YadaRanger
18th August 2008, 01:13
All power comes from God, I agree; but so does every disease, and no one forbids us to summon a physician.
I assume that men reach a point where the obstacles to their preservation in a state of nature prove greater than the strength that each man has to preserve himself in that state. Beyond this point, the primitive condition cannot endure, for then the human race will perish if it does not change its mode of existence.
...men cannot create new forces, merely combine and control those wich already exist, the only way in which they can preserve themselves is by uniting their separate powers in a combination strong enough to overcome.
The fundamental problem to which the social contract holds the solution (is): How to find a form of association which will defend the person and goods of each member with the collective force of all, and under which each individual, wile uniting himself with the others, obeys no one but himself, and remains as free as before.
...total alienation by each associate of himself and all his rights to the wole community. Thus, in the first place, as every individual give himself absolutely, the conditions are the same for all, and precisely because they are the same for all, it is in no one's interest to make the conditions onerous* for others.
*synonyms. onerous, burdensome, oppressive, exacting mean imposing hardship. DEF. onerous: stresses being laborious and heavy.
Duty and self-interest thus equally oblige the two contracting parties to give each other mutual aid; and the same men should seek to bring together in this dual relationship, all the advantages that flow from it.
What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and the absolute right to anything that temps him and that he can take; what he gains by the social contract is civil liberty and the legal right of property in what he possesses. ..we must clearly distinguish between NATURAL liberty, which has no limit but the physical power of the individual concerned, and CIVIL liberty, which is limited by the GENERAL will.
Basis for the whole social system: A moral and lawful equality for whatever physical inequality that nature may have imposed on mankind; so that however unequal in strength and intelligence, men become equal by covenant and by right.
Under a bad government, this equality is only an appearance and an illusion; it serves only to keep the poor in their wretchedness and sustain the rich in their usurpation. In truth, laws are always useful to those with possessions and harmful to those who have nothing; from which it follows that the social state is advantageous to men only when all possess something and none has too much.
Now let us look at our constitution wile keeping in mind my JJR highlights.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure 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 for the United States of America.
Now ill tell you some stats.
the richest 1% of the people have 40% of the wealth.
the richest 15% own 80% of stock.
My final question is this, does INSURING domestic Tranquility and PROMOTING the GENERAL welfare not call for equality and somewhere close to an equal rise in the standard of living? Does the common defense not include defense against poverty and health care? Thomas Paine calls government a necessary evil. When the "necessary evil" not only does not defend the 85% of this country from exploitation, but subsidizes the 15% of the country who are the exploiters, then that evil is no longer necessary, but it adds on the the problem which is the class divide and becomes simply "evil". Do we not fit the model of what JJR calls, "A bad government"?:thumbup:
I assume that men reach a point where the obstacles to their preservation in a state of nature prove greater than the strength that each man has to preserve himself in that state. Beyond this point, the primitive condition cannot endure, for then the human race will perish if it does not change its mode of existence.
...men cannot create new forces, merely combine and control those wich already exist, the only way in which they can preserve themselves is by uniting their separate powers in a combination strong enough to overcome.
The fundamental problem to which the social contract holds the solution (is): How to find a form of association which will defend the person and goods of each member with the collective force of all, and under which each individual, wile uniting himself with the others, obeys no one but himself, and remains as free as before.
...total alienation by each associate of himself and all his rights to the wole community. Thus, in the first place, as every individual give himself absolutely, the conditions are the same for all, and precisely because they are the same for all, it is in no one's interest to make the conditions onerous* for others.
*synonyms. onerous, burdensome, oppressive, exacting mean imposing hardship. DEF. onerous: stresses being laborious and heavy.
Duty and self-interest thus equally oblige the two contracting parties to give each other mutual aid; and the same men should seek to bring together in this dual relationship, all the advantages that flow from it.
What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and the absolute right to anything that temps him and that he can take; what he gains by the social contract is civil liberty and the legal right of property in what he possesses. ..we must clearly distinguish between NATURAL liberty, which has no limit but the physical power of the individual concerned, and CIVIL liberty, which is limited by the GENERAL will.
Basis for the whole social system: A moral and lawful equality for whatever physical inequality that nature may have imposed on mankind; so that however unequal in strength and intelligence, men become equal by covenant and by right.
Under a bad government, this equality is only an appearance and an illusion; it serves only to keep the poor in their wretchedness and sustain the rich in their usurpation. In truth, laws are always useful to those with possessions and harmful to those who have nothing; from which it follows that the social state is advantageous to men only when all possess something and none has too much.
Now let us look at our constitution wile keeping in mind my JJR highlights.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure 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 for the United States of America.
Now ill tell you some stats.
the richest 1% of the people have 40% of the wealth.
the richest 15% own 80% of stock.
My final question is this, does INSURING domestic Tranquility and PROMOTING the GENERAL welfare not call for equality and somewhere close to an equal rise in the standard of living? Does the common defense not include defense against poverty and health care? Thomas Paine calls government a necessary evil. When the "necessary evil" not only does not defend the 85% of this country from exploitation, but subsidizes the 15% of the country who are the exploiters, then that evil is no longer necessary, but it adds on the the problem which is the class divide and becomes simply "evil". Do we not fit the model of what JJR calls, "A bad government"?:thumbup: