tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2064442310093151136.post1470643753681215775..comments2023-10-22T12:01:38.255-04:00Comments on Ryan J. Suto's Blog: The Social Contract RevisitedUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2064442310093151136.post-42187467128380959902012-08-25T19:58:56.522-04:002012-08-25T19:58:56.522-04:00Your waitress analogy misses the point. Going to a...Your waitress analogy misses the point. Going to a restaurant is voluntary. Abiding by the "social contract" is not. If a restaurant behaved like the government, they would claim ownership over a patch of land, force everyone within that land to eat their food, extort money out of people to pay for that food, and jail or murder anyone who refuses to pay. That's the absurdity and immorality of this institution we call "the government."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2064442310093151136.post-27733539133097114292012-07-18T10:07:13.200-04:002012-07-18T10:07:13.200-04:00I'll buy the Elisabeth Warren assertion when t...I'll buy the Elisabeth Warren assertion when they protect the rights of american workers, who pay taxes to protect business concerns domestically and abroad from harm, from unfair competition with countries and individuals who are on destitute footings. If Joe the plumber didn't build that, then Larry Ellison certainly didn't build Oracle, who outsources jobs and imports H1B workers in fields that most certainly do not have a lack of available personnel--only a price that he doesn't like. Now, I'll be happy to give him all the foreign workers and Mr Jobs all the Chinese factories they like, as long as we don't go protect them when some party member in China decides to find Apple 'at fault for corruption' and confiscate all of its intellectual property, seize all assets that they have reach to seize, and imprison and torture him or his agents, for the benefit of that corrupt party official, as happens to many entrepreneurs in Chinese society.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2064442310093151136.post-4693992961702685522012-07-18T03:54:47.052-04:002012-07-18T03:54:47.052-04:00Thank you for reading and commenting.
“It is phi...Thank you for reading and commenting. <br /><br />“It is philosophy. It was not meant to be a guiding post in how we live our lives or how big the government should be; merely an explanation on how society is built”<br /><br />True. It is only a philosophy. But I have heard too many people exclaim, ‘but what about me? I didn’t sign it! I didn’t consent!’ This is a response to them: if you want to claim it’s just philosophical, then no consent is needed—it’s just a construct. But if you expect someone to come around and get everyone’s signature, then this post is meant to counter that.<br /><br />“Where is your definition of "fair share"?”<br /><br />That doesn’t matter. What matters is the people’s definition of fair share, as collected by our governance institutions as provided for by law.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08344053977681987932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2064442310093151136.post-91974313765926520902012-07-17T11:03:49.642-04:002012-07-17T11:03:49.642-04:00The social contract is not a real contract, nor sh...The social contract is not a real contract, nor should the idea even be entertained. It is philosophy. It was not meant to be a guiding post in how we live our lives or how big the government should be; merely an explanation on how society is built: we give up rights so that we can obtain the benefit of group work. It was not meant to be leverage to feed the federal government.<br /><br />Despite what some would have people think, I don't think that there are any that, even with their tremendous hard work, will deny some opportunity given to them.<br /><br />However, the way the social contract theory is now being used also presumes that the wealthy are not paying their "fair share" into the system. The reality is that the minority pays for the great majority of services provided in this country. <br /><br /><br />The "social contract" argument is without definite boundaries and feels like it could be argued to no end. And, honestly, it sounds like a lot of whining about what is fair and rhetoric about wealthy people not working hard enough. At what point would enough be enough? Where is your definition of "fair share"? When do they meet the ambiguous requirement for reaping the benefits of society? Furthermore, don't we all reap benefits from their reaping of benefits? (lower food costs, nice and more affordable electronics, grocery stores, etc.)? <br /><br />I don't mind (as much) arguments that the wealthy should pay higher taxes, but I can not stand the use of flexible, indefinite, morally righteous, and abused philosophy to support political campaigns.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com