AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@parados,

parados wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

Yup. This is definitely how I see social contract. Did you miss the part that it of necessity is determined by consent of the governed? How many Citizen A's do you think consented to Citizen B's deciding how much of Citizen A's property Citizen B should be entitled to?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Who gets to decide what that social compact will be? Citizen A whose property is at risk? Or Citizen B who will receive it?

Citizen A decides.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

LOL.. So now you are changing the number of citizen A's and B's? I thought we couldn't do that in your hypothesis.

Citizen A can accept it nor not. "Consent of the governed" does have a meaning. If he doesn't accept it then he has to change the social contract because he no longer consents. If he doesn't consent then there is no confiscation of A's property, is there?

If A allows your hypothesis to go forward than he has consented thus making any argument that he didn't consent moot.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Who gets to decide what that social compact will be? Citizen A whose property is at risk? Or Citizen B who will receive it?
Citizen A decides.

So if Citizen A decides that there is no moral principle that justifies the government taking his/her property and giving that property to Citizen B, what do you say to Citizen A. How is he wrong?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

LOL.. So now you are changing the number of citizen A's and B's? I thought we couldn't do that in your hypothesis.

Citizen A can accept it nor not. "Consent of the governed" does have a meaning. If he doesn't accept it then he has to change the social contract because he no longer consents. If he doesn't consent then there is no confiscation of A's property, is there?

If A allows your hypothesis to go forward than he has consented thus making any argument that he didn't consent moot.

No dear I'm not changing anything. Citizen A represents the property owner. Citizen B represents the people government chooses to subsidize for whatever reason.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

As I said, he can accept or not. His choice. If he doesn't accept he can leave or he can overthrow the government. He has no other choices.

The problem is that once A decides to not accept it, his actions are no longer legal and your hypothesis falls apart. If he accepts it as you stated then he has made the social contract to allow it to happen.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

LOL.. So now you are changing the number of citizen A's and B's? I thought we couldn't do that in your hypothesis.

Citizen A can accept it nor not. "Consent of the governed" does have a meaning. If he doesn't accept it then he has to change the social contract because he no longer consents. If he doesn't consent then there is no confiscation of A's property, is there?

If A allows your hypothesis to go forward than he has consented thus making any argument that he didn't consent moot.

I can't say how much of my property the government can take from me in taxes. Nor is there any provision in the law that allows me to say what the taxes I pay will be used for. How about you?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

How many Citizen A's do you think consented to Citizen B's deciding how much of Citizen A's property Citizen B should be entitled to?

"How many" implies MORE than one.

The fact that you now have more than one Citizen A and you earlier stated that you think a social contract only applies to democracies implies that there MUST be more Citizen B's since you are arguing citizen B's decided how much property should be taken from Citizen A. I don't know how else to read it Fox. Maybe you can explain "how many" citizen A's you meant in asking that question.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

I can't say how much of my property the government can take from me in taxes. Nor is there any provision in the law that allows me to say what the taxes I pay will be used for. How about you?

I get to vote. If I don't like what someone I voted in did, I get to vote them out.

If the government raises taxes too high, it gets voted out. History is there for all to see Fox. It's the argument the GOP makes every election cycle. Sometimes the majority agrees taxes are too high. Sometimes they don't. If you don't like what the majority votes in you can leave the US or overthrow the government or you can accept the social contract and agree to the taxation.

Please don't tell me you have no say in what the government does. You have as much say as anyone in this country. Our social contract is we elect people to decide our tax rates and our expenditures.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

As I said, he can accept or not. His choice. If he doesn't accept he can leave or he can overthrow the government. He has no other choices.

The problem is that once A decides to not accept it, his actions are no longer legal and your hypothesis falls apart. If he accepts it as you stated then he has made the social contract to allow it to happen.

But let's do try to focus here. I'm not asking what Citizen A can or cannot do here. I am asking what moral principle is involved that would justify the government confiscating Citizen A's property and giving it to Citizen B.

You said it was a social contract that makes it moral. I'm saying Citizen A did not agree to that social contract. And you are saying that Citizen A can then overthrow the government or leave?

I can't see how a social contract not agreed to by all parties can be judged to be moral. As Blatham pointed out earlier, slavery was a social contract at one time but the slaves rightfully didn't think they were a part of that.

Nor does Citizen A think he is a part of a social contract established by Citizen B when Citizen B outnumbers Citizen A and votes to take Citizen A's property for the benefit of Citizen B. What moral principle can Citizen B offer as justification for doing that?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

I can't say how much of my property the government can take from me in taxes. Nor is there any provision in the law that allows me to say what the taxes I pay will be used for. How about you?

This takes us to where you are going Fox.

You want to be exempted from the social contract when things don't go your way but you don't have the guts to take the action required to change the social contract.

You can leave or you can revolt.

You don't get to force the majority to cater to your selfish* ideas just because you don't like the social contract.

(* "selfish" is not meant as monetarily selfish.)

1 Reply

@parados,

Okay add Parados to the list of those who don't have a clue what this discussion is about. And ignoring further comments until he gets through his tantrum and personal insults. We'll be glad to have you back when you are at least attempting to enter into the discussion though.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Okay add Parados to the list of those who don't have a clue what this discussion is about. And ignoring further comments until he gets through his tantrum and personal insults. We'll be glad to have you back when you are at least attempting to enter into the discussion though.

Who is 'we?'

What a joke you are, Fox. Every time someone starts exposing your logical problems, you declare that they 'don't know what the conversation is about.' You then retreat behind the shield of 'I'm being personally insulted!'

Over and over again, the same behavior...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Okay it is pretty obvious that the liberals can't or won't answer the question if they even are able to understand it at all. Some do get even more abrasive and frantic as we go along though, don't they?

So are there any conservatives listening in who will offer an opinion here?
Is there a moral justification for the government taking property from Citizen A who legally and ethically acquired it and giving that property to Citizen B who didn't? If so, what is that moral justification?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

You need to research "social contract" Fox. You are using it incorrectly.

By staying Citizen A is agreeing to the social contract. One can disagree with the government's actions but by not doing anything they are agreeing to the social contract.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Okay it is pretty obvious that the liberals can't or won't answer the question if they even are able to understand it at all. Some do get even more abrasive and frantic as we go along though, don't they?

So are there any conservatives listening in who will offer an opinion here?
Is there a moral justification for the government taking property from Citizen A who legally and ethically acquired it and giving that property to Citizen B who didn't? If so, what is that moral justification?

I don't know why I'm such a masochist.

Yes, there is a moral justification: our country has determined that the poor or disadvantaged need assistance to survive in our society, and that one of the ways to address this is through refundable tax credits, which is what you are talking about, right Fox? It's part of our social contract. Morally, citizens are required to follow the social contract. Easy as pie.

Your error - one of your errors - is that you seem to think that you can accept parts of the social contract, but not others, as a citizen. This is untrue. You are bound by the social contract no matter how much of it you disagree with. Parados correctly pointed out that you only have three options:

1, work to change the laws while still complying with them currently.

2, leave the country.

3, break the law.

Fox, I'd like you to make an affirmative statement for once instead of this endless dancing: if you don't think there's any moral basis for wealth redistribution, then just say so.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I see. So if you don't understand the concept then you won't talk to me until I don't understand it either?

my personal insults? You are too funny Fox.

Quote:

Okay add Parados to the list of those who don't have a clue what this discussion is about.

I suppose you don't consider that to be an insult. Rolling Eyes

What was my personal insult other than saying that an idea that you reserve to yourself is "selfish." Are you saying that the idea is not yours?

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

You need to research "social contract" Fox. You are using it incorrectly.

By staying Citizen A is agreeing to the social contract. One can disagree with the government's actions but by not doing anything they are agreeing to the social contract.

Unless they take your suggeston to overthrow the government or leave, there is nothing they can do if Citizen Bs outnumber Citizen As and Citizen Bs decide to take Citizen A's property. Social contract is the basis by which government is established. If Citizen B changes the rules after the fact and without Citizen As consent, it is reasonable to say that there is no social contract.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Okay it is pretty obvious that the liberals can't or won't answer the question if they even are able to understand it at all. Some do get even more abrasive and frantic as we go along though, don't they?

Please point out where I was abrasive. I would love to see what you think is an attack on you personally vs what is a deconstruction of your theories.

The question was answered. You don't like or don't understand the answer. Based on the concept of social contracts it is moral if A accepts it. If A doesn't accept it then your hypothesis about A being legal is no longer valid.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Wrong.

Changing of laws does not mean the social contract has changed. The social contract can be one of HOW the laws are created.

Let's look at a simple example.
Some people think abortion is immoral. Those people have a social contract with the US to abide by laws and accept rulings of the USSC. They don't like the ruling in Roe but they accept the social contract and abide by it. They can work to change the laws within their social contract but it doesn't mean they no longer have the social contract.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know