Friday, September 5, 2008
Lesson 1 - Social Contract Q2
What is meant by the term "social contract" and how is it connected to the idea that government derives its authority from the consent of the governed? Any exceptions of who SHOULDN'T be included in creating their government? Explain your answer clearly and reply to the arguments of others where you disagree.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
The term social contract is connected to the idea that the government derives its authority from the consent of the governed because the social contract states that a government has power and authority only if "the people" agree with it. If the people did not agree with having a King, and did not want to govern a King, the government would not have the consent of the people and no longer have its authority. If the people of the United States did not want John McCain to be president, he would not win the presedential election, and he would not have governmental authority nor would he be able to just say "I am President". He would only gain authority if he was governed and the people wanted him to be in the government and their President. I feel as though anyone that can force their way to becoming powerful should not be part of creating the government. If a man in our country said he had a missle that would blow up the entire country unless he became President, he should not be allowed to use his power to become President. I also do not believe in monarchies because a King does not have God's "divine right" and he should not be able to use that just to become King. Powerful people and groups should not be able to force themselves into power, it should be what the marjority of "the people" want.
I believe that the "social contract" is, or should be connected to the consent of the citizens of who and/or what body will govern them. Although i do agree with freejack that for a social contract to be in affect then "the people" need to agree, but i do believe that not just "the people" need to agree, but i think that it should be the majority of "the people". though we do have to accept that it doesn't always happen that way. people sieze power by millitary and the majority doesn't matter anymore, the group with more power does, and if the majority doesn't have the power than an unpopular dictator can rule w/o the majority of the citizen's consent.
I feel that what freejack said "I feel as though anyone that can force their way to becoming powerful should not be part of creating the government" is a quote that should be followed and heeded. I feel it is truely a stroke of wisdom.
I personally don't think that Freejack's line is entirely true. the fact that they have the power to become a leader through force dosent't mean they will or are certainly a bad ruler. If there is a bad government, the only way to establish a better one may rest in the hands of someone who "can force thier way to becoming powerful". it takes more than a bunch of idiots with pitchforks and torches to establish a functioning government.
I can see your point that someone who will take power by force may not be abusive, but so far in history it is usually the case. And everyone should learn from the past to correct possible mistakes from occurring. Though a forceful leader may be what a country needs.
Again slappy, you used a poor chioce of words. "usually" is a pretty broad term with little actual meaning. you seem to be implying a dictator when all I quoted was "someone who can force their way to becoming powerful" force is also a broad term. It includes revolutions,uprisings, shifts in government, bloody coups, and assasinations. Besides, plenty of people have come to power forcefully besides dictators like George Washington.
George Washington did not come to power through force. he was the general of the continental army, and the presided over the last continential convention, and after was asked to be president by the government. Just to clarify.
Wow, you guy really have a debate going on there. Can I just say that George Washington came to power because he was a good leader and at that time in American history, there was not a lot of governmental order established. I don't believe he "forced his way to power". Sometimes I think people just come to power because they are strong and are supported by a minority group. Anyways, to answer the question. "Social contract" just means a set of rules that everyone is of accords with. Obviously convicted criminals should not be included in this decision.
cap'n- if a leader has to force himself to become leader, he may not be a good choice. if he was such a good leader, he would have people behind him to support him and he would not have to "force" his way into power. if the government was a bad one, and there needed change, i think that people would realize this and support a new leader. that way, he would not have to physically force his way into being in power.
see- good ol' peggie and i are on the same page. if someone is such a good leader, they would have the support of others and not have to hold a gun to everyone's head in order to become powerful.
The term, "social contract," refers to an agreement between the people to sacrifice their privileges in a "state of nature" in favor of the security that comes with a government. That means that government exists only because the people agree to abide by the limitations. Without all or most of the peoples' consent then the government can not possibly have any authority because no one would be willing to listen to them. Anyone who lives in the area being governed and is totally responsible for their actions can participate in the creation of their government. I know that the US cut-off age is eighteen because before that you are the responsibility of your parents/guardians. If you get into an accident and get injured and go to the hospital when you are twelve years old, you are not going to pay for the hospital bills. Your parents' health insurance will. If you want to help create the government then you must be able to take responsibility for your decision.
Ok, i think everybody is making a big deal out of something simple. Social contract - an agreement for each adult individual to create and live under a government and give it the power to make and enforce laws, laws that benefit each individual and the whole country in the protection of their natural rights. The citizens give their consent and a government is derived that the majority are happy to follow and offer their loyalty. Now obviously anyone would agree with freejack and slappy that someone who uses means of violence to force people under their power (as Hitler did) is not follwing this social contract, they don't have the consent of the people. However, any thoughtful person would realize that cap'n knocknees is not entirely in the wrong. I think his meaning of "force" was not of guns or bombs or anything envolving the danger of the people. Rather, he meant a strong "force" to be reckoned with, a powerful person in his influences and ideas for his country. When an economy begins to crumble under a weak government the best kind of ruler is the forceful kind - not violent but forceful in his determination to fix the problem. When the people, or the majority of the people, recognize their country's need for this type of government they may give their consent and therefore agree to be ruled by it. But, of course none of this can occor without the consent.
i think that the social contract was hinting at a democratic type government, but it also does not say that everyone or even the majority of the people necessarily goes along with the government. i think that the ability to control and change the government generally lies with the majority of the power outside of the government. whether the general majority has it or a small group of aristocrats has it, they are the ones who can chose to change things. you can have most of the people on your side but you're still not going to accomplish much if you or they don't have any power. power comes from more than just numbers, it also comes from wealth, weapons, and natural resources too. On a side note i just want to say that george washington did come to power by force. he used force to kick the british off of the colonies and become a hero. Without that, he would have neither the opportunity to become president (without him there probably wouldn't be a USA) or the distiguished reputation that got him to be voted president. you can say it was becuse he was a good leader or voted in but in the end it was force that got him as far as he did
The term social contract relates to the idea of a democratic sort of system. A social contract would appear when people were in a true state of nature, and they decide as a community to create and run a government to help protect thier natural rights. The reason for needing this is that people are not always "good" and "rational" so your natural rights have the possibility to be violated, and without government everyone would be in a constant fear of losing there natural rights. Of course, you have to give up to get things, so you would give up your right to do exactly whatevee you please so you get the protection you would want. It's basically the "golden rule" we all learned in KinderGarten. "Do unto others as you would have done unto you"
=D
The term social contract means that you give up the right to do anything you want to in return to know that your natural rights will be protected. The person who becomes the leader of the government can only be if the people decide for them to be. This does hint at a democratic government.
This idea works because people will vote for the person that will protect their country. Someone can't just step in who aren't fit for the job. With the people deciding it should eliminate them from being disappointed with their government.
People who shouldn't be included in creating a government are the ones who the people don't pick to run the country. They obviously don't have the ideas and values the people who decide want in their leader.
A social contract is an agreement reached by all members of a community. I think that a social contract is an essential element in any society because it imposes a set of rules with out actually imposing them. A contract alone does not ennforce rules, it merley sugests them. A social contract could apply to anything, it could be a set of rules for a classroom, as long as the said rules are drawn up by the students as well as the teacher and not the teacher alone. A social contract could be an agreement between nieghbors or an agreement between nations.
^^ I'll try to make this answer a little shorter than my other one. A social contract is defined as the agreement among all the people in a society to give up part of their freedom to a government in return for the protection of their natural rights by that government. Agreeing to such a contract means that you trust that government to do whats best for the people. In order for someone to govern a society, they must get the peoples consent. Otherwise it would be a bad form of government like dictatorship or something. I cannot think of any exceptions of who shouldnt be included in creating a government, i think everyone should get to share their opinion.
A social contract is simply the act of people coming together and creating a government that they can all support. The only problem with this is that just because the people don't support a government doesn't mean that they have the power to over throw it. Yes, they have the "right to revolution" but if the people aren't strong enough, then that right is void and so is the necessity for the people to give their consent to the governmwnt. I'm going to need a clarification from Pink whatever. Are you saying that if someone loses as election, say for president, then they lose the right to be politically involved? If anyone who ever lost a run for an office of any sort were prohibited from governmental involvement, we'd have few to no politicians. Also, people don't always vote for people that will prtect their country. Yes, in a perfect world that idea would work. The problem is that not every candidate fits what people want on 100% of the issues. That person may have some great qualities that the people really like, but they'll have flaws that damage the country. Why do you think leaders lose approval points? Furthermore, the campaign process in general is at fault. Politicians make HUGE promises, but rarely follow through once they've recieved the power to fullfill them. The people could be voting for a guy they think is strong and powerfull like Batman, and end up with crumby Robbin. Yes, the people voted for Robbin, but they wanted him to be Batman. All people should have the right to aid in the creation of a government, the Batmans, Robbins, and Jokers included.
The term "social contract" refers to an agreement among all the people in a society to give up part of their freedom to their government in return for the protection of their natural rights. These rights include life, liberty, and property. This means that the society members give up part of their freedom in order to have their rights. This is the way in which the government gets its authority; from the consent of the people. Both the people and government leaders have to agree with each other in order for the government to work. The government must also have the full consent of the people as well, in order for it to work. Someone who wants to lead a government for power should not be included in creating their government. On the other hand, someone who SHOULD be included in the creation of their government, is someone who can work well with people and bring forth good ideas on ways to improve the government. This will help to ensure its success.
I believe that the social contract could definitely be viewed as a perfectly fair and extremely reasonable compromise. The people would work, make profit, pay taxes, vote for their leaders and in return, the government would provide them with what they need to live in happiness; they were assured the 3 natural rights: life, liberty and happiness. Although, if the majority of the people did not want anyone to be their leader, then there would not be one because the people are still supposed to have that right to choose who they want it to be. However, this was not the case since the people knew it had to be someone. So naturally they would choose the most smart, loyal and all around good person to be it. But from another point of view, a leader could easily gain too much power over the people because the president does have control of the military and the overall say in everything. But this would also create enormous amounts protests and violence within the people. Basically, in order for the government and the people to collide properly together, they both must be loyal to one another and fair and never do anything without the consent of the other. That way there is a stable, sufficient government.
A social contract is a broad class of republican theories whose subjects are implied agreements by which people form nations and maintain a social order. Such social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government and/or other authority in order to receive or jointly preserve social order. A social contract is simply a document inwhich insures that someones best intrestes are protected by the government. It is thoroughly connected to the fact that the government is selected by that of the governed much like a republic. The social contract enables the most popular of government nomanees to be selected. It is in total agreement with Slappy and Freejack that one who abuses the society in his/her favor is not following the social contract and must be disregarded. The basis of the social contract is the CONSENT of the majority.
A social contract is basically people agreeing to follow the rules and therefore have to follow the punishments for there actions. When people sign/make these, they agree to live in the place and be a member of the colony! But with this contract they also say that as a member of the colony, i get a say in the government and have some choices. Although it can come down to majority most of the time. But we can't please everyone! Someone is always going to be upset/mad/dissapointed in the decisions!
Ahoy! Focus yer comments on the original questions, you scurrvy dogs! Yer Admiral is gettin a headache!
The term social contract means that each individual person must agree with other and create a government which they will live under and abide by. They will also help create the governing rules and which rules should be in and which rules should not be followed. All people must agree with this contract for it to work. People who will not abide by the government and the contract should be allowed to be involved in the politics. Also those who will try to rise to power and take over the governemtn should also be excluded because this will demolish the rules and be unfair to people who want the social contract to be intact.
Social contract means that every person must come to an agreement on a government that they can all live under and agree with. They help in creating laws to protect their rights and themselves with their consent. It will only work if all agree. If someone has a different opinion or point of view, though, they should not be pushed aside, but listened to. Everyone has the right to be heard. It must be understood that not everyone will be happy with every decision made. In order to get what you want, you have to be willing to give a little. Anyone who tries to take total control of the government themselves shouldn't have the right to take part.
With a social contract being an agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the government or community as a whole, it should be composed entirely of the community's wishes. And that community's wishes includes every member of the community, no matter what discrimination may be held against them. The government will more or less set the standards on how you live your life, so the social contract that formulates the government should reflect those who have to live by it.
I agree with t-e amy bones; a social contract is an "agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the government or community as a whole." That being said, I firmly believe that no government should function without complete and honest consent given by all the members of the community, regardless of race, gender, religious or political views. However, I understand that this is not always the case. Sometimes people's views can't be taken into account, for various reasons, including the basic group mentality. When someone's views or wishes go against the group's, it is not practical to follow the person's wishes, it is practical to follow the groups. This being said, I do not believe that that is the ideal situation, but it is, however, the truth.
A social contract is the consent of a group of people to be governed and the first step in creating a government. However, I think that just because a group of people start off with social contract, doesn't mean that it will ensure them a good government. Everyone might start off agreeing to be governed by the government everyone chooses, but a more powerful group of people could then take over and start a government with complete control. Obviously the social contract would be broken because no one would agree to the way they were being governed anymore. With the social contract broken, if the group in power is strong enough, the majority of people opposed to the present government wouldn't be able to exchange it with onethey agreed to. So when a social contract is broken, most likely because of a government having too much power over the governed, it's not likely that the people will be able to immediately create a new social contract.
A social contract is an agreement between people that requires some sacrifices in order to allow the contract to protect every individual's natural rights - life, liberty, and property. In order to design a shiny new government under said social contract, every individual that agrees to it must give up their right to do whatever they want, and instead abide by laws of the government they're going to be helping to shape and such. In return, easily violated natural rights shall be protected. The individuals, forming a group with many opinions, have to iron out as many bumps to please people and be fair. Ironing out some bumps just creates another bubble elsewhere, as not everyone can be pleased (as...er...someone has pointed out already). People that shouldn't be included...I don't feel there are any. Peg leg Elena, I must respectfully disagree with your post as I feel even convicts are people with valid opinions who may like to see change in certain places; simply because they have an opinion doesn't mean it's bad. If they start suggesting things for their own sake only (etc.), people will catch on. If people realize they are trying to help, they will catch on there, too. Some people might not be able to look past the convicted criminal status (I'd be wary too), but I'm confident some are impressive thinkers.
The social contract is the idea that individuals agree upon a government in which they had the power to control, and the government had thr power to create laws and enfoorce them. The people "signing" the contract had to compromise their absolute right to do whatever they please for the security of his or her natural rights. This applies to a persons right to life, liberty, and property. The only time a persons rights should be taken away is if that person did something to ever jeopardize your rights. Locke believed that everyone was entitled to life, liberty and property, and that they needed thse things to survive. The only example I can come up with is the idea of the playground bully. if that bully comes up to you and takes your toy and breaks it, he should not have his right to play freely with his fellow students. instead, he has to have lunch detention. Its the same in society today. If you do something illegal, you are going to be penalized, and have your rights temporarily taken away.
Wow! What a lot of good ideas and research have been put into this question. I am impressed. Like many have said before me the Social Contract refers to all people. Also once one is an adult they also have more of an impact on this question. One can only cast his vote if the person is an adult. The social contract is when most not all people agree to something. It's impossible to please all people. That's why we have multiple parties. Such as the Democrats and the Republicans. Depending on your views you either agree with one party or the other. I believe that a system that works together will be happier than one that has one divine ruler. Because when people work together every voice is heard not just the one. The people who say I'm right and everyone else is wrong are the people who do not agree to the social contract thus should be not taken as seriously until they are educated on all views on the matter.
The people should always have a say in anything. There really isn't any one type of person or being that shouldn't have a say in the government. But if a person or group only gets to be in control through force then as history has proven the government will become corrupt and crumble. Those are the kinds of people who others should be wary of if they are trying to create a government.
Post a Comment