Can you attack libertarianism without implicitly advocating socialism?
As long as you keep the term "social" in the proper context
. In this case, "civil contract" might be a more appropriate term.
The idea that there is an implicit constitutional authorization for the federal government to pursue "social justice" seems to stem from the failure to maintain that context.
I don't see that anyone here is advocating the -- "idea that there is an implicit constitutional authorization for the federal government to pursue "social justice".
Do you?
In fact, one of the biggest problems on this thread with the whole 'social contract' issue, - is the pejorative assumption being used, -- that the word 'social' somehow implies condoning socialism.
tacticalogic asks:
Can you attack libertarianism without implicitly advocating socialism?
Probably not.
However, -- observing that our Constitution is a 'social contract' is not in any way an attack on libertarian principles.
If our Constitution were complied with strictly as written, we would be living in a libertarian country.