« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2024, 06:20:46 AM »
Dale Eastman Listen. It's Saturday and I just woke up. I will answer your 'challenge' later today. But if you're going to be a persistent piss-ant and keep badgering me after the fact with repeated posts like you have been, it will be the last response I give to you and I'll just block you. I will get to you if and when I feel it is important. You're not important to me and I don't owe you any of my time. Because I said I will probably respond to your message, I will do so. But it will be when I feel like it and I shouldn't be harassed over it. If you're like this with everything, I have to imagine that you don't have very many friends.
I thought you had written a longer question than this. Is this all there was? If so, here is my answer:
Before I get to my answer, I think it is imperative to have a firm understanding of what a social contract is and why it comes into existence. It was my desire to explain this in more detail that caused me to delay responding entirely because it's not something that can be easily put to words. Admittedly, I am also a bit rusty on the details. Much of the works involved are things that I have not read since college. So I wanted to go back and familiarize myself with the details. And frankly, I didn't know if I wanted to spend that much time trying to educate somebody that I don't really know, especially when I work as much as I do.
This is not to be a comprehensive treatise on the social contract theory. That would take far too long. The short version should probably begin with Thomas Hobbes. I read his book, The Leviathan, many years ago. And while I initially balked at some of his concepts, they eventually made a great deal of sense to me. I certainly do not agree with everything that he said. For instance, he believes that, in most cases, a sovereign entity should have basically unlimited authority. He believes that a monarchy is the best form of government. Because not every king can be Plato’s ‘Philosopher King’, I don't agree with that. But one thing that I do believe in is his view of the world without government. Life is short and brutish. That is the way the natural world is. In his world, natural rights can only be described as unlimited freedom to do anything that is within your power. This includes the freedom that I might have to steal from others or to kill them.
This has been the way of the world for much of human history. However, a social contract can form when people come together as a group and sacrifice certain of their rights to the new sovereign that they create. John Locke did not believe that the sovereign should have unlimited power. Rather, he believed that the power of the sovereign should be more limited. For instance, it should have the right to engage in taxation in order to fulfill its duties. It should also, most importantly, have a monopoly on force, or what many would consider to be violence. By participating in a social contract, we are individually sacrificing our rights to avoid taxation and to engage in violence so that we can know that we are being protected by the sovereign.
When it comes to our founding documents, the Constitution, in Article VI, specifies that everything within the Constitution, as well as any laws and treatises made by the US, are the ‘supreme law of the land’. The Preamble of the Constitution specifies that, ‘We the people of the United States… establish this Constitution for the United States of America’. And the 14th Amendment specifies that pretty much anybody born or naturalized to the United States of America is a U.S. citizen. So by that extension, everybody who is a citizen of the country has been considered as granting authority to the government that we have created. And we agree to abide by the laws set forth by it. The consideration that we are giving up is that we are sacrificing any of those natural rights that the laws prohibit (like murdering or stealing). If you have any doubt that we are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the US, then the Supreme Court case, Wong Kim Ark, provides immense clarity in that regard. When it comes to consenting to the contract, the view that John Locke had was that you always have the ability to withdraw that consent. But it necessitates you leaving this system entirely. The reason why I bring up John Locke is because he was incredibly influential to the thinking of the founding fathers that ultimately resulted in the creation of the Constitution.
I appreciate the time you spent composing a reply.
The problem I have with that reply is you did NOT answer my challenge.
I will chalk that up to a communication error.
You and I do NOT see the same definitions for certain words being used.
There are some who believe the 'government' gets its alleged authority from a Social Contract. This alleged contract does not exist because it does not have the minimum elements required to be a valid contract. There are four basic elements required in order for a contract to exist. These elements are: an offer; a consideration; an acceptance; and a mutual agreement (a meeting of minds).
An offer is a conditional promise. What did the 'government' offer (promise) you?
A consideration is a thing (of value) given in exchange for the offer. What did the 'government' ask of you in return (consideration) of what the 'government' promised you?
An acceptance of an offer is an expression of assent to its terms. Can you express assent to the terms of an offer when no terms have been presented to you? When did you assent to the terms of this alleged Social Contract?
A mutual agreement or meeting of minds exists when both parties understand and agree to the terms of the contract. Can you understand and agree to the terms of a contract when no such terms have been presented to you?
In reality, the Social Contract is merely a Theory. This theory alleges that humans gave authority to the 'government' in return for the 'government's' protection.
Even if the Social Contract was an actual contract, The 'government' has voided the contract by failing to perform its reciprocal duties. On the previous page, under the heading of The Truth of Government, you will find cited examples where 'government' has actually done the damage the myth of government alleges 'government' exists to protect us from.
This Social Contract Theory as set out by John Locke, and Thomas Hobbes before him, was in essence, an attempt to make it appear that those under the Ruler's Rules (the king's edicts) at that point in time consented to both the Ruler and the Rules.
Locke's Social Contract Theory is the basis for the Consent Of The Governed phrase found in the Declaration of Independence. The Consent Of The Governed is just another artifice that attempts to make it appear that those under the Ruler's Rules consented to both the Ruler and the Rules.
I was VERY SPECIFIC in my challenge:
Assuming arguendo that your opinion is a fact, please cite (copy-paste) just one paragraph or sentence of this alleged contract's terms that tell me or any other individual human what we are expected to give up in exchange for what this contract promises in return to us humans.
I do believe I could argue that the Constitution meets the four elements of a contract, but I honestly don't want to spend that much time on that much minutiae. Instead, I will ask you a question and then I will answer, again, your question.
Question: Under whose authority does your definition of the elements of a contract come from? In a world without laws, there is no authoritative body that determines what is, or is not, a contract. If you're looking at it from a philosophical viewpoint, there are different views of how many different elements of a contract exist. I have found up to 7 when searching for it and as few as 4. At the end of the day, it is subjective what constitutes a valid contract if there is no law determining what is, or is not, a contract. Yeah, I could coerce you into a contract and most people would argue that it's not valid. But if there is nothing set in stone and enforced, it is subjective whether it is valid or not.
Answer: While it is not spelled out in a single sentence or paragraph that I am aware of, the Constitution. But anybody that has dealt with contracts a ton (and I have) knows that things aren't often spelled out so easily. The Preamble, Article VI, and the 14th Amendment, combined, can only be interpreted as requiring that we sacrifice certain of our natural rights to the system in exchange for what we receive. I would also reject the notion that our government has rendered the social contract void.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2024, 02:31:38 PM by Dale Eastman »
Natural Law Matters
