(May 12, 2014 at 8:38 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:(May 12, 2014 at 7:55 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Really.
What are your thoughts on the relationship of the authors and signatories of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and the philosophy of Jean-Jaques Rousseau?
ETA - John Locke as well, while you're at it.
Also, you know, Thomas Hobbes.
(May 12, 2014 at 8:29 pm)Heywood Wrote: Don't call it a contract. A contract is a mutual agreement between all parties involved. Call it a social edict because that is what it is. You don't want agreement, you want to impose your will on others. You want to force people to pay a wage that is different then what is agreed upon by the parties involved in the exchange. You think that by calling it contract you give your edict legitimacy...but that trick only fools the halfwits.
Uh, what? You really have no idea where the phrase "social contract" comes from. It was proposed by Thomas Hobbes, who saw government as a necessary evil, a leviathan to protect the people.
I don't understand what your issue is, here. If employers can't pay their employees enough to live on working full time, the burden of corporate welfare should not fall on the government. If an employer wants to exchange money for labor, what is so difficult about understanding those employees need to be able to afford housing, transportation and food to continue employment.
That's not the government's job. It's the employer's job.
This is not an argument. This is you dictating that it is the employers responsibility. Why is it the employers responsibility? You claim the social contract.....which is really just an edict and not an argument on why it should be the employers responsibility. Calling your edict part of the social contract doesn't make for a persuasive argument.
If I grant you that some nebulous social contract exists, can you provide an argument that contained within that "contract" is a clause the employers must pay a living wage?
