Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Our system of government is based on the social contract. Jefferson stated that, "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." My question is, when did you sign this social contract? Do you still have a copy?
To an extent. You still rely upon the military and police protection of the central government to keep other countries and agents from simply annexing Alaska and moving in settlers.
Our government is allowing the annexing of our bordering states to mexico and seem to be doing little about it. So much for the government doing its job!
Our government is allowing the annexing of our bordering states to mexico and seem to be doing little about it. So much for the government doing its job!
The way we annexed South Florida to Cuba, and Hawaii to Japan, and Manhattan to Israel?
To me it is not a formal form you signed. I forgot the philosopher that brought up that political expression, Lock? If I recall correctly it simply means that since we live as societies there are implied compromises so we can live in as best a harmonious life as possible thus the social contract. It is an implied contract in my own words
This social contract in my opinion does keep changing as we as a society change just as Jefferson also wrote thus laws may change to keep up with us. This contract will never satisfy every single citizen because each one of us will demand things from our government and our fellow citizens others will not agree with and vice versa.
You have a great day.
El Amigo
Yes, that's correct although and it should be noted that Thomas Jefferson largely used Locke's Theory of Government when writing the Declaration of Independence.
Locke brought up one of the key questions and answers to this OP when he first depicted "man in the natural state." The "natural state" meant that when we are born, say, completely free of government (like in our hunter/gatherer days) - we could do whatever we pleased as we were all entirely equal in the first place. We could rape, pillage, loot, burn, steal and there would be nothing to stop it. On the other hand, we could lead peaceful lives and try to make a living for ourselves in an honest fashion.
However, as Locke mused, because the things we hold valuable become so vulnerable in this entirely "free" world, it becomes nearly impossible to protect our lives, liberties and estates (properties). This near impossibility is the reason, Locke philosophized, why we erect governments.
The necessity to erect governments, is as Locke suggested, to keep out lives, liberties and estates protected. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he altered Locke's proscription of life, liberty and estates and changed it to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as being our unalienable rights as men.
The way I view government, and the way I hoped Thomas Jefferson intended it to be meant when he wrote what our unalienable rights were, was that the government works for me - the common citizen. Everything the government does should be to protect and serve my unalienable rights as man.
I shouldn't think either those of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party would disagree with those philosophies. That is, in essence, the theory and reasoning of government provided by Locke and reiterated by Thomas Jefferson. Where things begin to go awry is in how people determine what the best benefit from the government is in order to protect their lives, liberties and their pursuits of happiness.
Some feel the best way for government to provide the utmost amount of our unalienable rights is by having as minimal a presence as possible. Whereas some feel bigger and larger governments, despite the incessantly nagging bureaucratic garbage that comes along with it, do a better job at issuing us our unalienable rights.
I'm one who feels that larger government is good to a point for the specific reasons stated above. However, I also feel like our government is so bloated with bureaucratic nonsense (this stems way back before the 20th century, by the way) that the things meant to be good for us turn into warped and twisted scriptures of embezzlement and fraud by our very own government officials.
If you ask me, the country does not have a Republican problem and it does not have a Democrat problem. It has a lawyer and special interest groups problem.
If you ask me, the country does not have a Republican problem and it does not have a Democrat problem. It has a lawyer and special interest groups problem.
Your thesis was very well put.
"Special interest groups", of course, is just a euphemism for the greedy, rapacious and powerhungry, which is exactly the group that government was erected to defend us against.
I'm less of a believer in political theory (the social contract) than I am in real politik.
Here's reality:
1. We can't have some people obeying the laws and others not obeying them.
2. We have laws to keep certain behaviors under control
3. No society on earth functions without police, prisons, and courts.
4. Economic prosperity depends on stability. The institutions in 4, assure stability.
5. John Locke lived 300 years ago and had a nice theory. Its nothing more than that
If you want to quote Locke or other political philosophers to me its fine. Government today isn't really about what either Locke, Jefferson, or anyone wrote 300 years ago. Its about the challenges of managing 300 million people and assuring that their needs for food, water, shelter, security, and economic prosperity are met.
If you want to quote Locke or other political philosophers to me its fine. Government today isn't really about what either Locke, Jefferson, or anyone wrote 300 years ago. Its about the challenges of managing 300 million people and assuring that their needs for food, water, shelter, security, and economic prosperity are met.
But it's nice to know what they thought, though, so you aren't re-inventing the wheel when the government is taken over by interview guests from the E! Network.
I'm less of a believer in political theory (the social contract) than I am in real politik.
Here's reality:
1. We can't have some people obeying the laws and others not obeying them.
2. We have laws to keep certain behaviors under control
3. No society on earth functions without police, prisons, and courts.
4. Economic prosperity depends on stability. The institutions in 4, assure stability.
5. John Locke lived 300 years ago and had a nice theory. Its nothing more than that
If you want to quote Locke or other political philosophers to me its fine. Government today isn't really about what either Locke, Jefferson, or anyone wrote 300 years ago. Its about the challenges of managing 300 million people and assuring that their needs for food, water, shelter, security, and economic prosperity are met.
Quote:
Sect. 8. And thus, in the state of nature, one man comes by a power over another; but yet no absolute or arbitrary power, to use a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats, or boundless extravagancy of his own will; but only to retribute to him, so far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint: for these two are the only reasons, why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment. In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which isS that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tye, which is to secure them from injury and violence, being slighted and broken by him. Which being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the law of nature, every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one, who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like mischief. And in the case, and upon this ground, every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of nature.
Its found in Chapter 2.
In fact, everything you have up there is found in John Locke. Everything.
I should add, the social contract is that one gives up the right to play vigilante and hands that power over to the police and the courts.
Further, Locke's concept of usurpation and abuses is vital today. You have to be able to prove it. That's why Jefferson's version of the Declaration had to be rewritten. For a revolution to occur or rather the right to a revolution, you have to have those present. Otherwise, you have nothing.
Last edited by Pandamonium; 09-05-2009 at 08:07 PM..
Our system of government is based on the social contract. Jefferson stated that, "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." My question is, when did you sign this social contract? Do you still have a copy?
Incorrect.
The republican form of government is based on the people's sovereignty.
Only those who give consent, are governed.
No one should be compelled to labor for the benefit of another - that's involuntary servitude - and unconstitutional.
However, the majority of Americans "volunteered" via application for an account and number with Socialist InSecurity.
There is no law that compels all Americans to participate, nor is there any law that punishes Americans who do not participate.
Voluntary servitude is 100% constitutional.
But if fraud was used to get your consent, you have the right to object.
Just Say NO! to Socialism.
----------------------
As promised in Art.4, Sec.4, USCON:
"GOVERNMENT (Republican Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
