The American “Social Contract”
Have you ever heard some lame-brain liberal talk about social welfare programs and entitlements as our “social contract” and wondered what in the hell they were talking about? I know I have. I’ve always asked myself who wrote this stupid contract and when in the hell I signed it.
Did their alleged social contract meet all the traditional legal requirements of a legitimate contract ;
An Offer, An Acceptance in strict compliance with the terms of the offer, Legal Purpose/Objective, Mutuality of Obligation – also known as the “meeting of the minds,” Consideration, Competent Parties?
I don’t think so, at least not with respect to the things Democrats typically talk about, such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, AFDC, housing subsidies, utility payment subsidies, and on and on and on – not that I remember anyway. Quite the contrary, the actual American social contract provides a way in which sovereign individuals maintain the preponderance of authority over, and responsibility for, their own lives with no level of government having the legal, moral or ethical authority to “spread the wealth.”
Of course, liberals are famous for saying one thing but doing another, as in this case where they talk about a nebulous, unwritten “social contract” while ignoring a very specific, well defined and written social contract.
Here is a little introduction to the philosophy of social contracts.
Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live. Socrates uses something quite like a social contract argument to explain to Crito why he must remain in prison and accept the death penalty. However, social contract theory is rightly associated with modern moral and political theory and is given its first full exposition and defense by Thomas Hobbes. After Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are the best known proponents of this enormously influential theory, which has been one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the modern West.
Let me give you a couple of quick examples of Democrats talking about the “social contract” as they see it – and Democrat proposal to steal money from one person to give to another, and then I’ll talk about our real social contract:
Here is part of a quote attributed to then candidate Barack Obama in 2008 by Christianitytoday.com:
“But we also know that Roe v. Wade is about more than a woman’s right to choose; it’s about equality,” Obama said. “It’s about whether our daughters are going to have the same opportunities as our sons. And so to truly honor that decision, we need to update the social contract so that women can free themselves, and their children, from violent relationships;
Did you notice his reference to “update the social contract …?” I did, and I remember wondering back then what in the world he was talking about, a “social contract?”
Here is a little tidbit from some group called Congress.org:
Rearguing the social contract
By CQ StaffIt’s easy to forget, with lawmakers arguing about a government shutdown, that the election of Barack Obama in 2008 cemented the notion for many Democrats that the country was moving back toward the traditions of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society and a reinvigorated American social contract, the old idea of shared support undergirded by the government.
Okay, so what is our American social contract? It is simply our Constitution. The Constitution of the United States meets every single demand of a legally binding contract as stated above, and it is very clear in its wording and meaning. It even includes a manner by which to “update” it, as then candidate Obama wanted to do, one might even say, fundamentally transform it and that is called the amendment process. We don’t just get to make crap up along the way as one party or the other wins an election. Even basic business contracts have to have formal modifications so everyone understands and buys into the changes.
A primary flaw with the way Democrats and other liberals think about “social contracting” is that it is based on which smooth talker wins an election and that is not our American system. In fact, that system was specifically rejected by our Founders when they wrote our Constitution. Our Founders gave us a lengthy, deliberative process that meets all of the basic contracting requirements.
Under the Democrat model they simply need enough willing accomplices in the courts and never bother the people, in whom all power and freedom are vested, with the mundane business of liberty and freedom.
And let’s get this canard out of the way right now; just because the most articulate attorney on any given day comes up with the latest-greatest way to sweet talk 9 men and women wearing long black robes to illegally expand the scope and power of the federal government doesn’t mean that we have legitimately amended our social contract and all Americans are bound by it – that isn’t at all how it works or was ever intended to work.
By that theory our Founders never needed to write a contract or constitution. They only needed to empower a few lawyers and justices instead of legislators and chief executives if that’s the system they had in mind.
And while we’re talking about the Supreme Court, it is part of our limited federal government and a thing created by otherwise free and sovereign individuals and limited by a written and well defined “social contract” has no inherent power or authority to become bigger than that which created it or to unilaterally change the definitions and philosophies by which it was created.
Shouldn’t it be considered a coup against the Constitution each and every time the Supreme Court changes by reinterpretation our Constitution in order to usurp additional powers and sovereignty from the People and the States? How in the world can a thing created by the States with only limited powers turn around and systematically enlarge itself without the approval of those who created it?
I’m sorry – but it is clear that the liberal idea of a social contract doesn’t meet the philosophies and ideals of America’s actual social contract – The Constitution of the United States.
June 18th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
The “contract” portion of it is the implied agreement that you (or an individual) WILL adhere to “laws” and can reasonably depend on being protected from those who DON’T. (Or that the miscreants will be held accountable.)
One can see several ways in which our “social contract” has broken down; and from the GOVT end. Example: immigration.
July 27th, 2011 at 2:22 am
You are a douchebag.
July 27th, 2011 at 10:11 am
Well, I’ve been called worse by better people and I notice you didn’t have the guns to argue any of the factual points – just the lazy insults and crocadile tears.
But, thanks for stopping by Stevebussey.com!
August 9th, 2011 at 7:19 am
You have to be kidding if you don’t know what the social contract means. Our founders were profoundly influenced by the enlightenment and based much of our government on the social contract. Maybe you should read some of the books that influenced our founders. Books from authors such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and the Baron de Montesquieu. The social contract is where the founders gleaned our political system and it is pitiful that you do not know what liberals are referring to when they speak of the social contract.
August 9th, 2011 at 7:28 am
It is in no way ‘stealing money’ to give to another. It is helping to support our countrymen when and if they are in need. A society does well when the poor and most vulnerable are given help when needed. I am sure you have no problem with the policies that have redistributed wealth to the top and created the largest income gap in American history, do you? It does not benefit anyone to have Americans suffering. Do you really think we are looking at an even playing field in today’s economy where everyone has the same opportunities? You more than likely have the philosophy of the sociopath Ayn Rand where the rich deserve everything while the poor just need to work harder. People like that have no idea about human nature or how a society works.
August 9th, 2011 at 7:34 am
The heart of the idea of the social contract may be stated simply: Each of us places his person and authority under the supreme direction of the general will, and the group receives each individual as an indivisible part of the whole…
You have no idea what that means do you? No you will pervert it in someway to justify screwing over the poor and the elderly in order to fatten the pockets of yourself as well as the rest of the plutocracy.
August 9th, 2011 at 9:19 am
Michael: Thank you for taking the time to drop by and read Stevebussey.com and leave your comments; comments are a sure sign of passion and engagement, both of which are sorely needed in American politics. However, your comments have several fatal flaws:
Your first problem is that you apparently don’t realize when you and your political philosophies are being ridiculed with sarcasm so you incorrectly assume some intellectual and moral superiority. At one point in my life or another I have read the books and philosophies you spoke about, which leads me to your next problem;
I went to school in America before progressive Americans completely rewrote American history and when schools still taught it. So, I have also read the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers, Madison’s diary on the Constitutional Convention and many other debates and writings from our Founders so I know exactly what philosophies they believed in and which they codified in our Supreme Law of the Land – the Constitution, which leads to your next problem;
Your social contract premise as you apply it to America is fatally flawed. Our Founders certainly did not give us a government, a law or a country wherein “each of us places his person and authority under the supreme direction of the general will, and the group receives each individual as an indivisible part of the whole.” That is actually an episode from Star Trek – The Borg Collective. It is also the fundamental premise of Marxism.
To the contrary, our founders gave us a country found on the premise that each man is created equal, endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, and that to secure those rights governments are instituted among men and specifically rejected the collective philosophy of “social democracy” of which you speak in favor of a republic wherein the “supreme direction of the general will” has only limited delegated powers.
The 9th Amendment speaks directly against your beliefs; the enumeration of certain rights in this Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
When a government in America takes money by force to use for an illegal purpose, a purpose for which it has no legal, moral or ethical authority that most certainly is a theft even if that government has a legal authority to tax because in America our various levels of government are also limited by law in what they can do.
Another fatal flaw in your premise is that if the federal government doesn’t do it then it won’t or can’t be done, as in the elderly dying and the other usual hyperbole from political progressives. This country became the strongest, freest, richest and most advanced in the history of the world without all of the social welfare programs you seek and it is only since FDR that we have declined to become more like those countries from which we separated over two centuries ago.
Lastly, the government has not redistributed wealth and money to “the rich.” Tax breaks and tax cuts are not a form of wealth redistribution because they only allow people to keep their own money. It only becomes a problem if government spends more than it takes in as ours now does regularly since the advent of progressive socialism in America. To call someone keeping their own money a form of wealth redistribution is not only Marxist, but also morally reprehensible.