Our US Constitution is NOT a social contract.

[ProIndividual]

Every form of state is based upon a legal theory. That political and legal theory is often referred to as "social contract theory". So, the Constitution itself is not a social contract...it is instead basing its legitimacy on the social contract theory. The social contract is in turn relying on an underlying and preceding ethical theory (for without an ethical theory, there can be no legal theory). To claim a state is legitimate, you first must prove your legal theory on which it is based is ethical. This means, at the root, any attempt to say a form of state is legitimate starts with presenting an ethical theory and showing it is based on A) solid premises in epistemology and metaphysics, and B) the consistent application of logic to those premises to yield a consistent and valid ethical theory. Once that is done, assuming it is an ethical theory which is both consistent in logic and based on valid premises, you can extrapolate your ethical theory into legal theory, which will then show if your state is ethically legitimate and that the legal theory the state is based upon is legitimate or not.

In moral and political philosophy, the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

Since the Constitution claims the coerced territorial monopolization/monopsonization of legal and defense markets, cartelization of certain aspects of the economy (money, even pre-FED, trade, etc.), and the right to tariff (indirect taxation of consumers) and tax (extortion on the threats of justly-held property being seized and possibly kidnapping to a rape cage), it certainly not only applies to the people, but it also IS based upon social contract theory (a particular political and legal theory).

I do not see how any valid and consistent ethical theory can be translated into a legal theory that show the state to be legitimate. I posted a thread about this, and it appeared before this thread I believe (and perhaps this thread was an indirect response to it)...perhaps it would be best to read that thread and post any specific criticisms you have of the premises or logic in the OP in that thread. Otherwise I'll assume you have no actual critiques of the premises or logic in that OP, and therefore have no logically consistent or valid reasons to support the existence of the state, even in the form of the Constitution you refer to as "ours".

Many of us consider that document to be NOT "ours", as we didn't consent to the form of state (or any state, for that matter) it brought into being.

Here is the link for the thread I mentioned on social contract theory and my criticisms of it:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...the-quot-Social-Contract-quot-is-Illegitimate

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Every form of state is based upon a legal theory. That political and legal theory is often referred to as "social contract theory". So, the Constitution itself is not a social contract...it is instead basing its legitimacy on the social contract theory. The social contract is in turn relying on an underlying and preceding ethical theory (for without an ethical theory, there can be no legal theory). To claim a state is legitimate, you first must prove your legal theory on which it is based is ethical. This means, at the root, any attempt to say a form of state is legitimate starts with presenting an ethical theory and showing it is based on A) solid premises in epistemology and metaphysics, and B) the consistent application of logic to those premises to yield a consistent and valid ethical theory. Once that is done, assuming it is an ethical theory which is both consistent in logic and based on valid premises, you can extrapolate your ethical theory into legal theory, which will then show if your state is ethically legitimate and that the legal theory the state is based upon is legitimate or not.



Since the Constitution claims the coerced territorial monopolization/monopsonization of legal and defense markets, cartelization of certain aspects of the economy (money, even pre-FED, trade, etc.), and the right to tariff (indirect taxation of consumers) and tax (extortion on the threats of justly-held property being seized and possibly kidnapping to a rape cage), it certainly not only applies to the people, but it also IS based upon social contract theory (a particular political and legal theory).

I do not see how any valid and consistent ethical theory can be translated into a legal theory that show the state to be legitimate. I posted a thread about this, and it appeared before this thread I believe (and perhaps this thread was an indirect response to it)...perhaps it would be best to read that thread and post any specific criticisms you have of the premises or logic in the OP in that thread. Otherwise I'll assume you have no actual critiques of the premises or logic in that OP, and therefore have no logically consistent or valid reasons to support the existence of the state, even in the form of the Constitution you refer to as "ours".

Many of us consider that document to be NOT "ours", as we didn't consent to the form of state (or any state, for that matter) it brought into being.

Here is the link for the thread I mentioned on social contract theory and my criticisms of it:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...the-quot-Social-Contract-quot-is-Illegitimate

It ought to be so, but US Constitutional statism is not. I dedicated a thread some months ago to requesting a sound legal theory from Constituitonalists-crickets.

 

[ProIndividual]

It ought to be so, but US Constitutional statism is not. I dedicated a thread some months ago to requesting a sound legal theory from Constituitonalists-crickets.

I didn't mean to say SOUND legal theory, only a legal theory. If they had no legal theory (social contract theory) they'd not think it legitimate. And if they were amoralists (those egoists who deny ethics even exist) they'd not have any legal theory, as all legal theories are necessarily preceded by ethical theories.

The thread I started on the social contract goes into why the legal theory they base the state's legitimacy on is indeed unsound. But it is a legal theory, and that legal theory is based on an ethical theory...neither is sound, is the problem.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

The Constitution is indeed based on social contract theory. The consolidation of power was, and is, predictable.

You accept as legitimate the use of force to take from a given group of people for things described in a 200 year old document. That is better than those who accept as legitimate the use of force to take from a given group of people for things which aren't described in the Constitution, I suppose, but regardless your logic is flawed.

 

[HVACTech]

Every form of state is based upon a legal theory. That political and legal theory is often referred to as "social contract theory". So, the Constitution itself is not a social contract...it is instead basing its legitimacy on the social contract theory. The social contract is in turn relying on an underlying and preceding ethical theory (for without an ethical theory, there can be no legal theory). To claim a state is legitimate, you first must prove your legal theory on which it is based is ethical. This means, at the root, any attempt to say a form of state is legitimate starts with presenting an ethical theory and showing it is based on A) solid premises in epistemology and metaphysics, and B) the consistent application of logic to those premises to yield a consistent and valid ethical theory. Once that is done, assuming it is an ethical theory which is both consistent in logic and based on valid premises, you can extrapolate your ethical theory into legal theory, which will then show if your state is ethically legitimate and that the legal theory the state is based upon is legitimate or not.



Since the Constitution claims the coerced territorial monopolization/monopsonization of legal and defense markets, cartelization of certain aspects of the economy (money, even pre-FED, trade, etc.), and the right to tariff (indirect taxation of consumers) and tax (extortion on the threats of justly-held property being seized and possibly kidnapping to a rape cage), it certainly not only applies to the people, but it also IS based upon social contract theory (a particular political and legal theory).

I do not see how any valid and consistent ethical theory can be translated into a legal theory that show the state to be legitimate. I posted a thread about this, and it appeared before this thread I believe (and perhaps this thread was an indirect response to it)...perhaps it would be best to read that thread and post any specific criticisms you have of the premises or logic in the OP in that thread. Otherwise I'll assume you have no actual critiques of the premises or logic in that OP, and therefore have no logically consistent or valid reasons to support the existence of the state, even in the form of the Constitution you refer to as "ours".

Many of us consider that document to be NOT "ours", as we didn't consent to the form of state (or any state, for that matter) it brought into being.

Here is the link for the thread I mentioned on social contract theory and my criticisms of it:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...the-quot-Social-Contract-quot-is-Illegitimate

That political and legal theory is often referred to as "social contract theory". So, the Constitution itself is not a social contract...it is instead basing its legitimacy on the social contract theory

thank you,

now, lets move on to the meaning of the word "STATE" shall we?
"I am in a Texas state of mind".

we have a "state" called Virginia. was this "state" always known thusly? no, it was NOT.
before it became the "state" of Virginia, it was probably in another state. or, perhaps not in any state at all. (wilderness)

as an HVACTech, I DO know the meaning of the word "state"

Changes of state are physical changes in matter. They are reversible changes that do not involve changes in matter's chemical makeup or chemical properties. Common changes of state include melting, freezing, sublimation, deposition, condensation, and vaporization.

I am STILL waiting for the double ought secret meaning of this word for you.
please enlighten me sir.

 

[HVACTech]

The criminalization of counterfeiting and piracy.
The definition of treason.
The prohibition of slavery.
The granting of authority to Congress to enact patent and copyright laws.
The grant of exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction over D.C. and federal enclaves.

Shall I go on, or do you think that the people are somehow free to pass funny money, own slaves, infringe copyrights, or do anything they want in D.C.?

most of what you speak of is as a result of poor amendments.
most ALL of the amendments past the first 12 are in fact, unconstitutional.

and sir, something that "affects" the people,
is NOT the same as something that "applies" to the people.

 

[HVACTech]

The Constitution is indeed based on social contract theory. The consolidation of power was, and is, predictable.

You accept as legitimate the use of force to take from a given group of people for things described in a 200 year old document. That is better than those who accept as legitimate the use of force to take from a given group of people for things which aren't described in the Constitution, I suppose, but regardless your logic is flawed.

darn, and I thought you were one of the good ones...:o

you are an anti-federalist and desire a "document" (contract) that is NOT 200 years old?

so, you. want a new FRESH document? or NO document (contract) at all?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

darn, and I thought you were one of the good ones...:o

you are an anti-federalist and desire a "document" (contract) that is NOT 200 years old?

so, you. want a new FRESH document? or NO document (contract) at all?

I would wager a good four fifths of this country have never read the Constitution. I would wager that at least 99 out of 100 have no clue as to what the document means with regards to original intent. And I'd further wager that perhaps no two could agree on the exact meaning of the Constitution.

Furthermore, not a single person, absent those who supposedly take an oath to uphold it, are contractually obligated to do anything because of it. If it weren't for a group of unproductive cowards applying some twisted legal theory, that is.

That is before I even go into what a generally shitty document it was and is.

It codified the return of slaves to slave holders and some people worship it as their Ten Commandments.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I would wager a good four fifths of this country have never read the Constitution. I would wager that at least 99 out of 100 have no clue as to what the document means with regards to original intent. And I'd further wager that perhaps no two could agree on the exact meaning of the Constitution.

Furthermore, not a single person, absent those who supposedly take an oath to uphold it, are contractually obligated to do anything because of it. If it weren't for a group of unproductive cowards applying some twisted legal theory, that is.

That is before I even go into what a generally shitty document it was and is.

It codified the return of slaves to slave holders and some people worship it as their Ten Commandments.

+megarep. Preach on, brother!

 

[HVACTech]

I would wager a good four fifths of this country have never read the Constitution. I would wager that at least 99 out of 100 have no clue as to what the document means with regards to original intent. And I'd further wager that perhaps no two could agree on the exact meaning of the Constitution.

Furthermore, not a single person, absent those who supposedly take an oath to uphold it, are contractually obligated to do anything because of it. If it weren't for a group of unproductive cowards applying some twisted legal theory, that is.

That is before I even go into what a generally shitty document it was and is.

It codified the return of slaves to slave holders and some people worship it as their Ten Commandments.

is this what you tell new members who join the site? is that your expressed purpose for being here?
to bash them with your rep power?
I wager that runs a lot of them off.
oh, look, and it would seem another high ranking member has joined the fray. right below this post.

both of you do not support this website either financially or in spirit.
imagine that!

 

[HVACTech]

+megarep. Preach on, brother!

7 years and over 48 thousand posts....
heck, I bet even Ron Paul himself would admire your tenacity in running off people trying to learn about the Constitution.
or Ron Paul.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

is this what you tell new members who join the site? is that your expressed purpose for being here?
to bash them with your rep power?
I wager that runs a lot of them off.
oh, look, and it would seem another high ranking member has joined the fray. right below this post.

both of you do not support this website either financially or in spirit.
imagine that!

The hell are you babbling about?

I only use the rep system to save from hassling with a PM. The only time I've ever neg repped you was because you wrote an incoherent rant of sorts (imagine that) while consistently acting like an arrogant ass. That had to have been months ago so I don't know why you're still bothered by it.

Eta: You aren't even on the list. Just for clarity's sake, it goes back to December 21 (It's been at least five months since I'd neg repped you). I should neg rep you now for your pathetic dishonesty.

 

[HVACTech]

The hell are you babbling about?

I only use the rep system to save from hassling with a PM. The only time I've ever neg repped you was because you wrote an incoherent rant of sorts (imagine that) while consistently acting like an arrogant ass. That had to have been months ago so I don't know why you're still bothered by it.

I was speaking in reference to new members.

Quote Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 View Post
I would wager a good four fifths of this country have never read the Constitution. I would wager that at least 99 out of 100 have no clue as to what the document means with regards to original intent. And I'd further wager that perhaps no two could agree on the exact meaning of the Constitution.

Furthermore, not a single person, absent those who supposedly take an oath to uphold it, are contractually obligated to do anything because of it. If it weren't for a group of unproductive cowards applying some twisted legal theory, that is.

That is before I even go into what a generally shitty document it was and is.

It codified the return of slaves to slave holders and some people worship it as their Ten Commandments.

^^^this post indicates that you are an anti-federalist. (you know what that means..right?)^^^
and then at the bottom of this very page..

RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission.

when did you first start to HATE the Constitution? 3 yrs and 12 thousand posts....
did you learn to hate it here?
this thread WAS about how the Constitution is NOT a social contract.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I was speaking in reference to new members.



^^^this post indicates that you are an anti-federalist. (you know what that means..right?)^^^
and then at the bottom of this very page..



when did you first start to HATE the Constitution? 3 yrs and 12 thousand posts....
did you learn to hate it here?
this thread WAS about how the Constitution is NOT a social contract.

Ron Paul has stated that he well may have been an Anti-federalist.

I find it amusing that someone who cannot even post in sentences has the audacity to arrogantly ask rhetorical questions. Quit inhaling the Freon, ffs.

 

[Ender]

I was speaking in reference to new members.



^^^this post indicates that you are an anti-federalist. (you know what that means..right?)^^^
and then at the bottom of this very page..



when did you first start to HATE the Constitution? 3 yrs and 12 thousand posts....
did you learn to hate it here?
this thread WAS about how the Constitution is NOT a social contract.

Do YOU know what the anti-federalists were? They were correct.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/03/laurence-m-vance/the-anti-federalists-were-right/

The Constitution was a coup for the Hamiltonians and big government. Worked pretty good, I'd say.

 

[TheTexan]

I would wager a good four fifths of this country have never read the Constitution. I would wager that at least 99 out of 100 have no clue as to what the document means with regards to original intent. And I'd further wager that perhaps no two could agree on the exact meaning of the Constitution.

I think a lot of people, including myself, would recognize the preamble



Personally though I think this one's better.. song is a lot catchier IMO

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Do YOU know what the anti-federalists were? They were correct.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2007/03/laurence-m-vance/the-anti-federalists-were-right/

The Constitution was a coup for the Hamiltonians and big government. Worked pretty good, I'd say.

+rep

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The hell are you babbling about?

I only use the rep system to save from hassling with a PM. The only time I've ever neg repped you was because you wrote an incoherent rant of sorts (imagine that) while consistently acting like an arrogant ass. That had to have been months ago so I don't know why you're still bothered by it.

Eta: You aren't even on the list. Just for clarity's sake, it goes back to December 21 (It's been at least five months since I'd neg repped you). I should neg rep you now for your pathetic dishonesty.

Someone plz +rep this guy^^ I'm out of ammo.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

most of what you speak of is as a result of poor amendments.

The only thing I listed that resulted from an amendment was the prohibition of slavery. All the rest were in the original constitution.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

when did you first start to HATE the Constitution? 3 yrs and 12 thousand posts....
did you learn to hate it here?
this thread WAS about how the Constitution is NOT a social contract.

I believe I started to see through the myth of the Constitution's greatness right around the time I read it. Who Killed the Constitution by Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman was eye opening with regards to the blatant disregard/manipulation of the words within it as well as the disregard for the original intent of the Framers. No Treason by Lysander Spooner is indispensable to anyone who cares about freedom.

I do not hate the Constitution. I simply do not worship it as Christ reincarnate.

We've discussed this a few times actually. In fact, I think you still have not responded to many of the few thousand word posts I've made on the subject.