is also considered a break in history because unlike Rousseau later on, he could not isolate what a modern civilization is in contrast to the primitive caste systems of masters and slaves that existed before. So, Machiavelli not understanding that positive governments naturally erodes into caste systems actually concluded that the prince needed to be trained how to be cruel. (chuckle) Therefore the essay, "The noble savage."

Gene Rousseau, a man without a formal education, taught himself by reading the works of Plato amongst other works. He stumbled across the realization of Socrates and his concept of "positive" government as depicted by Plato. As a result, Rousseau wrote, "The Savage Noble."

So, the concept of "positive" government has been around for 2500 years. It didn't become a recognized science until Rousseau defined it as "The Social Contract." This was later reclassified as "Social Contract theory" by schools of political science.

There is no deep boogey man here. "Social" here simply means the concept of the modern "positive" government which broke away from the primitive caste systems of masters and slaves.

As I have pointed out endlessly in this forum, for the sake of happiness, a modern civilization attempts to sit every member of a nation together at the same dinner table. Marxism does this by attempting to sit everyone down as classless (The Chinese rulers wearing peasant garments for example).

In the United States we attempt to sit everyone as classful in comparison.

This classful American system requires the people to be the ruling mediators between the masters and slaves in society (this tactic elevates the topic above racial issues). As mediators, the people regulate liberty by binding the master to remain at the same dinner table (McCain addressing the pay of CEO's for example) while granting liberties to the slaves (Emancipation, New Deal and Civil Rights) to remain at the same table.

So, ideally speaking, it isn't equality as in black, white, Hispanic, Native American, Asian and so on. It is equality in that the black master is bound to sit with a black slave who has been freed to come; the white master is bound to sit with the white slave who has been freed to come; the Hispanic master is bound to sit with a Hispanic slave who has been freed to come; and so on.

I can tolerate you better as a black, Hispanic, Asian when I sit ideally at the table with you as your black master, Hispanic master and Asian master. We don't have trouble sitting at the same dinner table with the master after all but with the uncomely untouchable outcaste.

AutoDas
06-11-2008, 08:26 AM
As a libertarian, I'd want a constitutional contract. You sign to agree with obeying the Constitution and you get to be a citizen. The government protects the land and you that you are on so you are expected to follow the law.

Kade
06-11-2008, 08:27 AM
It appears that is not what is being taught in US law schools these days. :rolleyes:

An anarchist vision of society: Today minus government.

What almost everyone in the world, experiences almost every day, almost everywhere, almost all of the time. :)

Think about it.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Truth Warrior
06-11-2008, 08:36 AM
Um. Lysander Spooner will tell you that the Constitution was a contract (a social contract) that was violated during the Civil War. I'm not sure what you are arguing. It may be void now, because it was violated, but that doesn't change anything of what he thought about the Constitution before the Civil War.
Read at least the first couple of paragraphs of the linked article. :rolleyes: More is better.

THEN get back with me.

Truth Warrior
06-11-2008, 08:39 AM
You have no idea what you are talking about.
No, YOU have no idea of what I'm talking about, just par for the course, as usual. :rolleyes:

Truth Warrior
06-11-2008, 08:41 AM
Oh. I forgot. You are that person who never types anything for himself.

This Authoritarian collectivist socialism horseshit you speak belongs over in Europe where politics is primitive. We have a very simple system over here in the United States. We just need to go fishing more instead of reading so many books. The Queen of England didn't get where she is today by readig thousands of books. No, she got where she is by being born.

Speaking of the Queen of England, while she was visiting the United States once a poor black woman stepped forward to give her a hug. Well, what wasn't readily apparent to Americans was how horrified the Queen of England was at this display of touching. People just figured that her majesty eats at the same table as the rest of the commoners in England but this is not true, no sir. The Queen of England is not Princess Diana. She has a nature reserve for a front yard after all.

The Queen of England represented something different in the heart of the poor black woman than she does to a British commoner.

I recommend that you move to England so you can sit in a smoked filled room, drink brandy, smoke cigars, talk about your weird political science while praising the Queen mother.
Never? Lie much? YES! :p

The CCP is China. Your bogus recommendation for me. :rolleyes:

Again with the class and race people parsing collectivism group-think divisionism?

Your very own words betray you as just a mere statist fraud Marxist apologist propagandist.

Be gone!

Truth Warrior
06-11-2008, 09:01 AM
As a libertarian, I'd want a constitutional contract. You sign to agree with obeying the Constitution and you get to be a citizen. The government protects the land and you that you are on so you are expected to follow the law.
Whatever floats YOUR boat and those that AGREE with you. Leave the rest of the folks alone. Your boondoggle, you pay for it.

Ah, the Constitution bogus contract signing MYTH again.

Tell it to the 9/11 victims and their friends and family, I'm sure they could really use a good laugh.

I fired their lying hypocritical treasonous asses decades ago.

IF there WAS a contract ( and there never was ), the government broke it long before either you or I were born. :rolleyes:

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-11-2008, 09:49 AM
Never? Lie much? YES! :p

The CCP is China. Your bogus recommendation for me. :rolleyes:

Again with the class and race people parsing collectivism group-think divisionism?

Your very own words betray you as just a mere statist fraud Marxist apologist propagandist.

Be gone!

The idea of collectivism doesn't belong in American politics. That is foreign political bullshit that you don't seem to get. So, I figure you are either a foreigner or you have read far too many books about foreigners. Either way, your loss.
I disagree with the fellow about you having no ideal. I think you have an ideal that you don't know what you are talking about. Your reverence for people in here amounts to vomiting thoughtless responses onto the page.
Thanks a lot.

Truth Warrior
06-11-2008, 09:58 AM
The idea of collectivism doesn't belong in American politics. That is foreign political bullshit that you don't seem to get. So, I figure you are either a foreigner or you have read far too many books about foreigners. Either way, your loss.
I disagree with the fellow about you having no ideal. I think you have an ideal that you don't know what you are talking about. Your reverence for people in here amounts to vomiting thoughtless responses onto the page.
Thanks a lot.
I previously explained my heritage TO YOU, and you know it. Or have you too just slept since then? DUH!!!!

You just get EXACTLY what reverence that YOU DESERVE! :p

What about Plato ( Greek ), Locke ( English ) and Rousseau ( French )?

Tell the Democrats about the "foreign political bullshit". They just eat that crap up!

familydog
06-11-2008, 10:45 AM
Read at least the first couple of paragraphs of the linked article. :rolleyes: More is better.

THEN get get back with me.

I have, I have read the entire piece several times over my life. That is how I know that he describes the Constitution as a contract pre-Civil War. He feels that it is now void. However, a void contract is still a contract, even when the parties are not bound by the terms. :p

Truth Warrior
06-11-2008, 11:30 AM
I have, I have read the entire piece several times over my life. That is how I know that he describes the Constitution as a contract pre-Civil War. He feels that it is now void. However, a void contract is still a contract, even when the parties are not bound by the terms. :p

Thanks!

Now try out this one if you would, please.

The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
http://users.aol.com/xeqtr1/voluntaryist/vopa.html

It's much shorter than Lysander. :)

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-11-2008, 01:13 PM
I previously explained my heritage TO YOU, and you know it. Or have you too just slept since then? DUH!!!!

You just get EXACTLY what reverence that YOU DESERVE! :p

What about Plato ( Greek ), Locke ( English ) and Rousseau ( French )?

Tell the Democrats about the "foreign political bullshit". They just eat that crap up!

Crap crap crap. This is nothing but crap. You either post crap, icons with smiley faces or a lot of crap someone else wrote. As a critic, you look at everything as crap. The founding fathers were crap. The Constitution is crap. Anything that doesn't have anything to do with mindless freedom is crap. Anything with the word social in it is crap. Critics don't have to do the difficult work to learn how to appreciate. They only have to learn to be crappy.

Truth Warrior
06-11-2008, 01:33 PM
Crap crap crap. This is nothing but crap. You either post crap, icons with smiley faces or a lot of crap someone else wrote. As a critic, you look at everything as crap. The founding fathers were crap. The Constitution is crap. Anything that doesn't have anything to do with mindless freedom is crap. Anything with the word social in it is crap. Critics don't have to do the difficult work to learn how to appreciate. They only have to learn to be crappy.
You want diplomatic, then talk to Truth Diplomat. This is really pissed off Warrior talk. You don't like it, well Tough Shit.

If you can't stand the heat, then get the hell out of the kitchen. Put me on your Ignore List .................. please.

Ron Paul ain't crap. That's why I'm here.

You're a classic lefty mole, spreading your poison and venom, and spinning your webs. NO facts, just mystical crap and personal bullshit attacks. Now again with the posting "style" critiques. :rolleyes:

I've been busting the butts of the totalitarian statist "lefties", like you, for decades now. You're just a rookie, BTW!

Guess what, they deeply resent and object to it also, just like you do. :p

Get a life!

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-11-2008, 03:04 PM
You want diplomatic, then talk to Truth Diplomat. This is really pissed off Warrior talk. You don't like it, well Tough Shit.

If you can't stand the heat, then get the hell out of the kitchen. Put me on your Ignore List .................. please.

Ron Paul ain't crap. That's why I'm here.

You're a classic lefty mole, spreading your poison and venom, and spinning your webs. NO facts, just mystical crap and personal bullshit attacks. Now again with the posting "style" critiques. :rolleyes:

I've been busting the butts of the totalitarian statist "lefties", like you, for decades now. You're just a rookie, BTW!

Guess what, they deeply resent and object to it also, just like you do. :p

Get a life!

I am not a liberal which means that you suffer from political insanity.

Look, have we finally gotten to the point that the word "conservative" means that a person isn't intelligent?

Are you trying to run the few remaining liberals away from supporting Dr. Ron Paul by acting like a conservative lunatic? There just is something wrong with your overall attitude. It is as if you are intentionally divisive. You don't think about what you type. You are like a political cartoon in that if it weren't for the icons you wouldn't express anything. You type just enough crap to discourage intelligent conversation.

If you represent America, my friend, then I would rather be sniffing my rotting corpse in the grave than be an American because you represent chaos and hatred.

Truth Warrior
06-11-2008, 04:12 PM
I am not a liberal which means that you suffer from political insanity.

Look, have we finally gotten to the point that the word "conservative" means that a person isn't intelligent?

Are you trying to run the few remaining liberals away from supporting Dr. Ron Paul by acting like a conservative lunatic? There just is something wrong with your overall attitude. It is as if you are intentionally divisive. You don't think about what you type. You are like a political cartoon in that if it weren't for the icons you wouldn't express anything. You type just enough crap to discourage intelligent conversation.

If you represent America, my friend, then I would rather be sniffing my rotting corpse in the grave than be an American because you represent chaos and hatred.
"Political insanity" wasn't that an incarceration or execution offense in the USSR? Off to the Siberian gulag with them, Comrade!

Compared to the typical left, the traditional conservatives ( Ron Paul types ) WERE frickin' Einsteins.

Government "schooling dumb down brainwash programming" has now taken it's intended toll, over time.

Yep, it's way past time to separate the scum from the rest of us. "Liberal Ron Paul supporters", there's a new cryptic oxymoron for me.

Liberal, ALWAYS bigger and more government, Ron Paul, ALWAYS smaller and less government. DUH!!! Get a clue!

C'mon write something intelligent, I challenge and dare you.

Hey, you're the class/race/master/slave, people parser divisionist. And BTW, you're not even very good or subtle about it either, rookie. :p

For me, it's just preventive "more bullshit suppression/filtering". Kinda like anti-virus/anti-spam software. I've just had all of my shots.

"My friend", now you're quoting bogus "McCain isms", Comrade! :rolleyes:

I don't frickin' represent America, I'm an individual and represent only myself, you collectivist group-think, herd-mentality twit.

Individual, you know, the smallest, most numerous and persecuted minority. ~308 million of us, last time I checked.

"Ordo ab chao", correct Comrade? Hatred, nah, not even worth it. Just pissed!

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-11-2008, 06:17 PM
"Political insanity" wasn't that an incarceration or execution offense in the USSR? Off to the Siberian gulag with them, Comrade!

Compared to the typical left, the traditional conservatives ( Ron Paul types ) WERE frickin' Einsteins.

Government "schooling dumb down brainwash programming" has now taken it's intended toll, over time.

Yep, it's way past time to separate the scum from the rest of us. "Liberal Ron Paul supporters", there's a new cryptic oxymoron for me.

Liberal, ALWAYS bigger and more government, Ron Paul, ALWAYS smaller and less government. DUH!!! Get a clue!

C'mon write something intelligent, I challenge and dare you.

Hey, you're the class/race/master/slave, people parser divisionist. And BTW, you're not even very good or subtle about it either, rookie. :p

For me, it's just preventive "more bullshit suppression/filtering". Kinda like anti-virus/anti-spam software. I've just had all of my shots.

"My friend", now you're quoting bogus "McCain isms", Comrade! :rolleyes:

I don't frickin' represent America, I'm an individual and represent only myself, you collectivist group-think, herd-mentality twit.

Individual, you know, the smallest, most numerous minority. ~308 million of us, last time I checked.

"Ordo ab chao", correct Comrade? Hatred, nah, not even worth it. Just pissed!

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

Wow. At least you typed something. I'm going to raise your grade to F+ while your conduct grade has won you a ruby red star for your forehead. Keep up the good work. Study harder. Read fewer books. Try meditating.

Raditude
06-11-2008, 11:56 PM
Then who makes the laws and who upholds them? That's what I don't get about Anarchists either.

There are no laws. We just exercise goodwill toward others. The theory is good but unfortunately, people can't seem to grasp the concept of goodwill toward others.


^No they're not all law based but what happens when someone abuses the trust of Anarchy through criminal behavior? What's the punishment going to be?

Well criminal behavior wouldn't have a definition in an Anarchist Society, but I think you mean someone who isn't practicing goodwill toward others.

If someone wasn't practicing goodwill toward others, depending on what he or she did, they could be shunned from society, or people would take vengeance into their own hands.


I think what you wind up with is natural law, enforceable by any and all. Many government functions would fall back to families where they once were. I haven't given this a lot of thought, btw.

Actually in theory that's about how it works. We would use the barter system to sell our trade or products, and it would kind of be like a Utopian society. But the concept is flawed because not everyone is peaceful, honest, and exercises goodwill toward others. We can dream though.

Truth Warrior
06-12-2008, 03:50 AM
Wow. At least you typed something. I'm going to raise your grade to F+ while your conduct grade has won you a ruby red star for your forehead. Keep up the good work. Study harder. Read fewer books. Try meditating.You failed my intelligence challenge, to you, abysmally, of course, Rookie. :p


Study harder. Read fewer books. DUH!!! Of course, that's the answer. :rolleyes:

Get some more books, and try harder to stay inside the lines while you're coloring in them this time. A new box of crayons just might help make it easier for you. Maybe you can even buy a few extra RED ones to make you even "happier".

I consider F+ along with your disapproval, rebukes and critiques, summa cum laude ( that's Latin BTW :rolleyes: ) material, Comrade. I'll try even harder next time to further LOWER my grades from YOU. Thanks! Whenever I may want, need or value YOUR advice, I'll merely TELL you what it is. Don't hold your breath, waiting for it though.

Try actually READING the Tao, for comprehension that is, sometime. Maybe you can then even find someone to help explain it to you.

Or even "Tao for Dummies", may just help out too. ;)

Truth Warrior
06-12-2008, 06:56 AM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/society

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abstraction

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-12-2008, 10:33 AM
You failed my intelligence challenge, to you, abysmally, of course, Rookie. :p

DUH!!! Of course, that's the answer. :rolleyes:

Get some more books, and try harder to stay inside the lines while you're coloring in them this time. A new box of crayons just might help make it easier for you. Maybe you can even buy a few extra RED ones to make you even "happier".

I consider F+ along with your disapproval, rebukes and critiques, summa cum laude ( that's Latin BTW :rolleyes: ) material, Comrade. I'll try even harder next time to further LOWER my grades from YOU. Thanks! Whenever I may want, need or value YOUR advice, I'll merely TELL you what it is. Don't hold your breath, waiting for it though.

Try actually READING the Tao, for comprehension that is, sometime. Maybe you can then even find someone to help explain it to you.

Or even "Tao for Dummies", may just help out too. ;)

Please use the model below to clean up the work above.

(Introduction)
{Topic Sentence underlined} While hiding in a tree, I saw naked women swimming in a pond. The women were black, white, brown and yellow; they were tall, short, fat and skinny; they were pretty, ugly, smart and dumb. While it is unusual to see pretty naked women swimming in a pond, it is even more unusual to see a wide variety of naked women doing so. {Thesis in italics} But prettiness is a matter of taste.

(Main body of essay)
[First Paragraph]
{Topic Sentence underlined} While hiding in the tree, I saw women of every color swimming in a pond. Caucasion, African American, Asian and Hispanic naked women were giggling and splashing about.

[Second Paragraph]
{Topic Sentence underlined}While looking even closer, I saw tall, short, fat and skinny naked women swimming in a pond. While it was difficult to see the pretty naked women because of all the splashing, it was even more difficult to see them amongst all the tall, short, fat and skinny naked women.

[Third Paragraph]
{Topic Sentence underlined}While looking even closer through a pair of binoculars, I saw pretty, ugly, smart and dumb naked women swimming in a pond. Because prettiness depends on taste, a pretty naked woman swimming in a pond might be Caucasion, African American, Asian, Hispanic, tall, short, fat, skinny, pretty, ugly, smart and dumb.

(Conclusion)
I saw a variety of naked women swimming in a pond. While some were Caucasion, African American, Asian and Hispanic, others were tall, short, fat, skinny, pretty, ugly, smart and dumb. Because prettiness is a matter of taste, a pretty naked woman might be Caucasion, African American, Asian, Hispanic, tall, short, fat, skinny, pretty, ugly, smart or dumb.

IRO-bot
06-12-2008, 10:56 AM
Why are you two argueing? You both feel the "Social Contract" is horrible.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-12-2008, 11:26 AM
Why are you two argueing? You both feel the "Social Contract" is horrible.

Social contract is horrible? When one works out the social contract all the way back to Socrates, one sees that the advent of Western Civilization and the concept of "positive" government came out of him. Socrates was the trunk of Western Civilization, Plato wrote about Socrates while Rousseau later recognized in Plato's writings that Socrates was the trunk of Western Civilization. Out from Socrates/Plato/Rousseau, the trunk branched out to Hagel. Hagel pointed out that people need property to be free. This was a real problem in Europe because it didn't have much wilderness.
Out from Hagel, Marx attempted to write a political science which would move working people to own property so that they could be free. Our founding fathers would have argued that Hagel's self evident truth that "people need property to be free" should have been powerful enough to alter events. But our founding fathers had the luxury of wilderness. While it was easier because of its wilderness in the U.S. to transfer all public property from being owned by the king to being owned by a state of people, it was far more difficult for people to get our from under the thumb of the king in Europe. So, the people in the United States own the public property more so than they do elsewhere which solves Hagel's problem.
Mindless hate is worse than idiocy. This mindless hatred looks at anything "social" as evil. Yet, Western Civilization began as a result of a social agenda just as our nation was started as a result.

Truth Warrior
06-12-2008, 12:04 PM
Please use the model below to clean up the work above.

(Introduction)
{Topic Sentence underlined} While hiding in a tree, I saw naked women swimming in a pond. The women were black, white, brown and yellow; they were tall, short, fat and skinny; they were pretty, ugly, smart and dumb. While it is unusual to see pretty naked women swimming in a pond, it is even more unusual to see a wide variety of naked women doing so. {Thesis in italics} But prettiness is a matter of taste.

(Main body of essay)
[First Paragraph]
{Topic Sentence underlined} While hiding in the tree, I saw women of every color swimming in a pond. Caucasion, African American, Asian and Hispanic naked women were giggling and splashing about.

[Second Paragraph]
{Topic Sentence underlined}While looking even closer, I saw tall, short, fat and skinny naked women swimming in a pond. While it was difficult to see the pretty naked women because of all the splashing, it was even more difficult to see them amongst all the tall, short, fat and skinny naked women.

[Third Paragraph]
{Topic Sentence underlined}While looking even closer through a pair of binoculars, I saw pretty, ugly, smart and dumb naked women swimming in a pond. Because prettiness depends on taste, a pretty naked woman swimming in a pond might be Caucasion, African American, Asian, Hispanic, tall, short, fat, skinny, pretty, ugly, smart and dumb.

(Conclusion)
I saw a variety of naked women swimming in a pond. While some were Caucasion, African American, Asian and Hispanic, others were tall, short, fat, skinny, pretty, ugly, smart and dumb. Because prettiness is a matter of taste, a pretty naked woman might be Caucasion, African American, Asian, Hispanic, tall, short, fat, skinny, pretty, ugly, smart or dumb.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

Truth Warrior
06-12-2008, 12:05 PM
Why are you two argueing? You both feel the "Social Contract" is horrible.
I just enjoy kicking his butt. I think he likes it too. :D

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-12-2008, 12:47 PM
I just enjoy kicking his butt. I think he likes it too. :D

It is because of hateful and mindless people like you that Dr. Ron Paul is considered an extremist.

Truth Warrior
06-12-2008, 01:04 PM
It is because of hateful and mindless people like you that Dr. Ron Paul is considered an extremist.
It is because of people like you that the USSR collapsed!

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-12-2008, 01:16 PM
It is because of people like you that the USSR collapsed!

I have said numerous times that I am a conservative and that I support Dr. Ron Paul. So, why do you continue to accuse me of being a liberal? What is your agenda, sir? Consider that Dr. Ron Paul attracts liberals. So, why would you be in here dissing liberals?

Your 3 second responses to posts in here are quite suspicious to me as are the mindless way in which you respond. I have always considered myself a conservative and yet you accuse me of being a liberal. Do you accuse the liberals of being conservative? If I didn't know any better, I'd think your primary agenda in here is to be disruptive.

Truth Warrior
06-12-2008, 01:19 PM
I have said numerous times that I am a conservative and that I support Dr. Ron Paul. So, why do you continue to accuse me of being a liberal? What is your agenda, sir? Consider that Dr. Ron Paul attracts liberals. So, why would you be in here dissing liberals?

Your 3 second responses to posts in here are quite suspicious to me as are the mindless way in which you respond. I have always considered myself a conservative and yet you accuse me of being a liberal. Do you accuse the liberals of being conservative? If I didn't know any better, I'd think your primary agenda in here is to be disruptive. Because you are a liar. Conservatives choose much diferent words to express themselves.

Quitting the CCP

As of 3:03 PM EST, 38,336,080 people have submitted statements withdrawing from the Chinese Communist Party or its affiliated organizations (for the text in Chinese of all of the statements, please visit the Tuidang website). Those who are current members of the CCP or its affiliated organizations are with these statements resigning their membership; former members use these statements to sever all association with these organizations. All are renouncing the CCP totally.

http://en.epochtimes.com/211,95,,1.html

IRO-bot
06-12-2008, 01:21 PM
Social contract is horrible? When one works out the social contract all the way back to Socrates, one sees that the advent of Western Civilization and the concept of "positive" government came out of him. Socrates was the trunk of Western Civilization, Plato wrote about Socrates while Rousseau later recognized in Plato's writings that Socrates was the trunk of Western Civilization. Out from Socrates/Plato/Rousseau, the trunk branched out to Hagel. Hagel pointed out that people need property to be free. This was a real problem in Europe because it didn't have much wilderness.
Out from Hagel, Marx attempted to write a political science which would move working people to own property so that they could be free. Our founding fathers would have argued that Hagel's self evident truth that "people need property to be free" should have been powerful enough to alter events. But our founding fathers had the luxury of wilderness. While it was easier because of its wilderness in the U.S. to transfer all public property from being owned by the king to being owned by a state of people, it was far more difficult for people to get our from under the thumb of the king in Europe. So, the people in the United States own the public property more so than they do elsewhere which solves Hagel's problem.
Mindless hate is worse than idiocy. This mindless hatred looks at anything "social" as evil. Yet, Western Civilization began as a result of a social agenda just as our nation was started as a result.


I do not disagree sir. I meant the social contract that was laid out by the O.P.

Kade
06-12-2008, 01:31 PM
I have said numerous times that I am a conservative and that I support Dr. Ron Paul. So, why do you continue to accuse me of being a liberal? What is your agenda, sir? Consider that Dr. Ron Paul attracts liberals. So, why would you be in here dissing liberals?

Your 3 second responses to posts in here are quite suspicious to me as are the mindless way in which you respond. I have always considered myself a conservative and yet you accuse me of being a liberal. Do you accuse the liberals of being conservative? If I didn't know any better, I'd think your primary agenda in here is to be disruptive.

I appreciate your honesty and integrity Watkins, keep it up.

IRO-bot
06-12-2008, 01:32 PM
I appreciate your honesty and integrity Watkins, keep it up.

Here here!

Truth Warrior
06-12-2008, 01:35 PM
I appreciate your honesty and integrity Watkins, keep it up. http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
06-12-2008, 01:35 PM
I do not disagree sir. I meant the social contract that was laid out by the O.P.

Major premise: The people rule.
Minor premise: The government is not representing the people.
Conclusion: The rule of the people is eroding towards tyranny.

Our government isn't necessarily functioning improperly. Our founding fathers understood that it is impractical to think that people could just acheive the Utopia of being perfectly represented by the government and stay there. The best we can expect in our system is that the rule of the people will acheive its constitutional Civil Purpose at times while at other times it will erode away to tryanny from that Civil Purpose.

Major premise: Law is divided into civil and legal matters.
Minor premise: Legality has no purpose other than it establishes rightfully or wrongfully precedent laws.
Conclusion: Therefore, Civil Purpose.
(I capitilize Civil Purpose to distinguish it from legal precedence.)

Anti Federalist
06-12-2008, 04:12 PM
We have a "social contract".

It's called the constitution.

It's called "consent of the governed".

That contract has been broken, therefore the government no longer has my consent to govern me.

We must separate.

Truth Warrior
06-12-2008, 04:18 PM
Close enough. :rolleyes: :D

Correct conclusion. :)