Social Contract:
an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each
I have been noodling on the phrase “social contract” for quite some time ever since Elizabeth Warren had her misbegotten rant denigrating capitalism and entrepreneurship and defending taxation as “part of the social contract”. The problem is, who really knows what the “social contract” really is? Let’s narrow it down further – what is it now, what did it use to be, and what should it be in the future?
And who put this contract up for debate, and how come I’m held to it even as others change the rules? What – no choice for an opt out? And why do the Libs
Sort of rhetorical questions, but Warren’s assertion is that “the social contract” allows and demands for all she believes is right, but also holds what the entrepreneur believes is wrong. Thus, it seems, it is a one way agreement: a liberal can claim that it provides for all kinds of social programs (and in effect, pushing that government programs are now necessary for it to be complete, and the wealth extraction from one set of citizens that is necessary to accomplish it). Yet, when a Conservative begins to talk about “the social contract”, they are hooted from the room and there is no discussion that, like Government, the reach of “the social contract” is ever being extended (or over extended)? I used to think that it included (in no particular order) following the laws, paying your taxes, being nice to your neighbors, pay your taxes, be helpful to your community if led to be so (or, at least cause no harm), and that government would excel in what it should do and be frugal (e.g., don’t waste my money). Oh yeah, and leave me alone to make my own decisions instead of telling me what to do all the time (after all, I’m an adult). But remember, to a Liberal, it IS a one way agreement.
Problem is, my sense is now, the social contract is now quantity over quality, the American propensity to throw money at any problem has gone on steroids, and that any attempt to hold those programs accountable for results actually results in jeers thrown to the like of “what, you hate the poor, blacks, gays, browns, Latinos, or <name your least favorite Democrat identity group here>? Shame on you, you cold hearted, uncaring Neanderthal! YOU are stopping us from Progressing forward!”. In essence, they are using the social contract not as an agreement but as a club – with a nail in it that sticks out. And Lord help a Conservative involved in the Legislative process trying to hold to what we thought was the social contract when trying to keep Govt small enough to fulfill our version of “the social contract” – after all, we believe that people can fulfill such a “contract” and does not require an activist, intrusive Govt.
Oh, that compromise word? That brings me to the next point – when a Republican gives the Dems a loophole – and NH GOP Treasurer Robert Scott seemingly has done just that. From the UL’s State House Dome:
Read more
I was just thinking back to all the loose talk from the left about ending the gun ban in the New Hampshire State House. How they imagined someone just unloading over testimony supporting same sex marriage–to use one example–kids getting cut down in the cross-fire. And how they fell over themselves trying to scare parents into keeping their children from ever visiting the place because it was now just too dangerous.