Founding Fathers and the Social Contract? - The Firearms Forum

BrokenBiker · 09-24-2011, 08:29 AM

Elizabeth Warren (former White House Financial Reform Adviser) stated that "no one gets rich on their own" and that "part of the underlying social contract is, you take a big hunk of that and pay it forward for the next kid who comes along."

Hmmm....Also, this morning, a talking-head on a morning news show (this one had a PhD in "social studies") stated that this is NOT a far-left-wing idea, and this is exactly what Thomas Jefferson was talking about when he discussed the "social contract".

Hmmm...That doesn't sound legit at all. I've read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalists' Papers (and a few interpretations). But I hadn't looked into the term "social contract" before even though I've come across it a few times. So, I found some info on it and its reference to our founding fathers and guess what? The talking head was wrong. She was so wrong that I would even call it a lie.

A sad state of affairs that principles, values, and the intended direction of our country are being twisted around to meet the goals of todays miscreants.

I may disagree w/someone's social/government/economic views. That's fine. I'm open for debate. In fact, I enjoy a good argument. Challenge your ideas. It's the best way to learn something. Maybe I'll find out I'm wrong. I don't mind.

What I DO mind is a misinformed or uninformed person using "facts" as the basis for their arguments. Too many people are being swayed and played by today's political pundants. Get real information, do a little research, and follow your decision through to the next step logically to see if it can stand up. Don't let yourself get played by the politicos.

With that being said, what are some your inputs/ideas on the social contract? There have been many argument proposed (mainly from the left) that the founding fathers intended on a larger, stronger gov't for the purpose of the social contract and general welfare of the people.

carver · 09-24-2011, 08:41 AM

Social! As in Socialist! Any time I see this word Flags go up! I start to pay attention to what is being stated. Good post, and it applies to everything in our lives, be it politics, religion, school curriculum, or what ever. The Social Contract (Jean-Jacques Rousseau's 1762) was a progressive work that helped inspire political reforms or revolutions in Europe, especially in France. The Social Contract argued against the idea that monarchs were divinely empowered to legislate; as Rousseau asserts, only the people, in the form of the sovereign, have that all powerful right. Sounds good doesn't it! Remember that this is where the whole Socialist ideas started, as applies to modern man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract

BrokenBiker · 09-24-2011, 03:13 PM

Good response! And I couldn't agree w/you more! John Locke (1632-1704) also spoke of a social contract, but his philosophies are more in line w/our founding fathers. In fact, Mr. Locke wrote that the Law of Nature, which is Locke's view for the basis of morality, is given to us by God and He commands that we not harm others w/regards to "life, health, liberty, or personal property." He also says that gov't exists through the people to protect these things, particularly property. Sounds familiar.

There were (and still are) many political and social theories/philosophies available for people to ponder. I don't doubt that the founding fathers were influenced by some of these ideas, but that hardly means that today's Socialist ideas of a "social contract" were what they had in mind. In fact, if you do your homework (and it looks like you have) you'll see that the founders may have shared a few similar ideas w/Locke and/or Rousseau (sp?), but they most definitely were proponents of individual freedoms, and it was ultimately up to the people to keep the governments--whether state or federal--in check to ensure that our rights were not trampled.

...And, for those that say the founders intended for a large gov't to attend to the "social contract" and provide for the "general welfare" of the people (a.k.a. the Nanny State), then why didn't our country start off that way? Why did it take almost 150 yrs before people decided to start saying this kind of stuff? It's simple. That was never the intention.

carver · 09-24-2011, 04:20 PM

If you read the Book of Acts, from the Bible, you will get a glimpse of the way the first Church was set up by the Apostles. It was a Socialist Church, where every man sold all he had, and gave the money to the Church. The Church in return was to see that every man, woman, and child, had food, clothing, and shelter. It didn't work! Man is of a fallen nature, and anything he puts his hands to will fail. Socialism under God would work, but man can not do it without God! Someday God will rule, and that will work!

CampingJosh · 09-24-2011, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carver

If you read the Book of Acts, from the Bible, you will get a glimpse of the way the first Church was set up by the Apostles. It was a Socialist Church, where every man sold all he had, and gave the money to the Church. The Church in return was to see that every man, woman, and child, had food, clothing, and shelter. It didn't work! Man is of a fallen nature, and anything he puts his hands to will fail. Socialism under God would work, but man can not do it without God! Someday God will rule, and that will work!

The church described in Acts 4 is fundamentally different than a socialist or communist system. Within that church, people who chose to be members of the church chose to sell their possessions in order to provide for others. This still happens in the Church today. It also happens in other groups, even many that have no religious affiliation.

A socialist or communist system is different because people don't get to choose. It's forced upon them. The system described in Acts 4 is full of liberty; socialism destroys liberty.

carver · 09-25-2011, 09:05 AM

You are correct, but what I was referring to was the fact that the Church would take care of your needs, as opposed to the Government will take care of your needs.

whirley · 09-25-2011, 09:56 AM

Today, the schools teach some facts, but they often fail to teach the students to ask the greatest question.. WHY. For example, Benedict Arnold turned traitor. WHY? Aaron Burr Killed Alexander Hamilton. Why? Jefferson promised to support Burr for President , then had him tried for treason. WHY? Lincoln read the Emancipation proclamation which never freed anyone, but he was touted as the Great Emancipator. WHY? Democrats are always trying to downsize our military defenses. Why? For every dollar government takes from us in taxes, we only get about fifty cents back in benefits. Why? Poor men go into politics, but soon become millionaires. WHY? We don't have term limits for politicians. WHY? Our borders have been wide open and illegal immigration has been a serious problem since at least 1960. WHY? I question whether prostitution or politics is the second oldest profession, or perhaps they're interchangeable. In either case it's we citizens getting shafted. Perhaps we should follow the example of the French of 1790 and operate our own guillotine.

Gun Geezer · 09-25-2011, 09:09 PM

Many of our founding fathers wrote prolifically about their fears of government run amok. Their writings are warnings which turned out to be very prophetic. Our government has evolved into exactly what they warned against in that it no longer reflects the will of the people but rather has become an elite class who egotistically think they know better than we what is best for us. Because they can become millionaires without having a real job, they see nothing wrong with supporting those who don't want a job by taxing productive citizens. Communism failed and the Soviet Union collapsed because that degree of socialism doesn't work. When people can get the same benefits without working, human nature causes productivity to spiral downward until you run out of other peoples money, food or any products they work to produce.

BrokenBiker · 09-26-2011, 05:27 PM

Most of us here probably agree that her philosophy is not what the founding fathers intended. A large problem, IMO, is that people don't understand the way our Constitution and varying levels of government are supposed to work--mainly because they don't think.

But that's a fairly large-view picture to dissect. But I don't even think most people think past their own answers to the questions posed to them. To truly see if "the answer" is good or not, you need to consider the results.

In this case, I think if you follow that logic-chain you'll find it's very dangerous. No one gets rich on their own. They couldn't have done it w/out the assistance of those who built the plant, or the utilities, or the roads, etc. For that matter, no one does anything w/out the support of public schools or hospitals, etc. Essentially, everyone owes everyone else. No one is their own person. That idea scares me.

Of course, you can flip the coin. If an entrepreneur fails, he/she risks and loses their own assets. Who, then, shares that? Traditionally, the risk-taker assumes the risk of losses on their own. However, under this philosophy, would we all share the risk? The answer: Yes. Is this healthy? Not at all.

Challenge the views. Evaluate the responses. Find the truth. Blindly following catch-phrase politics is dangerous. Right or Left, Conservative or Liberal, Republican or Democrat--it's dangerous.

This seems like a pretty thoughtful group. I'm looking forward to more discussions--as I'm sure more issues will arise as the presidential campaign speeds up.

09-24-2011, 08:29 AM	#1
BrokenBiker Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 7	Founding Fathers and the Social Contract? Elizabeth Warren (former White House Financial Reform Adviser) stated that "no one gets rich on their own" and that "part of the underlying social contract is, you take a big hunk of that and pay it forward for the next kid who comes along." Hmmm....Also, this morning, a talking-head on a morning news show (this one had a PhD in "social studies") stated that this is NOT a far-left-wing idea, and this is exactly what Thomas Jefferson was talking about when he discussed the "social contract". Hmmm...That doesn't sound legit at all. I've read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalists' Papers (and a few interpretations). But I hadn't looked into the term "social contract" before even though I've come across it a few times. So, I found some info on it and its reference to our founding fathers and guess what? The talking head was wrong. She was so wrong that I would even call it a lie. A sad state of affairs that principles, values, and the intended direction of our country are being twisted around to meet the goals of todays miscreants. I may disagree w/someone's social/government/economic views. That's fine. I'm open for debate. In fact, I enjoy a good argument. Challenge your ideas. It's the best way to learn something. Maybe I'll find out I'm wrong. I don't mind. What I DO mind is a misinformed or uninformed person using "facts" as the basis for their arguments. Too many people are being swayed and played by today's political pundants. Get real information, do a little research, and follow your decision through to the next step logically to see if it can stand up. Don't let yourself get played by the politicos. With that being said, what are some your inputs/ideas on the social contract? There have been many argument proposed (mainly from the left) that the founding fathers intended on a larger, stronger gov't for the purpose of the social contract and general welfare of the people. -->

09-24-2011, 08:41 AM	#2
carver TFF Moderator/Host Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: DAV, Deep in the Pineywoods of East Texas, just west of Shreveport, LA Contributor Posts: 11,245	Re: Founding Fathers and the Social Contract? Social! As in Socialist! Any time I see this word Flags go up! I start to pay attention to what is being stated. Good post, and it applies to everything in our lives, be it politics, religion, school curriculum, or what ever. The Social Contract (Jean-Jacques Rousseau's 1762) was a progressive work that helped inspire political reforms or revolutions in Europe, especially in France. The Social Contract argued against the idea that monarchs were divinely empowered to legislate; as Rousseau asserts, only the people, in the form of the sovereign, have that all powerful right. Sounds good doesn't it! Remember that this is where the whole Socialist ideas started, as applies to modern man. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract __________________ Y'all be safe now, ya hear! Lamentations Chapter 5: 1. Remember, O LORD, what is come upon us: consider, and behold our reproach. 2. Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens. 3. We are orphans and fatherless, our mothers [are] as widows. 5. Our necks [are] under persecution: we labour, [and] have no rest. 16. The crown is fallen [from] our head: woe unto us, that we have sinned! 21. Turn thou us unto thee, O LORD, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old.

09-24-2011, 03:13 PM	#3
BrokenBiker Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 7	Re: Founding Fathers and the Social Contract? Good response! And I couldn't agree w/you more! John Locke (1632-1704) also spoke of a social contract, but his philosophies are more in line w/our founding fathers. In fact, Mr. Locke wrote that the Law of Nature, which is Locke's view for the basis of morality, is given to us by God and He commands that we not harm others w/regards to "life, health, liberty, or personal property." He also says that gov't exists through the people to protect these things, particularly property. Sounds familiar. There were (and still are) many political and social theories/philosophies available for people to ponder. I don't doubt that the founding fathers were influenced by some of these ideas, but that hardly means that today's Socialist ideas of a "social contract" were what they had in mind. In fact, if you do your homework (and it looks like you have) you'll see that the founders may have shared a few similar ideas w/Locke and/or Rousseau (sp?), but they most definitely were proponents of individual freedoms, and it was ultimately up to the people to keep the governments--whether state or federal--in check to ensure that our rights were not trampled. ...And, for those that say the founders intended for a large gov't to attend to the "social contract" and provide for the "general welfare" of the people (a.k.a. the Nanny State), then why didn't our country start off that way? Why did it take almost 150 yrs before people decided to start saying this kind of stuff? It's simple. That was never the intention.

09-24-2011, 04:20 PM	#4
carver TFF Moderator/Host Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: DAV, Deep in the Pineywoods of East Texas, just west of Shreveport, LA Contributor Posts: 11,245	Re: Founding Fathers and the Social Contract? If you read the Book of Acts, from the Bible, you will get a glimpse of the way the first Church was set up by the Apostles. It was a Socialist Church, where every man sold all he had, and gave the money to the Church. The Church in return was to see that every man, woman, and child, had food, clothing, and shelter. It didn't work! Man is of a fallen nature, and anything he puts his hands to will fail. Socialism under God would work, but man can not do it without God! Someday God will rule, and that will work! __________________ Y'all be safe now, ya hear! Lamentations Chapter 5: 1. Remember, O LORD, what is come upon us: consider, and behold our reproach. 2. Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens. 3. We are orphans and fatherless, our mothers [are] as widows. 5. Our necks [are] under persecution: we labour, [and] have no rest. 16. The crown is fallen [from] our head: woe unto us, that we have sinned! 21. Turn thou us unto thee, O LORD, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old.

09-25-2011, 09:05 AM	#6
carver TFF Moderator/Host Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: DAV, Deep in the Pineywoods of East Texas, just west of Shreveport, LA Contributor Posts: 11,245	Re: Founding Fathers and the Social Contract? You are correct, but what I was referring to was the fact that the Church would take care of your needs, as opposed to the Government will take care of your needs. __________________ Y'all be safe now, ya hear! Lamentations Chapter 5: 1. Remember, O LORD, what is come upon us: consider, and behold our reproach. 2. Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens. 3. We are orphans and fatherless, our mothers [are] as widows. 5. Our necks [are] under persecution: we labour, [and] have no rest. 16. The crown is fallen [from] our head: woe unto us, that we have sinned! 21. Turn thou us unto thee, O LORD, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old.

09-25-2011, 09:56 AM	#7
whirley V.I.P. Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Contributor Posts: 457	Re: Founding Fathers and the Social Contract? Today, the schools teach some facts, but they often fail to teach the students to ask the greatest question.. WHY. For example, Benedict Arnold turned traitor. WHY? Aaron Burr Killed Alexander Hamilton. Why? Jefferson promised to support Burr for President , then had him tried for treason. WHY? Lincoln read the Emancipation proclamation which never freed anyone, but he was touted as the Great Emancipator. WHY? Democrats are always trying to downsize our military defenses. Why? For every dollar government takes from us in taxes, we only get about fifty cents back in benefits. Why? Poor men go into politics, but soon become millionaires. WHY? We don't have term limits for politicians. WHY? Our borders have been wide open and illegal immigration has been a serious problem since at least 1960. WHY? I question whether prostitution or politics is the second oldest profession, or perhaps they're interchangeable. In either case it's we citizens getting shafted. Perhaps we should follow the example of the French of 1790 and operate our own guillotine.

09-25-2011, 09:09 PM	#8
Gun Geezer Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Central Florida Posts: 1,710	Re: Founding Fathers and the Social Contract? Many of our founding fathers wrote prolifically about their fears of government run amok. Their writings are warnings which turned out to be very prophetic. Our government has evolved into exactly what they warned against in that it no longer reflects the will of the people but rather has become an elite class who egotistically think they know better than we what is best for us. Because they can become millionaires without having a real job, they see nothing wrong with supporting those who don't want a job by taxing productive citizens. Communism failed and the Soviet Union collapsed because that degree of socialism doesn't work. When people can get the same benefits without working, human nature causes productivity to spiral downward until you run out of other peoples money, food or any products they work to produce.

09-26-2011, 05:27 PM	#9
BrokenBiker Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 7	Re: Founding Fathers and the Social Contract? Most of us here probably agree that her philosophy is not what the founding fathers intended. A large problem, IMO, is that people don't understand the way our Constitution and varying levels of government are supposed to work--mainly because they don't think. But that's a fairly large-view picture to dissect. But I don't even think most people think past their own answers to the questions posed to them. To truly see if "the answer" is good or not, you need to consider the results. In this case, I think if you follow that logic-chain you'll find it's very dangerous. No one gets rich on their own. They couldn't have done it w/out the assistance of those who built the plant, or the utilities, or the roads, etc. For that matter, no one does anything w/out the support of public schools or hospitals, etc. Essentially, everyone owes everyone else. No one is their own person. That idea scares me. Of course, you can flip the coin. If an entrepreneur fails, he/she risks and loses their own assets. Who, then, shares that? Traditionally, the risk-taker assumes the risk of losses on their own. However, under this philosophy, would we all share the risk? The answer: Yes. Is this healthy? Not at all. Challenge the views. Evaluate the responses. Find the truth. Blindly following catch-phrase politics is dangerous. Right or Left, Conservative or Liberal, Republican or Democrat--it's dangerous. This seems like a pretty thoughtful group. I'm looking forward to more discussions--as I'm sure more issues will arise as the presidential campaign speeds up.