The statement, "Your argument is special pleading," is in no way equivalent to "yo mamma." You can look up special pleading if you don't know what it is. Once you know what it is, you'll see I give adequate proof that it's what you're doing.
I've been arguing all along that you've been ignoring our Constitutions validity as a social contract.
What you're doing here is called "begging the question." You can't argue that the Constitution is a valid social contract, if the very existence of social contracts is itself under dispute. You are assuming that social contracts exist, yet the debate is over whether they exist. That's why "begging the question" is also called "circular reasoning."
What you're doing here is called "begging the question." You can't argue that the Constitution is a valid social contract, if the very existence of social contracts is itself under dispute.
How silly. you are making a circular argument that I "can't argue that the Constitution is a valid social contract", -- because you dispute that premise. -- Good grief. Who taught you logic?
You are assuming that social contracts exist, yet the debate is over whether they exist.
You want to 'debate' their existence by insisting that they can not exist. How weird. -- I agree: "-- That's why "begging the question" is also called circular reasoning. --"
First some definitions:
COMPACT, n. An agreement; a contract between parties; a word that may be applied, in a general sense, to any covenant or contract between individuals; but it is more generally applied to agreements between nations and states, as treaties and confederacies. So the constitution of the United States is a political contract between the States; a national compact. Or the word is applied to the agreement of the individuals of a community.
CONTRACT, n. 1. An agreement or covenant between two or more persons, in which each party binds himself to do or forbear some act, and each acquires a right to what the other promises; a mutual promise upon lawful consideration or promise upon lawful consideration or cause, which binds the parties to a performance; a bargain; a compact. Contracts are executory or executed.
And now:
“It had been alledged [by Mr. Patterson], that the Confederation having been formed by unanimous consent, could be dissolved by unanimous Consent only. Does this doctrine result from the nature of compacts? does it arise from any particular stipulation in the articles of Confederation? If we consider the federal union as analogous to the fundamental compact by which individuals compose one Society, and which must in its theoretic origin at least, have been the unanimous act of the component members, it can not be said that no dissolution of the compact can be effected without unanimous consent. A breach of the fundamental principles of the compact by a part of the Society would certainly absolve the other part from their obligations to it. If the breach of any article by any of the parties, does not set the others at liberty, it is because, the contrary is implied in the compact itself, and particularly by that law of it, which gives an indifinite authority to the majority to bind the whole in all cases. This latter circumstance shews that we are not to consider the federal Union as analogous to the social compact of individuals: for if it were so, a Majority would have a right to bind the rest, and even to form a new Constitution for the whole, which the Gentn. from N. Jersey would be among the last to admit. If we consider the federal Union as analogous not to the social compacts among individual men: but to the conventions among individual States.” “The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 reported by James Madison : June 19”
"The first foundations of the social compact would be broken up were we definitely to refuse to its members the protection of their persons and property while in their lawful pursuits." --Thomas Jefferson to James Maury, 1812. ME 13:145
“Such, then, is the happy Government under which we live--a Government adequate to every purpose for which the social compact is formed;” James Monroe, "First Inaugural Address" (March 4, 1817)
“In unfolding to my countrymen the principles by which I shall be governed in the fulfillment of those duties my first resort will be to that Constitution which I shall swear to the best of my ability to preserve, protect, and defend. That revered instrument enumerates the powers and prescribes the duties of the Executive Magistrate, and in its first words declares the purposes to which these and the whole action of the Government instituted by it should be invariably and sacredly devoted--to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to the people of this Union in their successive generations. Since the adoption of this social compact one of these generations has passed away.” John Quincy Adams," Inaugural Address" (March 4, 1825)
So no matter what else you might say about the words above, it seems evident that our predecessor, people at the time and nearly at the time of the Founding believed in the existence of the social contract. They may have called it a compact, but that meant the same thing. If tpaine and I are wrong they were too.
I’d like to have found more quotes from the past time, but the present time presses me. And if the ones I found don’t suffice more would not have either.
If we can ever agree on the existence of the Social Contract (or Compact as they used to say) perhaps someday we can discuss its nature.