Is the Social Contract Dead?

Came across a pretty interesting argument on Twitter that I thought would make for rather interesting discussion in these parts.  I present it with no further commentary:

(more below the fold)






Well, what do you think?

8 comments:

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Well, we have always had people saying stupid and evil things in this country, some of them in positions of power and influence, but somehow have muddled along. The system was designed to function even when people are not angels. It is not infinitely flexible in that way, and I fear we are testing some boundaries of that now.

This level of corruption is not new, it's just we didn't know about it in years past. The presidents between Lincoln and Roosevelt pretty consistently shrugged at corruption so long as America seemed to be moving forward in some way.

E Hines said...

Couple things on this. One is what I've always said: it's up to We the People, not to the folks in Congress. In a few months, we'll have an opportunity to correct the thing. Quitters like Chambers just chap my ass; they're a greater threat to our nation, to our social contract, than anything those in government are doing. Quitters are worse than Benedict Arnolds or Quislings.

That brings me to my other thing. Every social contract is only as strong as its members choose to make it. The contract depends on the members' willingness to adhere to it, and that adherence is always and everywhere a purely voluntary thing.

A bonus third thing: I decline to go gentle into Chambers' good night. Our social contract is not dead until we say it is dead. Quitters have nothing to say on the matter. Although, if Chambers, et al., honor their own commitment and stay under their beds on election day, that'll have the beneficial outcome of clarifying the vote pool, if not the gene pool.

Eric Hines

Grim said...

I don't know that "Quitters" is a proper term for this sort of movement, unless Washington was a quitter; in which case, maybe it's not such a bad thing to be a quitter. (I think also of the joke about the drunkard who refuses to join AA, because 'I'm not a quitter!')

What would be wise, though, is to limit the protest to one in which one is not yielding power. By all means vote; serve on juries. But perhaps stop accepting some of their claims to power over you, at least until they begin behaving as if they recognized reciprocal obligations.

E Hines said...

The social contract is dead.

That's not a willingness to vote, serve on juries, etc while refusing to accept some claims to power over one.

It's not remotely close to Washington's string of decisions. It's straight up quitting. Everything he says after that has no meaning since he's quit on the social contract that makes the actions he cites abuses.

Eric Hines

ymarsakar said...

That's what secession meant in 1860. They quit the Union. Shrugs.

ymarsakar said...

People have been going Galt, Mormon, Amish, for some time now.

It never has gotten all that popular because of "friction" and fog in war. People prefer the mainstream culture as it has the least amount of friction. A principle the melting pot takes advantage of.

The system created by the Founding Fathers is over ruled and reset by the other systems created by both evil men/women and the Divine system which trumps them all. There's way too many parameters for human IQ to figure out, even if that IQ is better than 99.99% of the human race. The human race is foolishness compared to the power and wisdom of a god.

Jared A. Chambers said...

You get the idea. Eric doesn't.

His denial that we're past where elections alone matter in expressing our will as citizens won't suddenly make them matter.

Jared A. Chambers said...

"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?! Hell no... It ain't over now!" --Eric Hines, probably