Wisconsin Union Wars: The Social Contract
Found this happy little gem on my newsfeed today, and just couldn't resist taking to the keyboard for a little fun.
Today's topic is The Social Contract -- a favorite leftist rhetorical device used to justify wealth confiscation and redistribution. This is taken from a real exchange between real socialists, discussing an article (in the Huffington Post, naturally) called "New York Millionaires Offer to Pay Extra Taxes to Offset Budget Cuts":
Socialist A: Sounds like responsible citizenship and patriotism.
Socialist B: One of them says this: "This is what is decent and sensible as part of the social contract". The notion of the social contract is what seems to be missing from US society these days... And PS I have long wanted a bumpersticker that says "Please raise my taxes." I mean, I'm not a millionaire but I can afford to pay taxes and I believe those taxes should go towards social programs. Why is that so hard to understand???
Well, for one thing, because it's nonsense.
The first thing that's hard to understand is how two people can so totally misunderstand what a real contract is, and what the rules are that govern a legal contract. For instance, for a contract to be legally binding (and I just clipped this from Wikipedia to keep it simple):
Hence, anyone under the legal age of consent can't be bound by this "social contract", because they don't have the capacity to contract in the first place. The same goes for those who are legally incompetent to agree to a contract. And as far as everyone else is concerned, in order to be bound by the "social contract" they would actually have to consent to it. That means it would have to be drawn up as a legal document, and each and every individual who would be legally bound by it would have to voluntarily consent to it. Last time I checked, no one was bothering to do this.
And that's precisely because, as far as the socialists are concerned, the very fact that a person draws breath obliges them to abide by an unwritten, unsigned, non-existant "social contract" that is nothing more than a blank check to seize and redistribute wealth. It's also not a contract in any legally acceptable sense.
Now if you're rich, and you feel guilty about it, and you want to give more of your money to your favorite causes, be my guest. As long as there's no coercion involved, do whatever you want with your money or property. If you believe in social programs, donate to them. Volunteer. Organize fundraisers. That's called voluntary charity, and that's a great thing that I wholeheartedly support. It does more good than throwing public temper tantrums when you lose elections, and it'll probably make you feel better when you're done.
But that's not what most socialists want to do. It's too time intensive, and it cuts into their vital moralizing and problem-solving time ... especially when they've got cushy public service or education-related jobs. Instead, they'd rather use the guns of government (or at least the implied threat of the guns of government) to force everyone, regardless of what they believe in, to cough up more of their hard-earned money for their pet projects.
Which leads me to one final point. I can't resist pointing out that Socialist B obviously hasn't thought much about how government really works. Paying more taxes in no way insures that more money goes to social programs. Paying more taxes just means giving various levels of government more money to spend on something. When you send in the check, there's no mechanism to distribute your contribution according to your wishes. That only works in the private sector (and only if you bother to make such stipulations). So if, dear Socialist B, you really want your taxes raised, good luck making sure that extra cash goes to the welfare recipient you so cherish and not the next Tomahawk missile that gets fired at Libya.
Personally, I'd rather just keep my money.
Today's topic is The Social Contract -- a favorite leftist rhetorical device used to justify wealth confiscation and redistribution. This is taken from a real exchange between real socialists, discussing an article (in the Huffington Post, naturally) called "New York Millionaires Offer to Pay Extra Taxes to Offset Budget Cuts":
Socialist A: Sounds like responsible citizenship and patriotism.
Socialist B: One of them says this: "This is what is decent and sensible as part of the social contract". The notion of the social contract is what seems to be missing from US society these days... And PS I have long wanted a bumpersticker that says "Please raise my taxes." I mean, I'm not a millionaire but I can afford to pay taxes and I believe those taxes should go towards social programs. Why is that so hard to understand???
Well, for one thing, because it's nonsense.
The first thing that's hard to understand is how two people can so totally misunderstand what a real contract is, and what the rules are that govern a legal contract. For instance, for a contract to be legally binding (and I just clipped this from Wikipedia to keep it simple):
- a party must have capacity to contract
- the purpose of the contract must be lawful
- the form of the contract must be legal
- the parties must intend to create a legal relationship
- and the parties must consent
Hence, anyone under the legal age of consent can't be bound by this "social contract", because they don't have the capacity to contract in the first place. The same goes for those who are legally incompetent to agree to a contract. And as far as everyone else is concerned, in order to be bound by the "social contract" they would actually have to consent to it. That means it would have to be drawn up as a legal document, and each and every individual who would be legally bound by it would have to voluntarily consent to it. Last time I checked, no one was bothering to do this.
And that's precisely because, as far as the socialists are concerned, the very fact that a person draws breath obliges them to abide by an unwritten, unsigned, non-existant "social contract" that is nothing more than a blank check to seize and redistribute wealth. It's also not a contract in any legally acceptable sense.
Now if you're rich, and you feel guilty about it, and you want to give more of your money to your favorite causes, be my guest. As long as there's no coercion involved, do whatever you want with your money or property. If you believe in social programs, donate to them. Volunteer. Organize fundraisers. That's called voluntary charity, and that's a great thing that I wholeheartedly support. It does more good than throwing public temper tantrums when you lose elections, and it'll probably make you feel better when you're done.
But that's not what most socialists want to do. It's too time intensive, and it cuts into their vital moralizing and problem-solving time ... especially when they've got cushy public service or education-related jobs. Instead, they'd rather use the guns of government (or at least the implied threat of the guns of government) to force everyone, regardless of what they believe in, to cough up more of their hard-earned money for their pet projects.
Which leads me to one final point. I can't resist pointing out that Socialist B obviously hasn't thought much about how government really works. Paying more taxes in no way insures that more money goes to social programs. Paying more taxes just means giving various levels of government more money to spend on something. When you send in the check, there's no mechanism to distribute your contribution according to your wishes. That only works in the private sector (and only if you bother to make such stipulations). So if, dear Socialist B, you really want your taxes raised, good luck making sure that extra cash goes to the welfare recipient you so cherish and not the next Tomahawk missile that gets fired at Libya.
Personally, I'd rather just keep my money.
posted by DrJDG @ 00:58
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home