Social Contract. It's what the fighting is all about.

[WingDinger]

We should dispense with the preliminaries, and affix our bayonettes. The right intends to smash the social contract.

Yes, this includes ending representation for you. If you are not for authoritarian dictation{malign neglect} of what constitutes your just desserts. All the rest is just details.
----------------------------------------------------------

The social contract is an intellectual device intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm.[citation needed]

Social contract theory played an important historical role in the emergence of the idea that political authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. The starting point for most social contract theories is a heuristic examination of the human condition absent from any political order, usually termed the “state of nature”. In this condition, individuals' actions are bound only by their personal power and conscience. From this shared starting point, social contract theorists seek to demonstrate, in different ways, why a rational individual would voluntarily give up his or her natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order.

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

Heres where Ron Paul comes in:


Voluntarism According to the will theory of contract, a contract is not presumed valid unless all parties agree to it voluntarily, either tacitly or explicitly, without coercion. Lysander Spooner, a 19th century lawyer and staunch supporter of a right of contract between individuals, in his essay No Treason, argues that a supposed social contract cannot be used to justify governmental actions such as taxation, because government will initiate force against anyone who does not wish to enter into such a contract. As a result, he maintains that such an agreement is not voluntary and therefore cannot be considered a legitimate contract at all.

[Trajan]

1. This reads like a PRO Ron Paul statement ....

Hmmmm ...

[WingDinger]

2. Defining Ron Paul does not imply agreement.

The power Ron Paul wields, is that libertarianism is the intellectual underpinnings of where Rethugs are coming from.

[Trajan]

4. There is not enough refutation of Paul's position in your statements ...

It's as if you intend to introduce Paul's philosophy, here, without proving any refutation of that philosophy ....

The proof is in the pudding, and this pudding is definitely an assertion of Paul's view without a counter view .....

Good enough for me ...

[WingDinger]

7. It is important to understand where the right is coming from. So as to better defend against their

onslaught. Slogans at some level dont cut it. We need to vanquish them philosophically.

I am not here to tell you how to think. But bringing up the bright line, and providing background.

If you have some issue this background reveals, I will debate it.

[SixthSense]

3. What social compact?

The only part of the social contract left is the one where the little guy absorbs the losses of the big players.

All the rest of it - rights, justice, etc. - that's long been out the window. We're not living under a social contract, we're living under a system of detente.

[rfranklin]

5. In the history of society, voluntary contracts have been rare...

Usually the "social contracts" were forced on people on lower rank under threat of starvation or execution.

[WingDinger]

10. Social contracts ARE forced on you. It is referred to as implied consent. Usually by your birthplace

It's where that tired refrain form the right comes from, in ironic fashion. If you dont like living here, then leave..

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Fuck Ron Paul.

And also, fuck those who promote him, here, there or anywhere.

[WingDinger]

8. If it is not apparent, I am dragging him thru the mud.

I just figgered the FUCK was implied.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Then take no offense when I repeat

Fuck Ron Paul.

[WingDinger]

11. This is one of the most contentious points.

The central assertion of social contract approaches is that law and political order are not natural, but are instead human creations.

When the right asserts that the FREE MARKET, or natural freedom will create utopia, they ignore human nature. When they assert that if a right is not natural{issued by the creator at human birth}as alluded to {by their creator}it is illegitimate, they are on shaky ground.

[WingDinger]

12. And another.

For many social contract theorists, this implies that failings discovered in laws or political structures can be changed by the citizens through elections or other means, including, if necessary, violence.

When you limit rights to those God gave you, there obviously is no arguing towards updating them.