The social contract is obey cops when asked. When this does not occur things escalate. Sadly both sides has amp up over the decades. Now both sides have lost control,respect and have distrust for each other.

Don't need to banning police dept just publicly change with both sides agreeing.

I propose, in big broad strokes.
No one goes to jail unless a serious crime murder, armed robbery or a warrant is out on you.

IF pulled over, be cool, comply, knowing nothing will result in arrest/ jail.

If you have a dime bag, kilo coke, etc, I don't care, they take it and fine you the value also. Also the right to gather you address and those with you. Then because e of your offense the PD ( where ever you live or moved to) has a 6 month right to knock and cursory search of your residence ( and those with you). Same deal they find, take anything illegal and fine of equivalent value. LB of weed, Kilo of coke I don't care. Take and fine. Guns take and if used in crime then warrant for arrest. Finding stuff allows cops to stop by again with in 6 months and now have right for thorough search. Same deal search, take and fine. If 3rd search occurs and find stuff then criminal charges filed if heavy drugs or amounts found.

With this in place no would / should put up a fight. Cops not to make arrest, populate jails or f over people with high court costs.

This should help change bad behavior, let minor crap slide, and bad dudes land in jail fair and squarely.

Like this joke of a bit, Systemic racism is a farce.

This is not the 50, 60 70 80s.
2020 and anyone can be anything.

The last segment:
Kimberly Jones is WRONG
You don't own anything because you haven't tried to achieve anything.
This social contract is this :
Stay married,
Stay in school.
Don't get in trouble.
Learn and get ahead.
You fail yourself but blame others.
You are the sum total of you decisions.

She and those who think like her are damned to be failures, pimped out by false Democrat promises that does nothing to help.

The camera holding guy even declares in the video that the driver had identified himself, but the office insisted on seeing papers. He also states he has that on video, but from his youtube channel he never uploaded that.

If you are driving on the road, the police can demand to see proof that you can legally drive(your driver's license) and proof your vehicle is insured/registered(your registration). This is not onerous or evil. Vehicle accidents are the number 1 cause of premature death in our country.

Making sure that people that are driving on them know what they are doing and have at least some degree of insurance in case of an accident is a social contract the public has readily agreed to. The guy recording here, from his other youtube clips, is a 'freemen' and thus believes that he isn't bound by the social contract the rest of us have agreed to. That's why we hire police officers, so they can explain to the camera dude that he IS in fact bound by our social contract if he expects drive on our roads. The police are allowed to use force to put him in front of judge if necessary.

The only thing I see wrong in the video is a guy who believes the law doesn't apply to him.

As for me being a bullying hypocrite..

Bullying.. yes.

Hypocrite.. no.

I intentionally give you and lantern shit for two reasons:

1. You deserve it cause you're bigoted, jerkface, racists that don't bring anything to these discussions but hatred for minorities of any kind.

Taste of your own medicine, as it were.

2. To attempt to create a paradox SOO befuddling for your conserv-o-brains.. it's causes a major reset where you finally realize..

"Wow, okay. Everyone here DOES want to have an honest open debate with me.
One where they consider my difference of opinion to be yet another spice in this weird discussion gumbo we're all apart of..

And the only thing I have to do is remain civil, logically consistent, and admit my biases when I'm completely off base/out of my element.

Wow.. that sounds SUPER easy and a much more enjoyable way to live my life!"


...buuuuut..

Since that's 2nd bit's NEVER going to happen.

And you're only here to stir shit.

No it's not hypocritical to want you removed from this particular society.

Just like any other troublemaker in the large society.

You know, like how people who break the social contract get ostracized, marginalized, ridiculed, imprisoned, etc. etc.

I know it's tough to comprehend that liberals feel and behave similar to you WISE conservadudes..

But we do. Cause we're all just humans

I am ALWAYS respectful when being addressed by police officers. I believe in justice and am not opposed to a social contract with law enforcement. It's only in hindsight that I'm outspoken against them -- because they rarely return the respect.

I did speak with a respectful officer last night and that was refreshing. I enjoy conversing with law enforcement because I truly respect the profession. I'm just let down easily and feel ashamed for them, which then becomes anger. An idealists anger. Not good.

When I first started volunteering to serve at a homeless shelter, many years ago, I didn't know exactly why I was doing it. Certainly it felt like the "right" thing to do. I was at least confident that I wasn't doing it for personal gain because I didn't wear it on my sleave, didn't brag about it or hang my ego on my personal identity of being a good person. When dissillusionment set in, when I realized just how many of the people I was serving were homeless by choice, I pushed through and carried on...and I still didn't know why. I just trusted that I would get it one day.

Eventually I made a connection to the time I spent living in Sweden. In the town I lived in, every night a group of vagrants assembled in the market square. Every bit as dirty and drunken as the worst homeless person that most people imagine them all to be. Fighting, having sex in the public restroom, vomiting and carrying on loudly all night. But this was socialism, so they went home every night to their government payed for apartments. I realized that no matter what you do, there will always be a segment of society that just doesn't give a Fuck and is happy to take and never give back. We've all known these people. Family members, friends, acquaintances, who use up the good will of everyone they meet until they've got no one left to use and it falls to the larger community to support them. No economy, government or community planning will ever compell them to support themselves. We loathe them and shun them. Politicians with ulterior motives tell us that ALL homeless and disadvantaged ARE them. But it's a lie. There are the mentally and physically ill who have no support structure, who NEED their communities to help them. Most of these people were once functioning members of their communities who no longer have the ability to survive on their own.
And so I came to understand that it's better to feed a hundred leaches to serve a single helpless individual.

Boy was I proud of myself for realizing that.

And then I was layed off and my job shipped to India, followed closely by my wife spending a year in and out of the hospital, with no insurance. A careers worth of hard work, reduced to a data point on a corporate profit sheet. Waiting for the other shoe to drop, when the medical debt comes for me and everything I've built in my life is taken, to become a line in someone else's ledger. Betrayed by the greed in the system. Because I upheld my end of the social contract. I worked hard in school, excelled in my career, had two kids and bought a house in a neighborhood with good schools. But the system is run by the greediest and most power hungry. Politics and business is the domain of the high functioning sociopath. And to a sociopath, you're not a real person like them. You're a data point, a line in the ledger.

Then I came to respect the other segment of the homeless. The ones who rejected the social contract, who don't feel societal pressure to give more than they take. Because they got it right. It's all a lie. You don't earn anything in America. You don't deserve the fruits of your labor. You subsist at the whim of the people with money and power. And when it serves them, you get nothing.

We are all standing in line for food, hoping there's a room for the night.

Those social contracts sure are expensive.

Statistically individual, personal commitments make very little impact on a population. I agree with the sentiment, but our views on "personal responsibility" don't work in reality beyond our individual family, they just make us feel better about ourselves thinking that way. You are superior. Good for you, but it doesn't put a dent in the real problem.

Reform works. For example, your children didn't make these decisions, rather you (and I assume a life mate), who are the institution of your children, made a parental reform and it benefits them greatly. Now, if you left it up to your children, what do you think they would do without your positive influence?

I'm a product of that and it has taken me years to realize this and patch the hole in my very being; years of bad habits and depression. I didn't have responsible, nor very smart parents, and I went to public school to boot. I was fucked and I didn't even know it. All of the potential to be an above average human and what did I do? FML'd. Flunked out of honors, AP, kicked out of the gifted and talented education program; though, I did provide that needed C average spot for Academic Decathelon, my potential meant squat. Personal responsibility BULLSHIT. That's an illusion and the reality is pathetic. I struggle EVERY DAY and I shouldn't have to.

I guess it's up to me to make up for my parent's irresponsibility, but most people just go with the flow. I guess if you don't mind paying for the ignorance of the sheeple, you can just let things be the way they are and deal with a failing population of dumbed down, unhealthy Americans.

Personally, I'd rather live in a world where people are getting smarter and healthier every day. A land where the government that tricked us (social contract) into giving them our livelihood, gives back to us, makes us stronger, more fit, and appropriately able to compete in a global economy. A land where the people in power work to make us better, rather than feeding off of our ignorance.

This imaginary world would abso-poso-lutely require reform away from the stranglehold dystopia the real.

Here is a longer 18 minute video of more of Senator Burr's questions to the witnesses. I wish I could find the full hearing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1m0Gxtsz1A

It includes this little gem from Senator Burr, "The American system HAS access to healthcare for everybody, it's called the Emergency Room. Now we don't admit that because clearly we are lobbying for a particular angle, but every American can access healthcare."

Nice slight of hand there Senator, only difference is whenever I go to the emergency room (I live in Canada), I don't get a bill in the mail a few weeks later that I have to pay.

The average American ER visit costs $600 dollars in 2009, today it's probably well more than that, and that's just for simple problems. Anything more serious than a urinary tract infection and you are going to be paying thousands of dollars.

I'm a bit late to the party, but I'll give my 2 cents on my experiences with the Healthcare system in Quebec.

I use the public system and private system and constantly dabble between the two. Wait times can be long for sure. I've had a long running ankle problem since my teens, and to get my first appointment with an ankle specialist here took 1 year and 3 months!

My MRI was covered by private insurance, so it only took a couple days to have the scan done. I was put on a surgery waiting list for just over 2 years. The Dr let me know that he operated at a private clinic in Montreal. I could have had the surgery in only 2 weeks, at a cost of around $5000, but because my pain was minimal and I could still walk, I opted to wait.

Post surgery access to follow up appointments was swift. I could easily see the Dr in a week or two, with very little advanced notice. Follow up MRI's weren't covered by my new private insurance, so I had to wait for an MRI scan, which took around 2 months. I was supposed to have an MRI arthrogram, but the waiting list for that procedure is about twice as long, so the Dr just opted for a regular MRI. Cost for an MRI arthrogram is $875 in private. Again I just waited it out.

I've only needed to go to the emergency room twice, since I've been here, both times I was in and out in under an hour and a half.

I've been to many walk-in clinic's. These are a crapshoot, sometimes they're incredibly fast, sometimes incredibly slow.

I don't have a family Dr, so I opt to go to a Dr at a private clinic for my annual checkups. Even private clinics are a grey zone sometimes, as some services are covered by the provincial plans, so visits to the GP cost out of pocket, but visits to specialists within the same clinic are free.

Finding a family Dr is definitely plausible, it just involves phoning around every clinic and/or Dr in Montreal asking if they have space, but I just haven't invested the time yet. Some people get lucky this way, but even then, getting an appointment with your family Dr can take many weeks, appointment times can be inconvenient (mid afternoon, etc), so I'd rather make the investment of seeing someone at a private clinic, where I can have an appointment at 8:30am within a couple days.

I contrast all this with the fact that I was born and lived in South Africa well into my mid 20's. South Africa has abysmal public healthcare, and being born into a white middle class family, thanks to my parents I had access to private healthcare.

Private insurance in South Africa is less exploitative than in the U.S. Much less fighting with insurers to pay for coverage etc. Access to most Dr's is swift, and most procedure's are well covered. Obviously the overall experience compared to Canadian healthcare was much better, but the S.A private system only barely covers 20% of the population's needs and even with the disparity in wait times for service, the Canadian healthcare system at 100% coverage feels like an undeniable success, and a model that needs to be improved and iterated upon.

The debate around healthcare is tough here. Health issues and frustration with waiting can easily escalate the egocentric side of our human nature, but even with my negative experiences I would never denounce this system, because the broader social contract that has been written is valiant, and the price paid for this is worth it.

Nobody should be financially ruined because of health issues.

You have to know it's not going to 'settle' any time soon. Actually, it's not going to 'end', ever.

Underneath the hatred and everything else, this issue hits into the bedrock questions around free will. What actions and behaviors do we 'count' as ones that people had the free will to choose or not choose? We have crowds vehemently entrenched on both extremes of everything and nothing. How we should structure our social contracts, rules and laws to be 'fair' in that context is going to be an argument for all eternity I fear.

The basic form of a social contract is the foundation for every state in the world. Every individual within the territory forfeits a set of rights and is imposed with a set of duties instead. That's a social contract as described in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "Du contrat social".

Doesn't help much with regards to Anglo-Saxon capitalism, does it? Beyond its most basic definition, social contract means, in theory, a recalibration of metrics beyond mere profit, within a society. Whatever metrics one might think would reasonably map progress towards the ultimate goal: the pursuit of happiness.

A concrete example would be the political-economic system of Germany, 1948 onwards, the so-called "Soziale Marktwirtschaft", wherein capitalism is (or was) constrained by agreements to the benefit of the whole of society. Not any individual, not any group, all members of society. Manifestations of it would be the safety net in all its forms and shapes, the health system, the pension system, the rejection of military interventionalism, the preservation of nature, no tolerance for fascism, etc. All specific policies that have their origins in an understanding of what society agreed upon would be best for everyone. The extent is subject to constant political debate, but the underlying concept remains untouched.

So the claim that there is no such thing as a social contract strikes me as a continuation of Thatcher's insistence that there is, in fact, no society. I don't subscribe to that notion, and as far as I can tell, neither does continental Europe as a whole.

If people prefer a system without a "society" beyond the very basic neccessities of a functioning state, go ahead. Do your thing. Competition of ideas and whatnot.

But I'm going to stay a member of this society, thank you very much. And as such, I take the liberty of leaving this "discussion" again. Cheerio.

There is not such thing as a "social contract." There are personal agreements between individuals and groups, but no social contract.

This ends on a positive note so not too dark really. Just a tale of hatred towards consumerism.

Our social contract with government changes in the same way that the Apple Terms of Service changes. No way to back out of it and live a life of remote peace... SPEND.. YOUR. MONEY. Taxes, shmaxes, there's no more better judge of WASTING your goddamn money than your own judgement.

Sir, you are at risk of not spending every last fucking dime at Walmart. Or Target. Or Best Buy. Do you want your economy to be destroyed? Your leaders have already given up on you, so this is your last chance before monetary disciplinary action.

But getting trampled to death in a black friday savings riot does not represent risk because the true risk that matters in this world is the risk of assholes not getting your money.

Because fuck you if you don't want to be part of the dogpile.

I would think that if you were really interested in learning anything (be it about private law enforcement or anything else), you'd know how to manage your own discomfort in order to read something fully without being so reactive and defensive, which only serves to confirm your biases.

You say that "most people don't think of taxation as theft," but such a notion is actually irrelevant to the point here. Did you sign a social contract? I certainly didn't. There's no such thing (and to believe in one is to be living in a fantasy world).

Look: No one is forcing you to read anything you don't want to read. It's your right to learn or not learn whatever you want. In fact, you shouldn't read it (as if I stood to gain anything by your reading it). The ignorance here (in my view) is your own and only you stand to benefit by addressing it. Whatever your life circumstances, they're your problem and you certainly don't need anyone else's (particularly my) input on the matter.

Your comments... well.. They speak for themselves. I wish you all the best and know that if you are happy with your situation then I have nothing to contribute to it and if you are not, then you have what you deserve.

People who cling to dogma or sarcasm aren't likely to change their views regardless of the 'evidence.' They have a different agenda. And that's their prerogative. And someone will always exploit it (if it hasn't been exploited already).

Many people read Murphy's work (along with Mises, Higgs, etc.) including Harvard professors and the heads of central banks, and the kings of various political persuasions. How many people read your views on economics, or care about what you think is "worth reading" or not?

I shouldn't give you this outlet here to feel important (as if this debate served any other purpose), but i don't want to be an enabler.

Really? It was a 1984 reference? Gee, thanks mister, I totally didn't get that, nosiree.

And while you can try to make an argument that taxation is theft, to state it outright like that is confusing opinion with fact. Most people do not view taxation as theft. It is part of a social contract.

So in the space of the first paragraph, you have engaged in a false premise and then brought up them evil commies and nazis. Yeah, this is a worthwhile argument....

I have zero interest in contacting Murphy, and I'm not surprised Krugman doesn't want to debate him either. As Dawkins says about debating creationists, "it looks good on your resume, not on mine".