There's no good excuse for having homeless people (who don't want to be homeless), people who have to go without healthcare, people who have to go without food, people who have to go without whatever education they want, people who can't find work if they want it--and a variety to choose from, people who can't take whatever time off of work that they'd like to take off without having to worry about having a job afterwards, people who can't travel wherever they'd like to travel, etc. And there's no good excuse for centering competition on acquiring more money at all costs.

We could easily structure things differently. We just need to decide to do it.

So what does it take to mobilize the collective will? Look at D Trump or R Ford - demagogues don't work. We need to start with better education.

I haven't actually read Rousseau, but see the Social Contract as more of a state of affairs than a creative Ethical proclamation. It is the case that there is alway some sort of consent of the governed regarless as to how oppressive their regime is. There always exists a social relationship between who governs and the governed, and, so, there are always demands requested by the governed. A monarchy still needs to have the consent of its citizens in order not to be overthrown. There is no such thing as absolute power. There is only that it is possible to coerce a population into acquiescing to an unequal distribution of power.

Yes, I use the term more as a gloss, as you say, for the actual state of affairs. But I like to think that, at its heart, there must be some sort of mutually beneficial ("contractual") state.

As the population becomes more educated, that is to say, as they become more aware, they will continue to demand more just social relationships. The dissolution of the aristocracy was resultant of that the aristocracy could no longer be percieved as being a just social relationship. I honestly suspect that taking the Social Contract to its logical conclusion will eventually result in something like the end goals of Communism.

I honestly suspect that taking the Social Contract to its logical conclusion will eventually result in something like the end goals of Communism. — thewonder

In principle, that sounds fine. I don't know if it is something we can just sit back and wait to happen though.... :)

I actually wonder if it isn't somehow delusionally Communist determinist. There's a way of interpreting utopian ideals as projecting a kind of political eschatology. I'm not opposed to being hopeful or idealistic, though. You can say that there is a project that is always already underway which seeks for something like the liberation of all of humanity without becoming subject to the pitfalls of ideology. It's all just a matter of approach.

In regards to the topic at hand, I think that the Social Contract is a valid theory, but that it may need to be radically reconceptualized. I suspect that it'd be worthwhile to read Rousseau and to put forth a political project that proceeds from his theory.

I think it is innate human greed that is the enemy of social progress. Hopefully a new more socially conscious collective awareness is emerging that will defeat this primitive instinct.

So what does it take to mobilize the collective will? Look at D Trump or R Ford - demagogues don't work. We need to start with better education. — Pantagruel

You are assuming that people need to exist in the first place. The first act of aggression is having people, which confines them to the "realities" of living itself. You can say it is "self-evident" that people "should" be born, but then you have already crossed the line of what other people should be doing. The problem with all first principles in political science, is it already assumes procreating new people is good. Thus, they discount that the first political act is forcing new people to deal with existence itself. Long story short- start with the problem of being born first in your political philosophy, THEN move on from there.

Our current system of government no longer works. — Pantagruel

Of course our current system of government works -- it works as well now as it ever did. Just because the current system is not working for you, or for me, or for most people, doesn't mean it isn't working as designed.

As far as I can tell, the Founding Fathers NEVER intended an egalitarian distribution of wealth. Most people (like 94%) couldn't vote in the US in the 18th century. White men who didn't own property finally gained suffrage in all of the states around 1850. Black men didn't get voting rights till after the Civil War. Women didn't get the vote until 1920. The political and economic elite of the United States has neither liked nor trusted working class people. Most people (at least 80%) are working class. That there is a huge population of "middle class" people is a falsehood aimed at class division. There are some middle class people -- maybe 10% - 15%of the population.

It seems to me that a real, "informal" social contract covers much more than government. It involves how we interact with each other. The informal social contract seems to operate pretty well most of the time in most places. There are continual isolated breakdowns -- like drunk driving, public fighting, gun play (not talking about mass killers -- more the idiots who start shooting at each other and the wildly fired bullets go through houses and kill people), child neglect, etc. -- but by and large people stay within the "social contract of common behavior" because it works, it's safer, it's more effective.

As far as I can tell, the Founding Fathers NEVER intended an egalitarian distribution of wealth. Most people (like 94%) couldn't vote in the US in the 18th century. White men who didn't own property finally gained suffrage in all of the states around 1850. Black men didn't get voting rights till after the Civil War. Women didn't get the vote until 1920. The political and economic elite of the United States has neither liked nor trusted working class people. Most people (at least 80%) are working class. That there is a huge population of "middle class" people is a falsehood aimed at class division. There are some middle class people -- maybe 10% - 15%of the population. — Bitter Crank

Were universal rights something that the Founding Fathers and their Enlightenment brethren made up? If they made the idea of "rights" up, and they didn't live to their own ideals, it is probably because they were still trying to fit it into their world scheme. When you make up the very thing that others will use as a standard against you, it is very interesting... The idea of "progress" and "self-criticism" and "living up to ideals (made up by the very people who will be critiqued for not following them" all came from Enlightenment thinking. What was before this? Tribe against tribe. Religion against religion. Monarch against monarch, elite vs. peasant, dominant vs. the weak, etc. Give the Enlightenment people a break...they were making this shit up as they went. But the point is, they made this shit up. It is damn useful and it makes damn sense. But it is a cultural thing from a set of people, starting in the 1600s that we elaborated on.

Validity of the Social Contract — Pantagruel

I seriously object to the use of the term "contract" in this context. The act of merely being born somewhere does not amount to signing a contract. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, there simply is no "contract".

For example, it is not because you are born today in a country with trillions of dollars of unfunded social-security entitlements and other liabilities, that you necessarily agree to cough up any money for that.

As far as I am concerned, the millennials have no obligation whatsoever to pay for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers. Even though the baby boomers may have signed up for a contract that promised exactly that, the millennials themselves were no party to the original contract.

We are clearly witnessing a generation, the baby boomers, who did not need any children of their own, to take care of them in their old age, because the government was going to take care of that. And where is the government supposed to find the funds to pay for that? Well, they will just take the money from other people's children.

So, no, there is no such "social contract" and there are no resulting social obligations.

As far as I am concerned, it is just too easy to sign a contract that will financially burden other people who are not even born yet. Therefore, the millennials are completely exempt from paying for any of that. Just don't pay!

Obviously the attractive "universal rights of man" were a problem right out of the gate. We had been practicing slavery for a century, in 1776, which fits poorly with the enlightenment ideal.

Colonial North America was a very stratified society, nothing like an egalitarian community. Most Americans did not have suffrage, for instance -- only about 6% did, propertied white male citizens. Most Americans were counted as riff raft by the elite. Our elite inherited the attitudes of the British elite who considered the poor, the landless, the worker as little more than white trash.

Yes, they were making it up as they went along. That's pretty much what people do, everywhere. There aren't any manuals that tell us how to assemble a society from scratch.

The slave-holding FF probably recognized the contradiction between their ownership of slaves and "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". etc. but... Jefferson was chronically in debt and freeing his slaves would have had very negative economic consequences. When the push of ideals meets the pull of economic necessity, it's always a risky bet to assume that ideals will rule the day.

The elites were not happy about the riff raff taking off over the Appalachian Mountains into Kentucky Territory, western Virginia, the Northwest Territory (Ohio), and so on. The elite planned for them to do the heavy lifting, of course, but they didn't want the white trash rushing out ahead of them, settling, establishing communities, and so on -- without their express permission, and profit. And, of course, many of the riff raff often had difficulty once they arrived wherever they thought they were going. Successful settling unsettled land all by one's self was a really difficult thing to succeed at.

Merely being born somewhere does not amount to signing a contract — alcontali

"Merely" being born somewhere is all that it takes to become subject to this unwritten, unsigned "contract". You are taking the libertarian approach here, of course. "I owe no one anything! I touch no one and no one touches me. I am a rock, I am an Island, and an Island never cries..."

As far as I am concerned, the millennials have no obligation whatsoever to pay for the retirement benefits of the baby boomers. — alcontali

Of course you would think that, given your peculiar view of the world. [Not you, personally, but the entire cohort of all you ungrateful wretches.] Of course, in your scheme the baby boomers had no obligation to nurture, house, feed, and educate you either. They could have saved themselves a great deal of trouble by not conceiving you in the first place, or having the misfortune of giving birth to you, dashed your brains out on the nearest brick wall.

And since you resent the favors done for you, you can start paying for all the products and services which you received before becoming a libertarian.

Just don't pay! — alcontali

Stop with the whining and get back to work. Earn as much as you fucking can so the government can rob you of enough to keep me in the lap of SSA luxury.

You are taking the libertarian approach here, of course. "I owe no one anything! I touch no one and no one touches me. — Bitter Crank

It is not necessarily libertarian.

For example, the fifth Biblical commandment says: "Honor thy father and thy mother." So, you could accept that, and pay for your own parents, but it would still not require you to honour anybody else's father or mother. Hence, paying for other people's parents, is absolutely not a requirement there.

Of course, in your scheme the baby boomers had no obligation to nurture, house, feed, and educate you either. — Bitter Crank

Yes, but it is not ALL baby boomers who nurtured me. Only my own parents did.

They could have saved themselves a great deal of trouble by not conceiving you in the first place, or having the misfortune of giving birth to you, dashed your brains out on the nearest brick wall. — Bitter Crank

There is obviously a deal with one's own parents, in which they nurture one first, and later on, one nurtures one's own parents back.

What the baby boomers are doing, is different from that. They are not claiming support from their own children. They are claiming support from other people's children. That is not included in the Biblical deal!

And since you resent the favors done for you, you can start paying for all the products and services which you received before becoming a libertarian. — Bitter Crank

In the sense that I do not reject Biblical or Quranic obligations, I am not necessarily a libertarian. I just do not feel that further extending these obligations, actually makes sense. What the baby boomers are doing, is simply not supported by the Bible nor by the Quran.

When the push of ideals meets the pull of economic necessity, it's always a risky bet to assume that ideals will rule the day. — Bitter Crank

Undoubtedly, but my point was that the concepts of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness being some sort of universal or fundamental right, originated from Enlightenment thinkers. So, you blame the people who started the very concept you can blame them on... I agree, based on the standards they created, and were further elaborated upon, what they did was against their own policies, but again, they made them up in the first place! You are using a standard they created for the rest of humanity to place on them, and deem them accused. Fine, I am okay with that. But realize, they gave you the rope to hang them with in the first place. The very notion of "universal rights" was nothing before this.. I don't care what revisionist history tries to say.. It wasn't until the 1600s that this idea came about.. It wasn't until the 1800s that it really came to fore with the idea that all people from all cultures fell under this purview..It was an unfolding in cultural, historical, political time..not an all at once thing that was there all along.

Before this was tribe vs. tribe, religion above "other" religion, ethnicity against ethnicity, elite vs. peasant, dominant vs. weak, and so on. If you want to say, there are tribes somewhere doing their hunting-gathering egalitarian thing, great.. Maybe there were/are.. but that is a small contingent. The others had agriculture, nomadic herding, and other styles which lead to the whole something vs. something in the first place. So yeah, it went full circle..egalitarian..all one, etc.

Those who benefit the most from society have the greatest burden of repayment(debt). Without a society, the accumulation of monetary financial wealth is impossible.

As far as I am concerned, it is just too easy to sign a contract that will financially burden other people who are not even born yet. Therefore, the millennials are completely exempt from paying for any of that. Just don't pay! — alcontali

You almost bring up a good point. That is to say, everyone is in debt due to being born in the first place. Political science starts often with "state of nature". That is assuming that people should be born in the first place.. in the Enlightenment this was an abstract notion of "happiness", "progress", or simply, "life". None of it makes sense in the light of the fact that, being born is forcing another person to live out life in the first place. The starting place for all politics should be "state of being born", not "state of nature" which assumes some "other" agenda is what is necessary for all people to live out. That was the mistake of all these "enlightened" thinkers. Being forced into existence is the first political act. It is forcing another to live out life or die. I'll include @Bitter Crank on this one too.

Those who benefit the most from society have the greatest burden of repayment(debt). Without a society, the accumulation of monetary financial wealth is impossible. — creativesoul

Well, according to the Quran, one's unilateral financial obligation to society is limited to the size of the mandatory charity levy, which is 2.5% of net capital gains. In my opinion, that sounds much better than the unlimited liability that you depict. So, I just pay the 2.5% and be done with it. I do not want to pay more, because there is no justification for doing that.

Well, according to the Quran, one's unilateral financial obligation to society is limited to the size of the mandatory charity levy, which is 2.5% of net capital gains. — alcontali

Yeah those ancient authors and their economic jargon...

I depicted no such thing as unlimited liability.

I depicted no such thing as unlimited liability. — creativesoul

Ok, but to what do you limit it then? For example, I have got nothing to do with trillions of dollars of unfunded social-security entitlements.

If you want to say, there are tribes somewhere doing their hunting-gathering egalitarian thing, great. — schopenhauer1

Extensive egalitarianism works for relatively small communities. It does not scale, however. From some larger scale on, you need to switch to tit-for-tat trade. Otherwise, if you indiscriminately recognize everybody else's unilateral sharing rights on your assets, you will put yourself at risk of Gambler's Ruin.

That is the meaning of the following Quranic verse:

Quran: 2:275- 279 Allah has permitted trading and forbidden ‘Riba’ interest (usury)

So, you are allowed to switch to tit-for-tat trade and engage in commerce, as long as you refrain from engaging in otherwise forbidden activities (such as charging unconstrained, exponentially-growing interest fees).

This schema is complemented with a mandatory charity levy on net capital gains ("zakaat"), to somehow compensate for the fact that there will be people in the community who will not be equally successful at commerce. Of course, additional voluntary charity contributions are also welcomed ("sadaqah").

This approach is deemed to scale pretty much indefinitely.

I have got nothing to do with trillions of dollars of unfunded social-security entitlements. — alcontali

Are you suggesting to let the less fortunate and elderly people suffer needlessly?

Are you suggesting that a nation can survive/thrive without some folk paying a larger percentage of their earnings than other?

We agree there right?

Less fortunate and elderly people ought be helped. That's one thing. Do you agree?

Helping less fortunate people has a cost. That's another. Do you agree?

Governing a nation of people has a cost. That's another. Do you agree?

Extensive egalitarianism works for relatively small communities. It does not scale, however. From some larger scale on, you need to switch to tit-for-tat trade. Otherwise, if you indiscriminately recognize everybody else's unilateral sharing rights on your assets, you will put yourself at risk of Gambler's Ruin.

That is the meaning of the following Quranic verse:

Quran: 2:275- 279 Allah has permitted trading and forbidden ‘Riba’ interest (usury) — alcontali

Interesting. Didn't know that there were thoughts about unilateral sharing rights and assets in the Quran. Certainly none in the Pentateuch.

Are you suggesting to let the less fortunate and elderly people suffer needlessly? — creativesoul

As a matter of principle, I do not take responsibility beyond what the scriptures mandate.

Are you suggesting that a nation can survive/thrive without some folk paying a larger percentage of their earnings than other? — creativesoul

All unilateral personal financial obligations to the wider society will have to be shoehorned into the 2.5% capital gains tax of the mandatory charity levy.

Less fortunate and elderly people ought be helped. That's one thing. Do you agree? — creativesoul

You are talking about a "right". That is actually unimportant. What matters, is onto whom falls the obligation? Answer: certainly not on me.

Everybody can have all the rights that he wants, but I am not liable for any corresponding obligation. I will simply hand over the mandatory 2.5% charity levy, and be done with it. Anything else is not my problem.

Governing a nation of people has a cost. That's another. Do you agree? — creativesoul

If you want to be exempt from military service -- and only if this is allowed by the powers that be -- you will most likely need to pay compensation in lieu of military service.

So, it seems that you do not think/believe that you are in any way at all - outside of scripture - financially obligated to the society you belong to?

So, it seems that you do not think/believe that you are in any way at all - outside of scripture - financially obligated to the society you belong to? — creativesoul

Any personal liability is always to be limited to an explicitly-stated maximum burden.

Unlimited liabilities must obviously be rejected. Otherwise, it will be again a case of Gambler's Ruin.

In other words, in my opinion, it is not possible to govern a state while expecting the population to accept unlimited liability. In that case, the regime will need to be deposed and replaced by one that more successfully manages to shoehorn its financial needs into the strictly limited contribution of its population.

No one is talking about unlimited liability except you.

So, then...

You're ok with accepting some financial obligation - to maintain the society you belong to - as long as it is a clearly demarcated amount?

A percentage of earnings?

As far as I am concerned,.. — alcontali

As far as i am concerned, there is no social contract, because I am entirely self-concerned.

However, the facts are that humans are socially dependent, they are born helpless, and have to learn from society how to survive, and depend on the work of others to house and feed them to make the tools by which they live and so on. Even members of the most primitive tribes are well aware of their interdependence. It takes the arrogance of a Western modern to imagine he could last a week without the help of society. As far as he is concerned, he did it all himself. Nobody taught him to read or write, he made his own computer and suckled himself. Loving your neighbour is communism, and ought to be banned, except that would be a social contract - banning stuff.