Let's Discuss Social Contract

[AlbqOwl]

I can't find a single instance where Reagan invoked the leftist concept of a "social contract?"

That is because social contract is not leftist and neither was he.

 

[Respecthelect]

That is because social contract is not leftist and neither was he.

Then why didn't Reagan adopt the notion of a "social contract?" He didn't adopt it, because it is a flawed concept, leading to leftist weaknesses in thinking.

 

[jet57]

The constitution is not written in the form of a contract. "Form" is only one of the requirements of contracts, but it is a strict requirement. Contracts failing "form," fail to be contracts at all.

If form were the only problem, one might consider the "metaphor" argument. But, the constitution fails virtually every test of contracts. There's no agreement, no consent, no capacity, no consideration, no time limits, etc. etc. The constitution and therefore the relationship of the government to the citizen is simply not properly described as a contract.

Much of America's freedom is the freedom to trade. The freedom to agree to exchange, perform and deliver. The primary mechanism for accomplishing trade is the contract. Therefore, it is tempting to utilize a notion of contracts to describe the citizen-society relationship. Tempting, but inaccurate. Worse than inaccurate, it is dangerous.

The proofs and history that I offered along with the very concept of a social contract and how it applies are completely lost on you. You haven't any idea whay your're talking about.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Then why didn't Reagan adopt the notion of a "social contract?" He didn't adopt it, because it is a flawed concept, leading to leftist weaknesses in thinking.

If that makes sense to you, bless your heart. It makes absolutely no sense to me. Do have a nice day.

 

[calamity]

We see a total breakdown of "social contract" in the black community today. Fergusan is but the tip of that ugly iceberg. Too many blacks turn a blind eye to anti-social behavior, making excuses for violent criminals, petty thieves and lazy youth. They demand no personal accountability from those who breed offspring or the chronically unemployed.

It's a problem of epic proportions. And, if mentioned by whites, they are accused of racism. If it's mentioned by blacks, they get called out as Uncle Toms. Obama even ran into that wall when he pointed out blacks needed to take more responsibility for what happens in their community. Jessie wanted to pull his nuts off.

Now, does this mean there are no racist whites? No. There are a lot of them. One example is when whites point to the Harvrad Educated President, loving father of two, and still say he is no different than the Michael Browns of this world.

 

[jet57]

And yet Reagan inherited oil shortages, double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, and an economy that produced double digit unemployment rates and had to work with a mostly Democrat controlled Congress to do anything about it and, while the situation was not perfect, everything got better under his leadership. He made his mistakes, he did his trial and error with definitely mixed results, but ultimately ushered in the longest period of peacetime economic growth the nation had seen for a very long time and the over all positive indicator record bested Ford/Carter's record or Bush 41/Clinton's record in almost every category except in overall savings. Most of the hyperbole and negative rhetoric the left and even some on the right now like to repeat about the Reagan record and legacy is mostly myth and is easily dispelled by a careful analysis of the honest data.

But Reagan's best legacy was this:

In Ronald Reagan's two terms as president, he gave America a transfusion of his own optimism and hope. He enkindled a sense of the possible, rescuing America from defeatism and much of the world from tyranny. He restored our confidence in the presidency itself, proving that Jefferson's "splendid misery" could be simply splendid. And -- not coincidentally -- he helped create a safer, freer world. For that, his nation will be eternally grateful.--Ed Fuelner​

This is what I hope to accomplish by little by little, one heart and mind at a time, restoring the concept of social contract and faith that the people know what is best for themselves than any government entity can possibly know, and that the people are better able to deal with their unique problems than any one-size-fit-all government program can possibly address.

Ronald Reagan ran unemployment up to 10%, he put hundreds of thousands out of work due to his anti union policies, so job growth was a misnomer as people had to find work anywhere they could. Reagan stood watch over the finacilization of America and grew the government exponentially during his tenture and he spent more money than all the presidents before him combined: all of that is on the record and easily reseachable. He looked good and he sounded good, but he did nothing for this country. Carter wasn't much better; he was just a nice guy.

No, the damage that the Reagan / conservative revolution had on this country is precisely the reason that we're in the toilet today. The paradigm was shifted. Our social contract remained, but the commercial aspect was shifted away from protectionsim to social darwinsim. 60 Minutes just did a second report on how Wall Street and the stock market is a rigged game and that has happened as a result of lassiez faire for the last 30 years. What this and Magna Carta really shows is that monied interests can change anything to move in their favor and favor is what we're living with.

 

[jet57]

I can't find a single instance where Reagan invoked the leftist concept of a "social contract?"

I have already shown that the "Social contract" as such - dates to the 17th century was an impetus for our dieal and founding documents. How can you seriously go on with the "leftist fallacy"?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Ronald Reagan ran unemployment up to 10%, he put hundreds of thousands out of work due to his anti union policies, so job growth was a misnomer as people had to find work anywhere they could. Reagan stood watch over the finacilization of America and grew the government exponentially during his tenture and he spent more money than all the presidents before him combined: all of that is on the record and easily reseachable. He looked good and he sounded good, but he did nothing for this country. Carter wasn't much better; he was just a nice guy.

No, the damage that the Reagan / conservative revolution had on this country is precisely the reason that we're in the toilet today. The paradigm was shifted. Our social contract remained, but the commercial aspect was shifted away from protectionsim to social darwinsim. 60 Minutes just did a second report on how Wall Street and the stock market is a rigged game and that has happened as a result of lassiez faire for the last 30 years. What this and Magna Carta really shows is that monied interests can change anything to move in their favor and favor is what we're living with.

A good source for history and ability to put things into perspective would do wonders for a post like this.

 

[jet57]

A good source for history and ability to put things into perspective would do wonders for a post like this.

Taking the time to research what I said would do wonders for your understanding of said reality. Trust me; Reagan was no hero.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Then why didn't Reagan adopt the notion of a "social contract?" He didn't adopt it, because it is a flawed concept, leading to leftist weaknesses in thinking.

Reagan quite clearly understood the principle behind 'social contract' while it is pretty clear that you do not based on your posts thus far. The fact that he didn't use the term is because it is an academic term that the average person doesn't know or use in everyday conversation. And Reagan was pretty savvy in using language, metaphors, symbolism, and concepts that the average 'man on the street' was familiar with and would resonate with him.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Taking the time to research what I said would do wonders for your understanding of said reality. Trust me; Reagan was no hero.

I have researched stuff like what you posted about Reagan, and one has to be very tunnel visioned and refuse to put things into their proper context to not know that it is mostly crap. Ronald Reagan is a hero to me not because of how he governed. Others have done that as competently or better. He is a hero to me because he restored America's confidence in ourselves and our pride in our own industry and ability to make a better world for ourselves and others just by living our lives. He encouraged us to reinstate social contract and not look to government to fix what ails us. He didn't use the term. But he understood the principle.

 

[Respecthelect]

He didn't use the term.

He didn't use the term, because the term is inaccurate, improper and incorrect. He didn't call night, day. He didn't call up, down. He was a thinking, rational human being.

 

[jet57]

I have researched stuff like what you posted about Reagan, and one has to be very tunnel visioned and refuse to put things into their proper context to not know that it is mostly crap. Ronald Reagan is a hero to me not because of how he governed. Others have done that as competently or better. He is a hero to me because he restored America's confidence in ourselves and our pride in our own industry and ability to make a better world for ourselves and others just by living our lives. He encouraged us to reinstate social contract and not look to government to fix what ails us. He didn't use the term. But he understood the principle.

I did say that Regan sounded good; and he did - that was his job, however, a great many people found out very early what Reagan's agenda was all about, and we suffer from it to this very day. The - chaos - that Regan created drove a wedge very deep into this country and those facts that I related to you, as now, about Ronald Reagan are in context and are certainly not crap at all, but hard facts that are on the record. There is no tunnel vision at work at all, but a reality check on who and what Ronald Reagan really was to this country. You can call him a hero if you like, but I certainly won't.

 

[jet57]

He didn't use the term, because the term is inaccurate, improper and incorrect. He didn't call night, day. He didn't call up, down. He was a thinking, rational human being.

Fuuny how the facts just don't match your fallacy.

 

[AlbqOwl]

He didn't use the term, because the term is inaccurate, improper and incorrect. He didn't call night, day. He didn't call up, down. He was a thinking, rational human being.

You keep saying that but you have yet to rebut it with anything but repetitious rhetoric. And I won't respond further unless you have something to contribute to the discussion.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I did say that Regan sounded good; and he did - that was his job, however, a great many people found out very early what Reagan's agenda was all about, and we suffer from it to this very day. The - chaos - that Regan created drove a wedge very deep into this country and those facts that I related to you, as now, about Ronald Reagan are in context and are certainly not crap at all, but hard facts that are on the record. There is no tunnel vision at work at all, but a reality check on who and what Ronald Reagan really was to this country. You can call him a hero if you like, but I certainly won't.

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree about that. If you really want to discuss Ronald Reagan's policies why don't you start a thread about him and his policies and let's don't use that to derail this thread. I would be interested to discuss how Reagan's (or anybody else's) point of view promoted social contract or dismissed the philosophy.

 

[jet57]

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree about that. If you really want to discuss Ronald Reagan's policies why don't you start a thread about him and his policies and let's don't use that to derail this thread. I would be interested to discuss how Reagan's (or anybody else's) point of view promoted social contract or dismissed the philosophy.

Oh yeah, Reagan is off topic. I just used him as an example to refute that coservative guy. I think that Reagan did promte the social contract by inspiring individual responsibilities of being involved in government affairs.

 

[Respecthelect]

Why don't you simply call it the "socialist contract?" Let's be honest, that's where it's headed.

 

[Kurmugeon]

Why don't you simply call it the "socialist contract?" Let's be honest, that's where it's headed.

No, that's not what she means.

I'd be the first person to argue against the spread of socialism. But read carefully what she has said about her concept of the "Social Contract".

I think like the construct of "Foreign Aid", the Radical Lefties would misuse and abuse her concept of the "Social Contract" in a heartbeat, to the detriment of all, but then again, the Lefties are doing that now in dozens of ways...

In mathematical terms, as a model of society, what she is referring to would be called a "Strange Attractor" in fractal science.

She is talking about the self-perpetuating nature of human social organizing principle that creates stable societies with high levels of production specialization and trade.

She is talking about the opposite of anarchy and a society composed of isolated, independent, self-sufficient, but low specialization households, which happen to regionally co-exist.

It is a thing that occurs, and organizes what would otherwise be simple randomness, into a pattern which is greater than the sum of its parts. Yet it has no apparent functional locus, physical nature, medium, or concrete definition.

I understand the concept, and agree with her that it is both essential, natural, and good.

My only problem with her hopes for the "Social Contract", is that it cannot even begin to do its good, until the evils of the Progressive-Fascists, and their abuse of the Rule-of-Law, are dealt with...

-

 

[jet57]

Why don't you simply call it the "socialist contract?" Let's be honest, that's where it's headed.

You should read books. They will help you.

 

[Respecthelect]

No, that's not what she means.

I'd be the first person to argue against the spread of socialism. But read carefully what she has said about her concept of the "Social Contract"

She can ascribe any meaning she wishes, it won't stop liberals from rewriting any such "contract," once the term is accepted into the lexicon. Look at what they did with "living and breathing?" Few knew what liberals meant when they first introduced the term. We all thought, "sure, the constitution can be changed by amendment, therefore one might consider it living?" But, that's not what liberals intended at all. They intended and later put into practice, the notion that the words of the constitution were flexible. That they could be twisted to mean anything liberals wanted.

Liberal's suckered us once with this labeling trickery, but not again. The constitution is no contract. It must not be accepted as such, lest liberals unilaterally rewrite the contract, like Microsoft or Google do every month. Get the "socialist contract" notion out of your head, it will enslave you. Read Rules-for-Radicals to see how liberals twist language to accomplish their goals, before signing on to stupid and inaccurate characterizations of the relationship between citizen and state.

 

[Kurmugeon]

She can ascribe any meaning she wishes, it won't stop liberals from rewriting any such "contract," once the term is accepted into the lexicon. Look at what they did with "living and breathing?" Few knew what liberals meant when they first introduced the term. We all thought, "sure, the constitution can be changed by amendment, therefore one might consider it living?" But, that's not what liberals intended at all. They intended and later put into practice, the notion that the words of the constitution were flexible. That they could be twisted to mean anything liberals wanted.

Liberal's suckered us once with this labeling trickery, but not again. The constitution is no contract. It must not be accepted as such, lest liberals unilaterally rewrite the contract, like Microsoft or Google do every month. Get the "socialist contract" notion out of your head, it will enslave you. Read Rules-for-Radicals to see how liberals twist language to accomplish their goals, before signing on to stupid and inaccurate characterizations of the relationship between citizen and state.

As I stated, no good can come from the OP's concept of a "Social Contract" until the Progressive-Fascists are removed from power.

But little of any good from any quarter will be seen until the Progressive-Fascists are removed from power!

-

 

[jet57]

No, that's not what she means.

I'd be the first person to argue against the spread of socialism. But read carefully what she has said about her concept of the "Social Contract".

I think like the construct of "Foreign Aid", the Radical Lefties would misuse and abuse her concept of the "Social Contract" in a heartbeat, to the detriment of all, but then again, the Lefties are doing that now in dozens of ways...

In mathematical terms, as a model of society, what she is referring to would be called a "Strange Attractor" in fractal science.

She is talking about the self-perpetuating nature of human social organizing principle that creates stable societies with high levels of production specialization and trade.

She is talking about the opposite of anarchy and a society composed of isolated, independent, self-sufficient, but low specialization households, which happen to regionally co-exist.

It is a thing that occurs, and organizes what would otherwise be simple randomness, into a pattern which is greater than the sum of its parts. Yet it has no apparent functional locus, physical nature, medium, or concrete definition.

I understand the concept, and agree with her that it is both essential, natural, and good.

My only problem with her hopes for the "Social Contract", is that it cannot even begin to do its good, until the evils of the Progressive-Fascists, and their abuse of the Rule-of-Law, are dealt with...

-

Very well written.

Do you have anything credible to base this statement on?

My only problem with her hopes for the "Social Contract", is that it cannot even begin to do its good, until the evils of the Progressive-Fascists, and their abuse of the Rule-of-Law, are dealt with...

Your first mistake is that progressive fascist is an oxymoron.

 

[Respecthelect]

Your first mistake is that progressive fascist is an oxymoron.

Most progressives are fascists. The minor difference between a liberal and a progressive is the progressive intends to use private industry to do their bidding, while liberals feel free to scrap it and socialize directly. A minor distinction, but one that delineates fascism from communism-socialism.

 

[Kurmugeon]

Most progressives are fascists. The minor difference between a liberal and a progressive is the progressive intends to use private industry to do their bidding, while liberals feel free to scrap it and socialize directly. A minor distinction, but one that delineates fascism from communism-socialism.

While I agree with everything you've said in this post, this particular thread is NOT about that subject, and I won't aid in derailing an interesting thread on an important subject.

My comments on this thread are limited to the impact of the "Rule of Law", "Freedom of Markets" and "Liberty from Corrupt Government Coercion" impacts of the concept of the "Social Contract" as explained and described by the OP.

I would love to debate many people on the subject of Progressive-Fascism, but that is simply not allowed on this particular forum.

The Moderation on this forum has an agenda, and anyone who seeks to put forth Centrist or Libertarian Right concepts, in a logical and civil manner, will find their posts removed, derailed, or otherwise prevented from achieving a state of enlightened debate.

On the other hand, if you are a far right, racist wacko, you're views will be left on display for one and all.

This is an attempt to paint a particular false perception onto one camp of the political spectrum.

I cannot control it, and have given up trying to deal with the problems of this forum, hence I'm not afraid of the banning this particular post will likely cause.

Perhaps we can discuss the issue of Progressive-Fascism on some other forum with more freedom of speech.

-