Mr Khan said:
The contract is much older than I. It is the foundation of democratic government, and a necessary element of society. |
The "social contract" is one of those terms from statists that really is flawed in so many ways.
The first, of course, is that you're using the social contract to justify the Government we suffer today. When the founders were creating the Federal Government, they had no intention of creating the leviathon that we have today (with the exception of loons like Hamilton... and even he may not have gone this far). You use it to justify actions that were clearly unconstitutional at the founding, to justify policies that many of the revolutionaries fought against. You use it to justify actions which cripple future generations and external nations (ie, medicare and social security).
The second is the word "contract" it is not a contract. Contracts are voluntary, the social contract is not. Hell, we're not even told about this so called contract until we start questioning things. It's like moving into a new house, and your neighbour demanding payments because that's the lunacy that the last occupier agreed to, you ask why, and he responds "duh, communal contract, you agreed by living here, and nobody told you about it". Wouldn't hold up in court, and the only reason your version has any backing is because the state has the biggest guns. In your mind, that makes it moral.
The third is that it obviously isn't "social". How can taking property from one (usually non-politically-connected) person, and handing it to another (usually politically connected) be deemed "social" in any way? Social, to me, sounds more like it should be about voluntary transaction... that certainly sounds more social to me. Your idea seems very individualistic, very dog-eat-dog. I want something, I don't have to produce something of equal subjective value... I can just take it (albeit via a proxy).
