Ron Paul, hobbes, and social contract theory

[HeaT777]

I learned in my college American government class that the social contract is between the people. Not the people and the government. Therefore the government is not bound to the social contract.

what is the libertarian or ron paul position on this?

[Travlyr]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm5yMq0w6OA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm5yMq0w6OA

[low preference guy]

it might've been a contract among people that lived a long time ago, but I really do not remember signing it.

[erowe1]

I learned in my college American government class that the social contract is between the people. Not the people and the government. Therefore the government is not bound to the social contract.

what is the libertarian or ron paul position on this?

There is no social contract.

[Wesker1982]

That authority (of government), gained by explicit consent of the people, should be strictly limited. - Ron Paul

You should really read this too, destroys the social contract argument: No Treason (http://jim.com/treason.htm) by Lysander Spooner


All of Spooner's writings are worthy of study. -Ron Paul

I recommend these as well:

The Social Contract: Defined and Destroyed in under 5 mins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNj0VhK19QU) by Stefan Molyneux
I'm Allowed to Rob You (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE) by Larken Rose (video)
Love it or Leave It (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2MxiQR4CIQ) by FearsEdge
The “social contract” is an empty concept (http://theemptiness.info/2010/07/the-social-contract-is-an-empty-concept/) by Mike P
If you don’t like it, leave — for a price (http://www.libertarianstandard.com/2010/05/28/if-you-dont-like-it-leave-for-a-price/) by Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Statist myths debunked: the social contract (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djYq1fr9fKI) by lordthawkeye (video, under 3 mins)
The Social Contract (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNFgthORdE4&feature=related) by Jacob Spinney (video, under 4 mins)

[FSP-Rebel]

it might've been a contract among people that lived a long time ago, but I really do not remember signing it.
it was your ghost writer

[Travlyr]

Originally Posted by Liberty Defined, page 126
That authority (of government), gained by explicit consent of the people, should be strictly limited. - Ron Paul
Swearing the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution is explicit consent. Millions of people have done that for they see the benefits of the social contract and the "Bill of Rights".

[erowe1]

Swearing the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution is explicit consent. Millions of people have done that for they see the benefits of the social contract and the "Bill of Rights".

That's true. But most people who bear the burden of that government have never done that.

It's good to see that you now seem to agree that explicit consent actually does matter.

[FreeTraveler]

Read my siggy. :D


The 'social contract' is to the politician what 'original sin' is to the priest.

[Travlyr]

That's true. But most people who bear the burden of that government have never done that.

It's good to see that you now seem to agree that explicit consent actually does matter.
No, I recognize implicit consent is valid, but I also recognize other people demand explicit consent. It makes them feel better.

Everyone is born into a social contract (implicitly), but not all social contracts are in writing. You don't get to choose your parents, but you do have to live with the consequences of their actions/rules nonetheless.

[BattleFlag1776]

Most profs teach Hobbes out of context and as political science rather than political philosophy. I'm going to assume that your class covered the high points of Leviathan rather than reading the entire text, so my answer would be this:

Anyone who believes in the US Constitution should have a big problem with Hobbes. Americans should not desire a powerful sovereign like Hobbes outlines in Leviathan. Unfortunately, Hobbes is real big these days with folks who want a nanny state, monarchs, dictators and world govt seekers; hence the teaching of Hobbes out of context.

I don't know who/what is covered in your syllabus but the general political philosophical line goes something like this:
Hobbes -> Locke -> Montesquieu -> American State Papers. There are others in there but each one of these cited really narrows down how much power govt should have from that as outlined by Hobbes in Leviathan. The end product, of course, is the US Constitution.

I will say I'm glad you know of Hobbes. I think if more people knew who he was (and what he was calling for, as liberal as he might have been seen to be in his day) there would be much less of a need to actually discuss the idea of liberty in this country today.

[erowe1]

You don't get to choose your parents, but you do have to live with the consequences of their actions/rules nonetheless.

I agree. But contracts, by definition, are agreements you make willfully, not circumstances you are in involuntarily.

Just because some person is unfortunate enough to be born in North Korea, that doesn't mean they agreed to any social contract that legitimized the Kim regime's tyranny over them.

[Wesker1982]

Swearing the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution is explicit consent.

This falsely assumes that the Constitution itself was explicitly consented to.

You are using the same fallacious reasoning as you did here:


Getting a birth certificate for your child is giving the State explicit consent for you and your child. Buying property is giving explicit consent. Interacting with the State (registrations, licenses, etc.) are all voluntary actions giving explicit consent to the State.


This is a circular argument. Your argument for the State being explicitly consensual is based on the assumption that the State is explicitly consensual in the first place.

The existence of the State itself is not consensual, the goods that it uses for trade were not obtained by consent in the first place. If a gang of thieves extort resources from you that you legitimately (i.e. voluntarily) acquired, or use force to prevent you from exercising your rights, then they say you can buy a license to get some of your own resources or rights back, it could not be said that trying to get back your rights or property (by getting them licensed to you etc.) from this gang of thieves is proof of consent to the plunder in the first place.

Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented to. - Lysander Spooner

The principle of Spooner's point here applies to any attempt to get back your rights or legitimate property. If you are in a position where your rights are violated, and you have a chance to get some of them back, doing so is not consent of the initial violation of rights.

[Rael]

I never signed anything.

[Xenophage]

No, I recognize implicit consent is valid, but I also recognize other people demand explicit consent. It makes them feel better.

Everyone is born into a social contract (implicitly), but not all social contracts are in writing. You don't get to choose your parents, but you do have to live with the consequences of their actions/rules nonetheless.

The idea of a 'social contract' is an attempt to legitimize the trampling of individual rights in the name of common welfare, and to somehow reconcile that view with the theory of natural rights. Of course, a social contract is irreconcilable with natural rights, because it is founded on faulty ethical premises: that one can be held morally accountable for an action he never took, against his will and even without his knowledge. But morality deals with human actions, not involuntary circumstances.

A social contract is a contradiction in terms - an attempt to usurp the very meaning of the word 'contract.' There can be no implied contracts. Contracts are explicit in nature and by definition. They require the mutual consent of all parties involved in order to be valid. They are voluntary arrangements, not involuntary. As a result, any contract you enter into you do so bearing the full burden of moral responsibility for upholding that contract. Contracts are a cornerstone of a civilized society that wishes to engage in voluntary cooperation between people for mutual benefit, without which many of the advancements we benefit from today would be completely impossible. Therefore, the 'social contract' theory is really more of an 'anti-social' theory that has nothing at all to do with contracts - an early exercise in doublespeak.

[Travlyr]

This falsely assumes that the Constitution itself was explicitly consented to.
I don't understand what you are getting at. I accept the fact that the US Constitution is a valid document. It is consensual for me, and millions of others, because we consent to its authority, and I understand that it benefits me and nearly everyone else who lives in the united States of America. If it was strictly adhered to, then liberty, peace, and prosperity would be the order of the day under the rule of law. Unfortunately, it was usurped by a counterfeiting cabal a long time ago. I recognize that it is a flawed document as it does not benefit everyone equally and that is certainly a big problem with it, but it can be amended to work more equitably if desired. It is not perfect; it may not even be the best that we can achieve in the 21st century, but it has been explicitly consented to by millions upon millions of people it is enforceable and currently the supreme law of our land.


You are using the same fallacious reasoning as you did here:
I don't understand your language. It seems to me that anytime you go to the state building, ask for their permission, pay for the service, and sign a state document you are voluntarily giving explicit consent to the state by agreement. Nobody is forcing you to do that. If you sign your driver's license, marriage license, property deed, property taxes, state college, or any state document you are agreeing to being bound to it through voluntary agreement. If you wish to not give consent, then don't. Walk the talk.

[Travlyr]

The idea of a 'social contract' is an attempt to legitimize the trampling of individual rights in the name of common welfare, and to somehow reconcile that view with the theory of natural rights. Of course, a social contract is irreconcilable with natural rights, because it is founded on faulty ethical premises: that one can be held morally accountable for an action he never took, against his will and even without his knowledge. But morality deals with human actions, not involuntary circumstances.

A social contract is a contradiction in terms - an attempt to usurp the very meaning of the word 'contract.' There can be no implied contracts. Contracts are explicit in nature and by definition. They require the mutual consent of all parties involved in order to be valid. They are voluntary arrangements, not involuntary. As a result, any contract you enter into you do so bearing the full burden of moral responsibility for upholding that contract. Contracts are a cornerstone of a civilized society that wishes to engage in voluntary cooperation between people for mutual benefit, without which many of the advancements we benefit from today would be completely impossible. Therefore, the 'social contract' theory is really more of an 'anti-social' theory that has nothing at all to do with contracts - an early exercise in doublespeak.
I agree that social contracts are not really 'contracts' as such, but it is a valid social construct which does a lot more than trample on individual rights. Many people benefit from the state. Virtually everyone could benefit from the state if they would participate. Do you agree that the state benefits people?

[silverhandorder]

My view on social contract is that it makes no sense. One should be able to back out of a contract. If one can back out of a contract I can take my property and officially take it out of the entity called United States of America. If you going to argue that I can't take my property out of being part of the government then there is no such a thing as property rights. Then you are just a socialists with a different view point then the ones that want socialized health care.

It is a non win for anyone that holds republican views.

[silverhandorder]

I agree that social contracts are not really 'contracts' as such, but it is a valid social construct which does a lot more than trample on individual rights. Many people benefit from the state. Virtually everyone could benefit from the state if they would participate. Do you agree that the state benefits people?

Theft benefits people too.

[Travlyr]

My view on social contract is that it makes no sense. One should be able to back out of a contract. If one can back out of a contract I can take my property and officially take it out of the entity called United States of America. If you going to argue that I can't take my property out of being part of the government then there is no such a thing as property rights. Then you are just a socialists with a different view point then the ones that want socialized health care.

It is a non win for anyone that holds republican views.
My views are closely aligned with Ron Paul's written and spoken words.
Ron Paul is defender of liberty and supporter of the Constitution.

[libertybrewcity]

Wasn't Hobbes the one who said the social contract was between the people and the government? He was a shill for the king to persuade people to stay faithful. I think Locke wrote that the contract was between the people. He also stated the people have the right to revolt and form a new government. It's complex, but I tend to think that this social contract that we call government today is nothing more than a prison sentence forcing us to live and work for the elites.

[Revolution9]

My view on social contract is that it makes no sense. One should be able to back out of a contract. If one can back out of a contract I can take my property and officially take it out of the entity called United States of America. If you going to argue that I can't take my property out of being part of the government then there is no such a thing as property rights. Then you are just a socialists with a different view point then the ones that want socialized health care.

It is a non win for anyone that holds republican views.

You can back out of many contracts within 72 hours.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

Theft benefits people too.

No. It benefits neither the thief, who is now an outlaw and untrustworthy to belong in an open society and it certainly does not benefit his victim.

Rev9

[Rael]

If you want to be legalistic about it:

1. The contract is voidable, since minors lack the capacity to contract, and this "social contract" apparently takes effect at birth.

2. Since this "contract" cannot be performed in one year, it is subject to the Statute Of Frauds, which means it must be in writing or it is voidable.

3. Since I don't have the option to negotiate the "contract", it is a contract of adhesion and is unconscionable.

[Wesker1982]

I don't understand what you are getting at.

I don't understand your language.

If a gang of thieves extort resources from you that you legitimately (i.e. voluntarily) acquired, or use force to prevent you from exercising your rights, then they say you can buy a license to get some of your own resources or rights back, it could not be said that trying to get back your rights or property (by getting them licensed to you etc.) from this gang of thieves is proof of consent to the plunder in the first place.


It seems to me that anytime you go to the state building, ask for their permission, pay for the service, and sign a state document you are voluntarily giving explicit consent to the state by agreement.

My point was that these services are not voluntary in the first place. That is why your argument is circular. Your conclusion (obtaining licenses from the State proves consent) is dependent on its own premise (the State's services are themselves consensual).

[Xenophage]

I agree that social contracts are not really 'contracts' as such, but it is a valid social construct which does a lot more than trample on individual rights. Many people benefit from the state. Virtually everyone could benefit from the state if they would participate. Do you agree that the state benefits people?

If it isn't a contract, what is it? If it's a valid social construct, which is pretty vague, how is it valid? How do you justify it on moral and ethical grounds?

Surely, you don't think that just because something "benefits" someone, that gives you or anyone the right to impose it upon them forcefully. Whether or not the state benefits anybody at all is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

[Travlyr]

If it isn't a contract, what is it? If it's a valid social construct, which is pretty vague, how is it valid? How do you justify it on moral and ethical grounds?

Surely, you don't think that just because something "benefits" someone, that gives you or anyone the right to impose it upon them forcefully. Whether or not the state benefits anybody at all is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
The US Constitution is a document that forms a constitutional republic. It is valid because millions upon millions of people say it is valid by affirming its existence and giving explicit consent to its authority. It is moral because people need to eat, drink, and breathe, and the state distributes land to individuals so that they can raise food, dig a well for water if necessary, and have a dwelling to keep them protected from the elements. It is ethical because the state creates order for law and justice under the rule of law. If we would just follow the constitution, as Ron Paul keeps saying, then liberty, peace, and prosperity would be much more common event in our day.


The Economics of a Free Society (http://mises.org/books/prosperity.pdf)
These selections lay out my views of the proper role of government, namely that it should serve only to protect the life and property of its citizens. I respect the Constitution not because of a nostalgic attachment to an anachronistic document, but because the Founders knew the danger in allowing government to overstep its legitimate functions. It is unfortunate that many Americans today don’t understand the Founders’ wisdom in framing our government on the principles of federalism and republicanism—as opposed to “democracy.” A free society can only work when its members agree that there are certain things left to the discretion of individuals—no matter what a temporary majority might think. In practice this means the government must respect private property and the rule of law, or what is also called free market capitalism. - Ron Paul

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

That's true. But most people who bear the burden of that government have never done that.

It's good to see that you now seem to agree that explicit consent actually does matter.

What civil rights are to Rousseau and the French Revolution, natural rights are to John Locke. Our Founders argued during the creation of the Constitution that the civil rights weren't necessary as natural rights reduced down on the physical level to become like DnA.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The US Constitution is a document that forms a constitutional republic. It is valid because millions upon millions of people say it is valid by affirming its existence and giving explicit consent to its authority. It is moral because people need to eat, drink, and breathe, and the state distributes land to individuals so that they can raise food, dig a well for water if necessary, and have a dwelling to keep them protected from the elements. It is ethical because the state creates order for law and justice under the rule of law. If we would just follow the constitution, as Ron Paul keeps saying, then liberty, peace, and prosperity would be much more common event in our day.

As the Constitution can mean whatever the lawyers want it to, then how is that even possible? The Constitution is either a benefit to the people by being considered mutually inclusive with The Declaration of Independence, or it is a detriment to the people by being mutually exclusive with it.

[erowe1]

As the Constitution can mean whatever the lawyers want it to, then how is that even possible? The Constitution is either a benefit to the people by being considered mutually inclusive with The Declaration of Independence, or it is a detriment to the people by being mutually exclusive with it.

Since the Declaration of Independence affirms that the only just powers a government can have are those it derives from the consent of the governed, while the Constitution explicitly empowers the federal government to exercise powers over people without their consent, aren't we forced to conclude that the two documents are mutually exclusive?

[Travlyr]

As the Constitution can mean whatever the lawyers want it to, then how is that even possible? The Constitution is either a benefit to the people by being considered mutually inclusive with The Declaration of Independence, or it is a detriment to the people by being mutually exclusive with it.Because it is the supreme law of the land, and if you know your rights and your arguments, then the judge must obey his oath and rule in favor of the clearly intended beneficiary.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXUnvpl5tDo&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXUnvpl5tDo&feature=related

Ignoring or abandoning the Constitution is a problem ... not a solution.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

If it isn't a contract, what is it? If it's a valid social construct, which is pretty vague, how is it valid? How do you justify it on moral and ethical grounds?

Surely, you don't think that just because something "benefits" someone, that gives you or anyone the right to impose it upon them forcefully. Whether or not the state benefits anybody at all is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
The social contract started off with Socrates. Jesus didn't create the state, but blessed it. The information developing the concept of the social contract went to sleep for the longest time until the Arabs dug it up when they took over control of the southern part of the Roman Empire. Western Europe then acquired that information from the Arabs during the twelth century during the Holy Wars. So, the concept of the social contract isn't really all that ancient as it didn't start reawakening until the twelth century. In other words, even though Western Europe was aware of Plato all along, the redevelopment of the social contract really needed the works of Aristotle as well.

[erowe1]

The social contract started off with Socrates.

I don't think that's right. In Plato's dialogue, Crito, IIRC Socrates takes the position that the city's punishment of him is legitimate because he personally and willfully consented to its law, and had the option not to. To me, that's the opposite of the idea of the social contract.

Then again, I might remember it wrong.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Because it is the supreme law of the land, and if you know your rights and your arguments, then the judge must obey his oath and rule in favor of the clearly intended beneficiary.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXUnvpl5tDo&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXUnvpl5tDo&feature=related

Ignoring or abandoning the Constitution is a problem ... not a solution.

The natural law in the Declaration of Independence has to supercede the law of the land in the U.S. Constitution. Law for the sake of law is no better than chaos. To establish the laws of the Constitution, order first had to be established by way of a natural law in The Declaration of Independence.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I don't think that's right. In Plato's dialogue, Crito, IIRC Socrates takes the position that the city's punishment of him is legitimate because he personally and willfully consented to its law, and had the option not to. To me, that's the opposite of the idea of the social contract.

Then again, I might remember it wrong.

It isn't a matter of that. It's a matter that the social contract didn't originate with the Chinese. If it didn't start off with them, then it had to come out of Socrates. Or, just consider how all the philosophers before him are referred to as Pre - Socratic.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Since the Declaration of Independence affirms that the only just powers a government can have are those it derives from the consent of the governed, while the Constitution explicitly empowers the federal government to exercise powers over people without their consent, aren't we forced to conclude that the two documents are mutually exclusive?

No. For a marriage to be legal to a more perfect union, the divorce has to be legal to the former tyranny. Inclusivity pertains to the Truth while exclusivity pertains to the false power to manipulate.

[Xenophage]

The US Constitution is a document that forms a constitutional republic. It is valid because millions upon millions of people say it is valid by affirming its existence and giving explicit consent to its authority. It is moral because people need to eat, drink, and breathe, and the state distributes land to individuals so that they can raise food, dig a well for water if necessary, and have a dwelling to keep them protected from the elements. It is ethical because the state creates order for law and justice under the rule of law. If we would just follow the constitution, as Ron Paul keeps saying, then liberty, peace, and prosperity would be much more common event in our day.

You misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about the Constitution. I was asking about the concept of a social contract.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

You misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about the Constitution. I was asking about the concept of a social contract.

"Social contract theory" is an academic term created to express the major break that developed as a result of Socrates and further expounded on by Plato and Aristotle. The next major break in the social contract theory didn't happen until the time of Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli during the latter part of the fifteeth century ACE.
In other words, the works of the "ancient" Greek philosophers went missing for about eighteen hundred years before they were rediscovered and reawakened during the time of the rennaisance. Machiavelli is famous for the essay entitled "The Noble Savage." To challenge his argument that a ruler should behave like Adolph Hitler, Rousseau, the principle father of the French Revolution, wrote an essay entitled "The Savage Noble." Between the times of these two gentlemen, John Locke developed his concept of natural rights which were rights that reduced literally on the physical level like DnA.
In other words, the word "social contract" deals with that particular point in history when change only happened to keep the people under bondage to tyranny versus the new kind of change that happened to free the people out from under tyranny.
In comparison, our Founders concluded that it was necessary to implement a necessary tyranny or a more perfect union.

[Todd]

You should really read this too, destroys the social contract argument: No Treason (http://jim.com/treason.htm) by Lysander Spooner

I recommend these as well:

The Social Contract: Defined and Destroyed in under 5 mins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNj0VhK19QU) by Stefan Molyneux
I'm Allowed to Rob You (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE) by Larken Rose (video)
Love it or Leave It (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2MxiQR4CIQ) by FearsEdge
The “social contract” is an empty concept (http://theemptiness.info/2010/07/the-social-contract-is-an-empty-concept/) by Mike P
If you don’t like it, leave — for a price (http://www.libertarianstandard.com/2010/05/28/if-you-dont-like-it-leave-for-a-price/) by Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Statist myths debunked: the social contract (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djYq1fr9fKI) by lordthawkeye (video, under 3 mins)
The Social Contract (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNFgthORdE4&feature=related) by Jacob Spinney (video, under 4 mins)

saving for later. Thanks...

[ClayTrainor]

I learned in my college American government class that the social contract is between the people. Not the people and the government. Therefore the government is not bound to the social contract.

what is the libertarian or ron paul position on this?

The social "contract" is a complete bastardization of the word contract.

A contract requires the explicit and voluntary consent by all parties involved, and it cannot be imposed on anyone who does not consent to the terms of the contract. The Social "Contract" does not require the explicit and voluntary consent by all parties involved, and it can be imposed on anyone who does not consent to the terms of the "contract".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE


You should really read this too, destroys the social contract argument: No Treason (http://jim.com/treason.htm) by Lysander Spooner



I recommend these as well:

The Social Contract: Defined and Destroyed in under 5 mins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNj0VhK19QU) by Stefan Molyneux
I'm Allowed to Rob You (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE) by Larken Rose (video)
Love it or Leave It (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2MxiQR4CIQ) by FearsEdge
The “social contract” is an empty concept (http://theemptiness.info/2010/07/the-social-contract-is-an-empty-concept/) by Mike P
If you don’t like it, leave — for a price (http://www.libertarianstandard.com/2010/05/28/if-you-dont-like-it-leave-for-a-price/) by Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Statist myths debunked: the social contract (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djYq1fr9fKI) by lordthawkeye (video, under 3 mins)
The Social Contract (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNFgthORdE4&feature=related) by Jacob Spinney (video, under 4 mins)

Great post!

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

saving for later. Thanks...

I wouldn't waste my time reading the book. The notion someone would be against the social contract only shows they have no idea about the topic. Figure this person probably hated philosophy class. He or she seems like the type of individual who likes going snow skiing because it is either traveling down the slope or riding back up it on a ski lift. In other words, some people just don't like the idea of thinking uphill much less taking the supreme effort to mountain climb on occasion.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The social "contract" is a complete bastardization of the word contract.

A contract requires the explicit and voluntary consent by all parties involved, and it cannot be imposed on anyone who does not consent to the terms of the contract. The Social "Contract" does not require the explicit and voluntary consent by all parties involved, and it can be imposed on anyone who does not consent to the terms of the "contract".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE



Great post!

What on earth could you fellows and gals possibly be talking about? This is amusing. You either have western civilization based on Socrates and the social contract, or one has the Chinese system based on Confucius. I never knew it was a matter of choice.

[ClayTrainor]

I never knew it was a matter of choice.

That's exactly the point. If choice is not involved, than it cannot be considered a contract. ;)

Hence...


The social "contract" is a complete bastardization of the word contract.

[Wesker1982]

I wouldn't waste my time reading the book.

What, this: http://jim.com/treason.htm , which Ron Paul also recommends you read? You going to ad hominem attack Ron Paul as well because of it?

Do you have any actual arguments, or just assertions and ad hominems? :rolleyes:

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

That's exactly the point. If choice is not involved, than it cannot be considered a contract. ;)

Hence...

The "social contract" deals with how government implemented change. Before Socrates, governments implemented change as a benefit to themselves and a detriment to the people they ruled over. In comparison, the good government imagined by Socrates would develop to implement change for the benefit of the people.
In the book Meno, Socrates clearly demonstrates how the mind of a slave can learn to improve if only someone is willing to serve them. During that time, only the children of the ruling elite received an education.

This reminds me of how people misuse the word "metaphysics." Actually, metaphysics had nothing to do with physics but was just a name given by the clerk responsible for filing Aristotle's works. The word metaphysics meant filed "after" the work entitled "physics."

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

What, this: http://jim.com/treason.htm , which Ron Paul also recommends you read? You going to ad hominem attack Ron Paul as well because of it?

Do you have any actual arguments, or just assertions and ad hominems? :rolleyes:

I haven't changed the focus of the attack from concentrating on the topic at hand to the tactic of assassinating the characters of those partaking in the argument. Improving the social contract is a prerequisite just as liberty is necessary. Limited government is also an absolute requirement. All these things aren't open to debate.

[MaxPower]

I learned in my college American government class that the social contract is between the people. Not the people and the government. Therefore the government is not bound to the social contract.

what is the libertarian or ron paul position on this?
This is Hobbes' version of the social contract; look into the Lockean conception.

[Vessol]

it might've been a contract among people that lived a long time ago, but I really do not remember signing it.

Same here, funny how that happens.

[affa]

I haven't changed the focus of the attack from concentrating on the topic at hand to the tactic of assassinating the characters of those partaking in the argument. Improving the social contract is a prerequisite just as liberty is necessary. Limited government is also an absolute requirement. All these things aren't open to debate.

Actually, you did. The entirety of your post #41, barring your first sentence in which you instruct people -not- to read, is belittling people who don't agree with you.

Social contract theory is bunk. It proposes one must be born into contract, no matter how just or unjust. It removes a crucial part of any contract, informed consent, and in its place falls back on the old 'if you don't love it, leave it' in order to self-justify itself.

That you think something is 'not open to debate', and furthermore tell people not to read up on the subject for themselves, is shameful.

[ClayTrainor]

The "social contract" deals with how government implemented change. Before Socrates, governments implemented change as a benefit to themselves and a detriment to the people they ruled over.

LMAO... only before socrates that happened? C'mon man....


In comparison, the good government imagined by Socrates would develop to implement change for the benefit of the people.

Imagined is the correct word. It's a fantasy, at best.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Actually, you did. The entirety of your post #41, barring your first sentence in which you instruct people -not- to read, is belittling people who don't agree with you.

Social contract theory is bunk. It proposes one must be born into contract, no matter how just or unjust. It removes a crucial part of any contract, informed consent, and in its place falls back on the old 'if you don't love it, leave it' in order to self-justify itself.

That you think something is 'not open to debate', and furthermore tell people not to read up on the subject for themselves, is shameful.


I don't read everything. To the contrary, I try not reading as much as possible and this is something I'm not going to read for good reason. My advice in here is for others not to read what I think is nonsense.
There. Is that better?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

LMAO... only before socrates that happened? C'mon man....



Imagined is the correct word. It's a fantasy, at best.

If it didn't happen in China before the advent of Socrates, it didn't happen. Gee, isn't this common knowledge? Our Founding Fathers read a lot. They didn't watch television, listen to the radio, surf the internet, study modern science, delve into the social sciences or watch movies. Most probably weren't into reading romance novels. So, they certainly read up on the classics with these being the bible, the dialogues of Plato, the works of Aristotle, books on natural philosophy (science) and so on.
They wouldn't have read much on the preSocratic before the age of the Greek Zenith, and the Hellenistic age afterwards including the stoics, skeptics, epicureans, and so on. Most of that knowledge has been dug up since their time.