The Warren Omission
by Dave PerkinsElizabeth Warren is Scott Brown’s worst nightmare. She is a successful consumer advocate and think-tanker and has lurked around government for her entire life. She is a champion debater from her school days and is passionate in her (leftist) beliefs. And she will be running against Brown for the “Ted Kennedy seat” in Massachusetts.
She’s already campaigning, and last month made a speech in defense of the “underlying social contract”, a speech that has leftist hearts aflame from coast to coast. Here is her relevant moment:
“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to markets on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory. Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea. God bless! Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is that you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
Ms. Warren is attempting to refute an argument that nobody is making. No Republican, no tea partier, no conservative, argues for absence of government or zero taxes or an end to public services. It’s a straw man, easy to knock down but absurd on its face. And it’s ironic that her opponent, Senator Brown, is one of the least likely Republicans to make arguments against any government service or existing tax. In any case, she has left out a LOT of information, and here is my report on the Warren Omission.
“You built a factory…. you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.” Roads are primarily a state and county affair. But on the level of federal funding, this applies; whenever tax money is sent to Washington, a huge chunk of it is skimmed for the expense of government (think 50%), and whatever is left is usually allocated based on politics. It’s about favors owed, favors cultivated. Federal funding for roads is doubtless the least efficient and most corrupt means of building them, and if that money were left in taxpayer pockets and instead collected by the states and counties for road construction, we’d have more and better roads very quickly, and at less cost to those taxpayers. The states, after all, actually build them. The federal government doesn’t send construction crews and truckloads of asphalt to each state.
And I remember, back in the 1970s, a dubious federal “enforcement” of the new 55 mph speed limit. The federal government used its funding in an extortionate manner, telling states they were free to keep the speed limit at 70, but no federal highway funds would go to any state which did so. They were Mafia tactics, used to abridge state’s rights indirectly, without confronting the states in court.
“You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.” Well, yes and no. In Texas, our schools are primarily funded by property tax, which does not fall to those who do not own property. In my home’s school district, a huge amount of residents are apartment dwellers, many in the middle or upper middle class. Their children are educated without cost to the parents. And on the federal level, the 47% who pay no income tax are also beneficiaries.
Public education is not paid for by “the rest of us”, Ms. Warren, but by some of us for the benefit of others. You cannot simultaneously be in favor of wealth redistribution and make the claim that everyone pays. And there is no Department of Education in the Constitution; it was created by Jimmy Carter in his last year, a giant pointless expense that mostly duplicates efforts made by the departments of education in the individual states.
“You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces…“ Again, a state, county and city affair. Insofar as the federal government is concerned with these people, it is primarily to help their unions receive the pay and benefits they are bargaining for (at taxpayer expense), so that the members will recall which party to vote for at election time. Just like the teachers’ unions, come to think of it. And the public employee unions whose members build the roads.
And finally we arrive at “the underlying social contract”. She calls it “underlying” because it isn’t there, rather like the “penumbra” idea which often leads the Supreme Court to discover new rights in the Constitution which are not there. Jean-Jacques Rousseau put it all on paper in 1762 with “du Contrat Social”, which was a major influence on the founding fathers as they fought for independence and worked their way to the Constitutional Convention. But Rousseau wasn’t arguing in favor of wealth redistribution or giant central government or a central command economy or a rapid increase in government debt — or any of the things which provoked the rise of the Tea Party. Rousseau was attempting to clarify the kind of government structure which would best execute the will of the people, keeping both its effectiveness and its sovereignty intact. In our Preamble, we are told that some of the purposes of the government formed by the United States Constitution are to “provide for the common defense” and to “promote the general welfare”. The distinction between provide for and promote is obvious.
There is no “social contract”, underlying or otherwise, which obligates government to provide anyone’s living.
Why can’t Elizabeth Warren defend actual federal services in her speech, instead of defaulting to the ones mostly provided by states, counties and cities? Could it be that she is not confident the public would respond as warmly to a defense of, say, the Department of Energy? Obama’s energy secretary Steven Chu recently said “we need to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe”. Well, the gas prices have already doubled on Obama’s watch, so I suppose one could argue the DOE is, at the very least, efficient and goal oriented. Hard to publicly defend, though.
Which is why Elizabeth Warren is slaying a nonexistent dragon here, in a speech I’m sure she’ll be repeating often over the next several months. I hope that someone in the media will begin to address the straw man and will make some effort to truthfully represent constitutional conservatism in the face of her implications.
I also hope for peace, a cure for cancer and a World Cup for the USA soccer team.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
273 Comments
WARREN IS JUST ANOTHER USEFUL IDIOT:
http://www.popmodal.com/video/9383/ELIZABETH-WARR...
Ms. Warren is attempting to refute an argument that nobody is making.
Hear hear. If I only had a dollar for every time, after I make the case for limited but responsible government, the supposed thoughtful liberal reacts in shock and says, "So you believe in sheer anarchy? You believe we can keep slaves?" Etc.
Warren has done the world a favor by defining exactly how Liberals think is a short concise soundbite.
Brown was elected to stop Obamacare, but it obviously wasn't enough. Now the only way Obamacare will be repealed is if the GOP controls the entire government in the same way the Democrats did in 2009.
However I don't think the Massachusetts voters are really to go all-out for the GOP. They may have opposed Obamacare, but they are still Democrats.
The federal government that Ms. Warren so adores derives it's a.) money, and; b.) power from the people. Not the other way around. I don't know about any "social contract" but I do know it's what the Constitution says.
Thank you Ms. Warren for showing us who you really are.
That Ms. Warren , and others like her, are, or were, happily ensonced in tenured positions in universities…. perpetuating this CR*P to students over the years is amazing.
And then they're tapped by people like Obama to infect our country, further, with this garbage.
All of this was so predictable back in 2007-2008 had more than a handful of people done their research about Obama, and the people who surround him.
I've had this debate with several lefties here at Big Government and on the other Big sites. They argue that government is necessary and that without the government their would be anarchy. They argue that government regulations are necessary because without them unscrupulous people in the private sector would cheat and otherwise take advantage of innocent people. They argue that we need laws to keep the bad people from hurting good people.
These would be valid arguments if we on the right were calling for the abolition of all government and/or all regulations and/or all laws but we're not. Repeatedly I have explained that we want to put an end to overly large government that is strangling businesses and to stop the government from intruding into our private lives. No one in their right mind is calling for an end to all laws, regulations or government. We want freedom not anarchy.
Scott Brown was running against an unpopular Democratic candidate while a debate about an unpopular piece of onerous and (IMO) unConstitutional legislation known as "Obamacare" was ongoing. He won by a slim margin.
What's Brown done for you, MA? Will you lapse like a junkie back into your deep-blue ways, thinking to "balance" the conservative shift which is coming in 2012?
Scott Brown, what are you doing to show the voters they should keep you around? MA voters will go for the woman Leftist by default. It's force of habit.
If Brown doesn't give MA voters a reason to vote FOR him, he'll be a single-termer.
Let her spew it.
The Democrats lost the House with that sort of nonsense and telling people that you're coming after their wallet so deadbeats and bums can sit at home all day long is not going to win her any support.
Unless you are a deadbeat or a bum.
She came off like a fool the way she so casually dismissed what an enormous challenge it would be to build a factory and have a successful business filled with workers.
Believe me. People will notice that.
Some people spend their wholes lives building a successful business and when she goes " Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea. God bless! Keep a big hunk of it. " she comes across like a clueless halfwit.
When she speaks like that she has denied herself the advantage of using any large business as a political backdrop.
She can never campaign on improving the economy because she has made it clear that she has contempt for the people who produce and will be coming after their profits.
What factory would allow her a tour and allow her to give a speech or campaign there after hearing that garbage….?
Here's the "unwritten social contract". Pick up your own damn mess. Feed yourself. Take responsibility for your own footprint, whether that's paying for it, cleaning up after it, or just keeping it under control and not hurting others with it. Stop asking for a free lunch. Stop stealing money from the productive to give to the unproductive.
Ms. Warren is the perfect example of why taxes should be outlawed, and put on a voluntary basis.
you hired workers the rest of us paid to “educate”; in schools that are the laughing stock of the rest of the world with their low standards, their lack of discipline and their appalling lack of academic rigor; schools that have been infected with the disease of political correctness; schools where we teach your children that you are a parasite; schools where we denigrate the ideas that this country was founded on as well as the people who propagated those ideas; schools controlled by legalized criminals who use any means necessary (including violence) to protect incompetent teachers and prevent you from establishing schools that would take students away from them.
We moved our goods to markets on the roads we pay taxes on
We hired workers our taxes paid to educate.
We are safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces our taxes paid for.
Now we have to worry that marauding rogue government agencies seizing everything at our factory.
..and who's fault is is? Why, the rich of course.
“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; roads that in most Blue States are wholly inadequate to the task of moving your goods to the market and getting your employees to work; roads that people like me are working tirelessly to undermine with our pet projects like light rail and our exorbitant gas taxes and tolls; roads that in some cases (like our infamous Big Dig tunnels) actually KILL your customers and employees.
you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did; unless those marauding bands are the union thugs who put us in power, in which case we protect THEM from YOU rather than protect YOU from THEM.
“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along. Of course, unlike OTHER social contracts (such as the US Constitution) we do not consider said social contract to be ‘a living document’. The terms of this ‘contract’ may never be changed, no matter how much it bankrupts our state and our country. Thank you for your cooperation.”
Her points are epically beaten down here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/09/eliza...
Here's the problem with her complete lack of understanding of what really goes on in life. Only half of us actually pay income taxes. And the vast majority of the taxes paid come from the upper middle class to the very rich. So, she should stop talking, it only proves her ignorance.
Here profoundly stupid statement only strengthens my belief that we should ask liberals to leave the country!
“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to markets on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory. Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea. God bless! Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is that you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
This quote is so infuriating.
The guy that built the factory is the one that paid the taxes that paid for every one of the roads & infrastructure you are taking credit for Beth.
Warren typifies the Ugly in the Inside and Ugly on the Outside of Liberalism not to mention that her yammerings are vapid and inane to anyone with a working brain.
http://theantiliberalzone.blogspot.com/
THE ANTI LIBERAL ZONE
Well stated, HH.
They argue that we need laws to keep the bad people from hurting good people.
What they really think is: "We need to save people from themselves."
When I get the rare opportunity to observe urban dwellers in their native habitat, I can understand how a soft thinker would extrapolate that, worshiping at the First United Church of Liberal Fundamantalism.
Is that the best rebuttal there is?
How about:
“You moved your goods to markets on the roads the rest of us paid for."
That's right, you did!
Of course if the goods were moved to markets on roads the factory owner paid for, then the price of those goods would be three times as high. Aren't you glad you paid for those roads so those good are so cheap?
And of course you get to use those roads too!
"You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate."
That's right, you did!
Of course if those workers weren't educated they would be getting paid 5 cents an hour like in Third World countries. Aren't you glad you paid for your children to have an education and the great standard of living that goes with it?
Also, if those workers were so untrained the quality of the goods would be much lower. Aren't you glad you paid to educate those workers so you can have such high quality goods?
"You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for."
That's right, you did!
But just like with the roads, if the factory owner was paying for them then the price of goods would be three times as high, and they wouldn't be there when you were getting robbed or your homes were burning. Aren't you glad you paid for them?
"You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory."
That's right, they don't!
If they did they would have to hire their own private armies to protect their factory, and that would mean, what? Anybody? Anybody? You guessed it – the price of those goods would be three times as high! Aren't you glad you paid for a stable social order so you could have such a high standard of living?
And, that's right, those marauding bands would also be roaming about seizing everything at your home. I'm not sure, but I kinda, sorta, wild guess, think that you as an individual cannot afford a private army to protect your home. Wow, you really are benefiting even more from that stable social order!
"But part of the underlying social contract is that you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
That's right, you do!
And part of that "hunk" is in the form of cheaper consumer goods that provide a higher standard of living for idiots like Elizabeth Warren.
Another part of that "hunk" is in the form of higher wages that provide a higher standard of living for idiots who think Elizabeth Warren knows what she is talking about.
Yet another part of that "hunk" is in the form of reasonably LOW taxes that support the government, just like everyone else pays, because high taxes cut into the standard of living and wages of those rational people who know what an idiot Elizabeth Warren and her groupies are.
There; that's how you break it down to refute idiot socialists like Elizabeth Warren.
Oh, and as a bonus: I've read Rousseau's "The Social Contract".
One of his main "conclusions" is that when the State orders the death of someone for any reason or for no reason, it is the obigation of that person to give up his life without complaint.
The Founders very much paid attention to "The Social Contract" – and they categorically rejected the democratically elected absolute dictatorship it prescribed.
"…………I hope that someone in the media will begin to address the straw man and will make some effort to truthfully represent constitutional conservatism……."
Great article exposing this new lib mantra,……
that is to serve as a response to our Tea Party goals.
But please, do not expect the MSM to be critical of this ploy, if anything,……
the MSM is probably putting together a package,……..
on how to sell this "Pet Rock"
Message to the eight that gathered in Florida last night:
This would be a great talking point on,…….
differentiating on what government should be and,…..
what this Mass ho is trying to 'intellectualize"
Hell, she is not an American….. as a matter of fact she is Anti-American, not that such matters much in Massachusetts
That's only because they have no ripostes to your genuine position, of course. They have to attribute strawman positions to you — the sort they can set on fire — because your stated positions are rational and defensible.
But in part, the problem is that it's impossible to convince a left-liberal to change his mind on anything substantive. His premises differ so completely from ours that we can't even establish points of commonality to serve as a basis for discussion. What do you do with someone who denies the existence of right, wrong, and objectively verifiable facts? What can you possibly say to him?
Only cross swords with a left-liberal when you're really preaching to your mutual audience — third parties who might or might not be reachable, but haven't yet demonstrated that they're not.
You want to know what the SOCIAL CONTRACT IS? It Begins "We the People, In order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of LIBERTY to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this constitution of The United States of America." (emphasis mine)
THAT is our SOCIAL CONTRACT!
If Brown wants to win, he's going to have to show he's different…
That may be very hard for that RINO to do….
Useful? No, she's just a common idiot!
What exactly is " a social contract"? And as a taxpayer I am the rest of us. Is that liberal speak for provide more money to the bureaucratic nightmare we call a government. I would prefer to give any money from any successes I achieve to the groups of MY choice. What exactly is the responsibility of the takers in the country? To keep on taking…
See my post above Lolly, our social contract is the constitution.
You say that renters do not pay property tax, but in reality they do so, just indirectly through rent. The landlord may actually pay the bill, but you can be sure the cost is passed on to the residents. In fact, depending on state and local laws, renters likely pay a higher percentage than homeowners because rental properties generally have no homestead exemption. Your argument is still valid though.
Her major flaw is that she assumes that without government's involvement none of those things would be done.
Brown is no winner either, its so far left in Mass that a guy like Brown comes off looking like a conservative. I never trusted the guy and knew something was up. It wasnt even 24hrs after being elected and he made you think twice http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L7n8vyz0xk
His infamous quote gave birth to what I have called here and elsewhere to not "fall for the Scott Brown Effect". He had one good line and ppl flocked to him without a second thought. Sound/video bites are not enough to elect someone. Dig into these people none of them can be trusted. We have done it with Chris Christie too, only to learn Christie is a bit questionable when you look at his actions vs words!
GOP needs to ID someone to challenge Brown to take out Warren its that simple……
If you're reading this you are the resistance
Ms. Warren somehow ignores history. Did capitalism begin with America? Did people only become rich recently? Did all of America's infrastructure only come from government? Did America only have infrastructure after the implementation of the income tax? If not, could it not be said that it was the capitalist who helped to "pay it forwward" and not the royal "us" to which she refers?
"Ms. Warren is attempting to refute an argument that nobody is making. "
Isn't that what most liberal progressives do all the time?
I think they probably will. If, however, the voting public in Mass. actually used the synapses that God gave them, they would see the ultimate fallacy of her rant. It goes directly against their economic freedom.
But,…..simple minds want government largess and wither Scott Brown.
Like I really care except, it is another (R).
Stupidest argument I've ever heard. Has she forgotten that the rich guy also pays taxes — and at a much higher rate than others? The roads/police/whatever that she says government provides are provided for everyone, and they are disproportionately paid for by the evil rich. It's not as if only the rich guy uses the roads or police when everyone else paid for them. If that were the case, she'd have an argument. Unfortunately, she's talking out of her a**. They're for everyone, and the rich guy pays more than most people to use them.
Such idiocy. Everything she lists is there for anyone to use. In other words, anyone can take risks and have a shot at being wealthy. The ones who succeed don't get there by taking from anyone else.
Nice job BZ.
And you are the only person here to actually know what Rousseau was advocating and that the Founding Fathers rejected his ideas.
The only thing that I would add is that Warren's thinking is based on the labor theory of value which denies that intelligence has any bearing on the value of work. Digging a ditch has the same value whether that ditch is a useless hole, a swimming pool or an oil well. There is no concept of return on investment which, along with market forces, determines the relative value of human labor and human intelligence.
Scott Brown's a Democrat wannabe anyway, He's no great loss.
Believe me. People will notice that.
I hope they do, or are, but I have my doubts. Things like this resonate with the primitives. Producers understand the superficialty of that rant. Leeches and parasites simply grunt and groan for more.
LOL. Go Doc!
Exactly. The purpose of responding to Lefties is to convince any moderates/centrists who might be listening. The Lefties themselves are completely fanatical and will never be shifted by any argument, no matter how cogent, moral, or well-reasoned.
Like Gibson.
Damn them for supporting (R)'s. Take their stuff!
Another example: When I argue humbly that the state should have nothing to do with marriage, the usual shrieked response is, "So you want to do away with marriage all together?!? You think people should just 'live together'?"
In other words, "Do you realize that you're a scary person thinking scary thoughts?"
I can only shake my head.
Usual takeaway from any such otherwise trivial political debate is that people generally aren't looking for truth or agreement, as much as they may insist they are. Rather, they're looking for triumph. And a triumph that involves the abject, whimpering subjugation of their adversary (the closer the relation or friendship, the more total and permanent the triumph sought). And a triumph that has them walking away wearing the crown of moral and intellectual superiority. Regardless of any objective notion of truth or goodness.
There is a youtube clip of Ann Coulter on Neil Cavuto's show during the '08 campaign, she is on an anti McCain tirade (Cavuto mentions that Moveon.org had just endorsed Obama; Ann replies, 'yeah; their second choice is John McCain,' to the audible delight of the floor crew, lol).
During the conversation, Romney's name came up and she excused him for some of his mushy policies while campaigning in Massachussetts, "which is like campaigning in North Korea," again to the delight of the floor crew who can be heard busting up laughing… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtOUTbFw7rs
I read that. Good article.
I was going to leave that comment and saw someone had beaten me to it. I have little but contempt for Elizabeth Warren's views. But on this one small point I thought Dave Perkins may have overstated his otherwise fine case.
At it's core, it's simple minded pap for the shallow thinking populace. It will play well until debunked, as it is now (and was disingenuous to begin with).
It's just a slightly more sophisticated call for class warfare. The primitives can then stare at the producers when they return to the campfire with the food that the primitives will gladly feast upon.
They got rich because they had a product or service that people wanted or needed. The people that purchased the product or service that was provided helped to make people rich. Does that mean that the person who provided the product or service should be demonized for what they have been able to provide? Henry Ford made a product that many people wanted or needed and he got rich providing that product. Through this act, he was able to give many people jobs to produce the product that he offered. That is the way business works. If the people who start businesses didn’t get rich, they wouldn’t be able to hire people. This is how jobs are created. What would a socialist know anyway?
"The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves."
George Washington
her yammerings are vapid and inane to anyone with a working brain.
Therein, lies the problem……
Agreed. He, quite obviously, thinks similarly.
The softest underbelly of Warren's argument is the typical leftist characterization / mischaracterization of conservative / libertarian philosophy. I don't know whether they actually believe their version of it or whether they just distort it for political gain.
Specifically, there is a difference between living your life FOR yourself and living your life BY yourself.
Not even Ayn Rand through her characters made that claim–Howard Roark acknowledged that he needed customers; he just thought that his customers needed him, too, if they wanted him to design their home.
Hank Rearden needed customers, too, he just thought that he should be able to sell his Metal to whomever he wanted to at whatever price he could demand for it because HE spent ten years inventing it–it was HIS property.
……Yes.
So according to this Libtard, the guy who built the factory didn't also pay for the roads, the education of the workers or the protection his factory received?
Who in their RIGHT mind would fall for this steaming pile of horse manure?
Go back to the land of unicorns and rainbows sweetheart. Or Europe, which ever suits you better because like Herman Cain said last night- The dog won't hunt here.
I've yet to see a single debate wherein a member of the hard left was not pushed immediately to obfuscation upon taking the line from generalities to specifics. The "for the good of the many" mantra always fails in EPIC fashion under direct fire. They can withstand generalities forever but as I have already said they wither under the questioning of specifics. She too would fold this way. I have little doubt she enjoyed debating and as most of us who can speak publicly without discomfort do and few enjoy ranting about causes than do those on the left but that's usually against those defending a position weakened by the questions allowed by the forum.
Scott Brown can control the forum should he choose to do so. In that, you'll find even most of academia's uber elite flinching.
Beth thinks she just waves her hand and the roads and stuff are there. The money is just there.
We are being dictated to by people that don't have a f-ing clue how the world works.
Lets WRITE out your 'un-written' social contract. and give it wide circulation. The responsible people in this country have been cowed into silence about these items for far too long.
I get the superficial logic behind the privatization of marriage argument, it just seems completely impractical when dealing with things like inheritance, custody, visiting rights, benefits, etc. Yes, I know you can arrange for contracts, but doesn't it seem inefficient to have to go through all sorts of legal loops rather than just have one simple, legally enforced government contract?
"You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory"
That won't be the case much longer if the libs have their way.
So is your argument that liberals are rigid ideologues, because they are unable to be convinced your rigid ideology is the correct one?
Um, excuse me, but the taxes that paid for the roads came out of the paychecks of the employees who got jobs from the 'wealthy' business owner. So it could be argued that the wealthy DID pay for the roads. I'm just sayin'….
Warren doesn't understand that most fabrication jobs require training above and beyond a high school education. Usually it's the company's training program that "educates" a worker on his/her job duties and skill sets. or, the person themselves goes to a technical school to learn the skills, which may or may not be paid by taxpayers. She is using over simplistic reasoning in her speech, and proggies lap it up like mother's milk.
But I thought "No Republican, no tea partier, no conservative, argues for absence of government or zero taxes or an end to public services."
For the life of me, I'll never understand why their logo is a picture of Uncle Sam taking a dump
For Progressives the social contract means "we get some of your money to feed our enterprise" (government). They got the idea from the mafia "protection" thing.
Thanks.
I have to say, I read Rousseau, and at first he seems perfectly reasonable; all logical, supporting a State in which the people determine the rulers and all that.
Then I got to that line.
And all the pieces started falling into place.
NEVER trust anyone who quotes Rousseau favorably!!!
They are either a fool who just likes to quote famous "philosophers" to try and look intelligent but has never actually read them; or they are a typical sociopathic fascist who believes the State is supreme, and that the purpose of the people is to give it sanction once then shut up and die to sustain it for eternity.
THAT is Rousseau's "Social Contract".
"Evil" is too mild a word to describe it.
Can you disagree with her without resorting to sexist namecalling? Thanks in advance
Very well put – straw man arguments are about the only thing you hear from "progressives", usually interspersed with ad hominem attacks, because they don't have a coherent, logical argument to make or any empirical success in policy.
One point of dissent however. I am a Texas homeowner and pay property taxes for the local schools. But property taxes are also paid by commercial properties and apartments. The vast majority (but not all) apartment owners pay property tax. The tax paid is derived from rents so the vast majority of apartment residents do in fact pay property taxes, albeit indirectly.
Where's her birth certificate?!?! Amirite?
Not to mention that public education doesn't necessarily end at 12th grade, and most state universities are not funded through other forms of taxation
When his vote really counts, he will let us down..
Pray that Obama doesn't get the opportunity to put another Progressive on the Supreme Court….
Rousseau is the reason I woke up. Someone in college (I was a Returning Student then) kept quoting him, and his very putresence (is that the word? I can't think of anything more foul, so, wing it for me if you've got something worse) made me wretch. It seemed every word was spoken from on high by an over-arching Headmaster from an English Boarding school. I tend not to listen to anyone who speaks like that, fearing it's nannyism in one form or another. And yes, nice breakdown, BZ. Yes, Reason, any of her thinking would be based on some marxist interpretation of value, if she could even value things at all.
I don't know how well the "I'm an angry liberal and I'm mad as hell" thing plays in Massachusetts, but it appears to me that it ran its course a long time ago. That's all she's got, really.
Hey, didn't Scott Brown win by being staunchly anti-Obamacare? Isn't Obamacare even MORE unpopular now? Isn't it going to be a major campaign issue in Massachusetts, again? Is there any chance in hell that Warren would ever vote to repeal Obamacare?
Who knows what will happen; she may win, but if you look at Brown's last victory, and the GOP win in NY-9, and the continually crashing stock market, the obvious double-dip in the economy, mega-unemployment, and so forth, she's not going to sail to an easy victory.
No. They are rigid ideologues because they refuse to accept that their human rights are not granted nor removed by government. They are rigid ideologues because they refuse to use linear logic. They are rigid ideologues because they ALWAYS end any philosophical/political paradigmatic debate with a variation of "you 're a big meany".
Your question proves exactly the commenters point which you are trying to refute using silly circular logic.
Maybe there are some of those Blue (or is it Red) Democrats up there who are shocked to wake up and see that their party has been hijacked by the Progressives. Maybe.
They do call the place Taxachussets. That pretty much suggests a desire to hurt themselves. We'll find out soon enough.
The social contract, is the set of rules designed to steal as much as they can from producers, and pay off the slugs in the country to buy more demoncrat votes. the contract states.
"You, the rich SOB that has to be evil, and can only have got your money by being a crook, must degrade your life, and give up those ill gotten gains, to make the world "FAIR" for everybody. We will steal, regulate, and tax you till you cry, and then press a bit more. And the whole time, we will also be making you out to be the equivalent of a serial killer that eats puppies and kittens, with the occasional human baby thrown in. You cant fight that part, even if you give half of your profit a year to charity, we will still demonize you, It's just our way to squeeze every penny we can out of you."
Signed with love, The Democrats.
Typical Marxist twit. The gangs that we need protection from are the EPA, FDA, IRS, etc.
FU commie b!tch
Unfortunately, there is no way to "prove" how natural rights are derived, or if they even exist. You just kind of believe they do or don't. There's not a "right" answer. If you pretend there is, you are being just as rigid in your ideology.
As for your example of their debating tactics, I think even you would have to admit that's pretty ridiculous hyperbole.
yes, the cost is passed on, but in apartment complexes the property tax structure is different than on residences. And the market determines rent, which means if the market is down the property owner has to eat hard costs like taxes or else have empty units. It is a very indirect tax which often is at least partly absorbed by others, and in no case is it directly paid by the renter. Good catch though.
Ah my "home state of MA, to think it was a part of the birth of the Republic, and now is like a boil on the backside of the country.
Got two words for this woman….. Henry Ford !!!! Answer that….
"Putrescence" works.
A few other words, but they aren't really suitable for polite company.
And yes, most philosophy is written in that pedantic style, a relic of Latin rhetoric.
The difference is in whether or not they bother to support their assertions rather than relying on "self-evident" premises. That's why the Declaration and Federalist works so well. Yes, they tell us that the foundational principles are self-evident, and so they won't bother arguing them, but then they go on and lay out the direct facts for why they are prescribing their particular course of action.
I've read a nice chunk of political philosophy. I'm not sure people really appreciate just how rare that sort of presentation is, and why it establishes an objective superiority to the American system.
Ask? I was thinking a great big catapult, one way ticket, we'll set it up on Cape Cod, and see if we can hit England from there.
Wait, might that be considered biological warfare?
I would say leftists are largely uneducated and cannot hold an idea larger than a bumpersticker. They are taught not to question their masters (Cain is an Uncle Tom because he thinks for himself) and they cannot debate policy because they have only been taught how to hate and not how to think or debate in any civilized manner.
What 'underlying social contract' is she speaking about? What I'm hearing is there's no ownership without sharing. I don't seem to remember that in American History o lo those many years ago.
If you define "uneducated" as "someone who disagrees with me" then I guess you're right. If you measure it by something actually quantifiable, however, like a postgraduate degree, I think you'll find plenty of "educated" liberals.
And that is exactly the last thing they have left, class warfare. all they have to do is convince the welfare millions that they are poor because rich people sneak in their windows in the middle of the night and take money out of their pockets.
Shaddup troll. Go back to your moms basement, the adults need to talk.
I like how in your world the "adults" are the ones calling Harvard law professors "hoes"
Public services, most of which are provided at the state level serve everyone…not just the so called rich. There are no special roads, bridges, or security forces exclusively provided for any single person or group of people…the services serve everyone. Unless of course you’re a politician…then you get your own special treatment from tax dollars. Her “argument” has zip, zero, nada to do with the financial risks private business entrapanurs accept in the pursuit of wealth. Do the taxpayers assume the risks when these “fat cats” fail? Unless you’re a well connected crony corporation like GM, complete with a corrupt union…the answer is no. Using her logic, truck drivers, who use our roads the most for their livelihood, should relinquish more money to the government under the “social contract”.
It is not debating techniques or skills statists like Mrs. Warren lack, it’s content. The entire liberal philosophy is premised on a lie.
Silly, don't you know that's 235 years out of date? we need the "NEW AND IMPROVED" social contract, you know, the one that turns our country into a copy of Zimbabwe, cause all their social programs worked so well, I personally cant wait to be walking around with a pocket full $1,000,000,000 bank notes and have to use ten of them to buy a loaf of bread. Really, I get a shiver up my leg when I think about it.
If I'd have been paying attention, I'd have mentioned to Mz. Warren that a "marauding gang" recently "seized" a lot of goods in the form of raw materials from an evil factory. They burst in, armed, frightening the employees, and looted the place. They're called the US Government, and the factory was named "Gibson". So we DO have to worry about those marauding gangs– unless we donate to DEMOCRAT candidates.
What an ignorant person. It seems to me, when Ms. Warren can point to the city that was purchased by the Government as untouched wilderness, cleared with taxpayer money, streets and all necessities put in before businesses and people arrived, she might be right.
Obviously, she can't and isn't.
She want to make this a confusing, unknown Which Came First, the "chicken or egg" problem.
It isn't.
We know which came first in the "Business or Government" model. Business, every time.
Ron Reale
realetybytes.com
Good catch, and someone else here caught that as well. I'd respond that property taxes are hard costs for the property owner, but apartments are (speculation on my part as I've never owned them) taxed differently as businesses, and besides, if the market is down, the owner can either absorb the taxes or jack his rates and lose renters, so… the owner is on the line for the tax, but not necessarily the renter, and it's indirect in any case. So rent probably includes some level of property tax as cost, but not always and not always all of it. That's my take.
The lie is that we all owe each other in a concrete and accountable way. But I say that one man's obligation to be charitable to his fellow man does NOT translate to the fellow man's RIGHT to dig around in the first man's wallet until he's happy. Charity is a CHOICE, and when it's not, it isn't charity. I do not owe any man a living, nor does any man owe ME one. Leftists, simply put, believe I do. End of story. Let the final battle be fought on the premise that I own myself, I own my labor (which I can sell on the free market and therefore prove my ownership of self), and I own the fruits of that labor, not just "a big hunk" of those fruits. I own them ALL. I recognize taxation must take place and agree in principle to be taxed, but the rest of it is all up for discussion. The rates, the types of tax, and most importantly THE THINGS WE DECIDE TO SPEND MONEY ON AND THE AMOUNTS WE DECIDE TO SPEND. They are all part of every political discussion. Nothing is sacred EXCEPT government's respect for the labor of the taxpayer. Right now, that respect is at an all time low, and I propose we restore it, NO MATTER WHAT IT TAKES. /end rant
Jester, you're right. No way to prove it. Except for the fact that every society down through the millenia appear to have similar basic understandings of what constitutes good and bad, right and wrong. Don't steal, don't murder, don't lie in a business deal or defraud anyone, etc etc. These things are not just in the Bible, they're in Hammurabi's code and several other ancient writings from various societies. If they're "natural", inherent in the creature, one would seek to prove it by finding evidence they are acknowledged in many cultures and at many times in history. And one would FIND that evidence. So… got any evidence to the contrary? Any ancient societies which embraced, or mandated, that people defraud each other, murder each other or steal each other's property? Are these "good characteristics" in any society other than bizarro world? Just askin'.
They can't make the connection.
which speaks perhaps to the desperate condition in which one finds our current schools, not necessarily to the moral or philosophical advancement of the holders of those degrees. And never mind there are many conservatives with degrees too, and they're never discussed when this sort of snobbish superiority is floated out there as some sort of qualification for something. Either "having a degree is proof of superiority" or it is not. If it is, it is for all political bents.
Unless you define "superiority" as "leftism"….?
Thank you for providing an excellent example of a left-liberal's strawman argument. I couldn't have hoped for a better one.
No, but public school is nominally free, and university is not. Funding, even grants and scholarships, is required. the "free education" ends at the 12th grade except in specific cases.
Hoes? I have never in my life equated anybody to a gardening tool. Now then, Harvard "professors" are in general evil, slimy, self important, overstuffed bags of sh!t. The world would be a better place without 97% of Harvard alumni, especially the lawyers. Harvard lawyers are half of the problem in the country, I would call them seething, lying, corrupt, power mongering buckets of slime, but that would be insulting to seething, lying, corrupt, power mongering buckets of slime.
Intellectual insecurity much?
You must be logged in to post a comment.