Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy recluse
I’m never sure what the contract in Social Contract theory states.
|
In very basic terms, the social contract is a concept explaining the relationship between individuals and centers of authority, usually governments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy recluse
It says, at least, that I agreed to do as society says, but does that conception of “what society says” the majority of the population, the majority of those who vote, the majority of those who have greater political clout? My argument is that any majority can be wrong, and I am raising instances where that is so.
|
This isn't something which can be put into "right" and "wrong" categories, because it goes to the personal preference of what government should be. You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but you shouldn't assume your opinion is right. I want single-payer healthcare, you, presumably, do not. Neither of us is right and neither of us is wrong. I have an opinion and you have a differing opinion. We can put our opinions to the test, we can try single-payer healthcare to see if it works. If it works my opinion will become fact and yours will become false (notice fact and false are not the same as right and wrong). Until we have the hard data, they're just opinions, possible avenues based on different political philosophy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy recluse
I assume that no contract can contain contradictions within it. I cannot have nor can I enforce a contract that says I must do x while at the same time I must not do x. Since, ownership seems to mean that one has the right of disposal over the thing he owns, and the social contract gives government the rights over an owner’s property, then there is a contradiction in the social contract.
|
Please cite a specific example of this seeming contradiction so I can address it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy recluse
The social contract is whimsical.
|
I believe John Locke will be disappointed to learn this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy recluse
You may own an African; you may not own an African. You may kill an Indian; you may not kill an Indian. Women may not vote; women may vote. You may consume alcohol; you may not consume alcohol; and then, you may again consume alcohol.
|
By whimsical, did you mean that the social contract changes over time? I certainly agree with that. Whimsical means playful or capricious, neither of which I would apply to the social contract as I understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy recluse
Our intention, I suppose, is always to improve the contract for the sake of the people, but (1) if the contract can be changed through majority opinion, then what stops us from changing it back so that we may again own Africans, kill Indians, etc.? (2) Since slavery really is wrong and it should be illegal whether the majority approves or not, then we have appealed to something much higher than the social contract. If I think slavery is wrong because that’s what the majority thinks, then I am following the social contract. If I think slavery is wrong in the U.S. in 1817, then I am denying the social contract.
|
I suspect you have more than just a passing understanding of the Constitution of the United States. The way our founding documents were drafted include a balance between majority rule and protections for minorities. As the document has evolved through amendments and court rulings, this has expanded to keep up with the times. Initially, slavery was allowed, but it was later disallowed because the minority required protection from the majority. Initially, women lacked the right to vote, but this was later rectified because the minority (50/50 in population, perhaps, but a minority when it came to political power) required protection from the majority. You can see a clear and magnificent trajectory of social evolution marked in part in the way our government and society function.
Speaking more specifically to what you posted, the law, which exists in part to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, keeps us from reverting to slave owners or perpetrators of genocide against the Native Americans. Slavery and genocide are both illegal, and there are judicial and law enforcement systems in place to prevent or punish those actions.
And please don't think I'm saying the social contract is always "right" (in my opinion). It's often wrong. Look at gay marriage. We're only just now seeing the tide turn against the bigots in the majority.
Do you remember what I said above?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Me
The nice thing about our system is that our system is a Republic, a social entity wherein the people are allowed the ability to change laws and redress the government, which creates and enforces the law. If you are no longer able to tolerate the system and the change you wish is highly unlikely, you also have the opportunity to opt out of the agreement and enter into a different one. Assuming the new government will have you, you can switch your citizenship.
|
I am working to change laws and redress the government regarding equal rights for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) individuals. I'm following my own advice, as it were. Because we exist in a republic wherein I and my fellow citizens have the right to change something because we feel it's unjust, I see an opportunity for progress and I fight for it. If, however, there were a fundamental problem with my country I was unable to tolerate living under and I could not possibly change, I would either have to learn to live with it or leave, would I not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy recluse
I think social contract theory is mistaken because it serves as no standard for judging right and wrong due to its whimsical nature. The standard for right and wrong goes beyond majority opinion so that the minority might be protected. And one instance of that protection for minorities is ownership.
|
Right and wrong are subjective terms. They imply opinion, not fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy recluse
No, please don't. I am much more interested in your conception or definition of "fairness." You have a concept of "fairness" in mind because you appeal to it. I am only asking what the concept is.
"Fairness" is difficult to understand because it takes different forms. I have two children, so I give each the same amount of cake. The older child complains that such is not fair because she is older. Since one child is 10 and the other child is 5, then the older child gets twice as much cake as the younger, in order to be fair. But then the younger child complains about fairness.
You say that the progressive tax is fair while alternatives are not fair. Is your conception of "fairness" tied to how you feel about the rich versus the poor? If your conception is how easy it is for someone to pay the tax, then should not be based on income at all; rather, it should be based on the ease of payment. I make the same amount of money now that I did ten years ago, but now that my children have left the nest paying taxes is much easier for me. It would still be easier for me to pay more even if I made far less than I did ten years ago.
So, what is your conception of "fairness"?
|
My conception of fairness in this case is equal burden. Not equal percentages of income, equal burden. I tried to make this as clear as I could above with the $250k vs. $25k incomes being equally taxed at 25%. You do see what I was trying to get at with that, right? While a flat tax seems equal at first glance, in actuality, it's regressive, which is unfair. A person making $25,000 a year, under a 25% tax rate, makes $18,750. A person making $250,000 a year, under a 25% tax rate, makes $187,500 a year. Who's life is more affected by this tax rate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy recluse
I have heard of this by listening to Paul Krugman and Nancy Pelosi, but I'm afraid I have no idea what it means. If the government gives Smith a food stamp worth $1, and Smith buys a loaf of bread (on sale) for $1, how does that transaction stimulate the economy beyond $1?
|
For every dollar's worth given out in the form of food stamps, the amount spent as a direct result of that stimulus is $1.73. The idea is to provide people with the means to be active in the economy again. There are generally two goals in giving money/resources to those in need: they get what they need, and they become a part of the economy again. Private charity is good at getting people what they need, but poor at also helping them become a part of the economy again. Tax breaks are good at helping people keep what they need (tax breaks for the poor, mind you), but they usually end up removing people even further from economic activity. Social programs should both provide people with the temporary assistance they require AND they should help to stimulate the economy. Food stamps and unemployment insurance are great at helping people out who are in need of temporary assistance, but it also helps the economy, far more than a tax break or a private charitable donation.
BTW, if I come off as snide, it's only because others who share your opinion have been incredibly rude to me in the past. I apologize if any of what I write comes off rude because that's only meant to be directed at those who were rude to me.