By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Roll back Reagan tax cuts.

killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:

You can vote, or you can leave (though leaving violates terms of the contract as well, leading to large asset forfeiture)

then i suggest you leave, if you are going to vote people into non-voluntary contracts of which the do not want.

The contract is much older than I. It is the foundation of democratic government, and a necessary element of society.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
 

You can vote, or you can leave (though leaving violates terms of the contract as well, leading to large asset forfeiture)

then i suggest you leave, if you are going to vote people into non-voluntary contracts of which the do not want.

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).



Mr Khan said:

You can vote, or you can leave (though leaving violates terms of the contract as well, leading to large asset forfeiture)

So because of this "social contract" that I was born into and have no choice but to accept, I can either go along with it, or I can leave and be forced to give up a large portion of my property because I violated this contract that I was born into and was never capable of declining?

How is this at all a good argument for why the social contract is valid? Surely I should have to accept this contract before I'm bound by it. If I disagree with the terms of this "contract" that I was born into, surely I should be free to leave without punishment. After all, I never chose where I was born, and I never even agreed to the contract. 

And if the "social contract" is determined by social majority, what happens when society changes? Then this contract changes depending on the time (or region) you live in, and your continued agreement to this contract is implied by your continued living where you are. And if a social contract has existed at every time in history, like in pre Civil War US, what does that say about this contract? It's completely arbitrary and can be used to legitimize some truly horrible things.



Having been to Denmark as one of my best friends is from there I think the biggest difference on viewing taxes is they see the value in what they spend. He got paid (!!!) to go to University and got a Master's Degree and found a good job. Yes, he gets taxed half his income, but he feels in such debt to his country he said he'd pay 60% in a heartbeat to simply secure the standard they have.

From my visits I'd describe the Danes as a content people with reasonable view of cost of society. They don't lust after the material wealth we have and managed while having all these programs and still managed to pay off all their foreign debt this past decade.

I will say that going from a small homogeneous culture to a massive broad one may see very different results, but I'd be lying if I didn't wish we had a bit of the Danish mentality in us.



SamuelRSmith said:
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).

The founding was 224-225 years ago. Things change. No philosophy is set to endure through all ages, and the 2nd Amendment is biggest proof of that, since the word "militia" is in the name, an artifact of an older time that is no longer needed.

The people "should" ideally assent to this situation. That they do not has shown a failure of education and socialization.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
Mr Khan said:

The founding was 224-225 years ago. Things change. No philosophy is set to endure through all ages, and the 2nd Amendment is biggest proof of that, since the word "militia" is in the name, an artifact of an older time that is no longer needed.

The people "should" ideally assent to this situation. That they do not has shown a failure of education and socialization.


You're right, the state's propaganda factories fail at that... which shouldn't come as a surprise.



SamuelRSmith said:
Mr Khan said:

The founding was 224-225 years ago. Things change. No philosophy is set to endure through all ages, and the 2nd Amendment is biggest proof of that, since the word "militia" is in the name, an artifact of an older time that is no longer needed.

The people "should" ideally assent to this situation. That they do not has shown a failure of education and socialization.


You're right, the state's propaganda factories fail at that... which shouldn't come as a surprise.

It shows the success of the propaganda-machines of the enemies of the people, if anything. Though that doesn't come as a surprise to me either.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Holy shit that was too long of an article.... this is a video game website post something more than just politics. Obviously you are voting for Obama... we get it



HappySqurriel said:
Mr Khan said:
Marks said:
How anyone can support high taxes just boggles my mind. It just does not compute with me...like trying to divide by zero.

Just because it's the government taking the money doesn't mean it isn't stealing.

It's called a social contract. The alternative is savagery.


Honestly, this kind of rhetoric isn't helpful ...

Most people on both sides of the political spectrum want to improve the standards of living of everyone but they have contrasting views on how to accomplish this. On the progressive end of the political spectrum they believe in a social safety net and eliminating the possibility of failure, while on the conservative end of the scale they believe in eliminating barriers to success.

Essentially, the response to the social contract is "You give a man a fish you feed him for a day, you teach a man to fish you feed him for life". Conservatives see the solution as finding a way to empower the "poor" to find work that pays well enough to support (and improve) their standard of living rather than subsidizing them staying unemployeed or in a low paying position. It is not savagery or uncaring, it is a different and completely valid perspective.

The social contract is a form of collective understandings of rights and duties in a society, with expected outcomes for compliance and non-compliance.  A society that lacks that either becomes one of EVERYTHING being legally binding contracts that get signed and have courts resolve, or one that is a savage state where noone trusts anyone.  This contract's enforcement usually comes about with the formation of government/the state, and laws.  Laws on the books limit the need for everything to be a contract signed on a personal level.

This contract can take a lot of forms, and have a wide range of taxes and tax rates.  The reality of the social contract can be one that assume training people to fish/get skills, to work.  But as part of the contract IS the assumption that if you play by the rules, you will get an expected outcome.  This is being lost today, and the debate now is over what role government plays in the social contract.  And there is also a BIG debate over what the social contract is and the values making it up.



killerzX said:
Mr Khan said:
Marks said:
How anyone can support high taxes just boggles my mind. It just does not compute with me...like trying to divide by zero.

Just because it's the government taking the money doesn't mean it isn't stealing.

It's called a social contract. The alternative is savagery.

i certainly didnt sign this contract.

what are the terms and conditions? can i re-negociate this contract.

i really really really dont like this non-voluntary contract.

It would be interesting to see you discuss things with John Locke. 

In regards to contracts, there are things called "common law marriages" where no contract is signed, no conditions were negotiated, and it just happened, and end result is a contractual relationship.  Consent can also be formed by what you do and remain complicient with.  And there is things where it isn't about what you alone decide but what others have.   Of course, private property is a BIG help to resolve this, but no guarantee private property resolves everything.

A big riddle though is how to make it work without coercion.   Fre societies need this, but humans will tend to only do things when pressured.