Bernie Sanders And The Social Contract

Sanders Supporter

The Human Condition.

Liberals forget that the Human Condition is basically base.  At the core of it all, people tend to look after their own self interests.  Greedy?  Maybe.

But generally true and non-controversial.

And we see guys like Bernie Sanders extolling the Social Contract.  That agreement between the Haves [the State?] and the Have Nots that speaks to basic protections for the needy to stave off destitution.

We all know the responsibility of the 1% according to Sanders.  We know what he think ‘their fair share’ is.  But what  of the OTHER side of the contract?  The quid pro quo?  In return for such safety nets, what can society expect from those who seek such protection?

You see, after the 1% provide free food for the birds of the air there is always one Bernie dude that has to ruin the party for everyone and results in the Haves just walking away.

8 responses to “Bernie Sanders And The Social Contract

  1. Don’t forget: with society, stability and rule of law, the 1% would be scrounging around, barely getting by. What they get is the ability to have that much wealth. They rely on society for that – without all the stability government and a solid social framework brings, they’d not have anything close to what they have. If they think they’ve earned it on their own, they are delusional. No one earns that much on their own. They need society, they need the rest of us, to have that position. They benefit more than any social welfare recipient from what society provides them. One could say that the 1% are parasites of a sort – perhaps necessary parasites, but still, they live off the rest.

    • Don’t forget: with society, stability and rule of law, the 1% would be scrounging around, barely getting by.

      It would just be a different 1% – think Kahns.

      And the rest of the 99% would be dramatically worse off!

      What they get is the ability to have that much wealth.

      They were born with that right. Government doesn’t give that to them – it protects it from Bernie!

      If they think they’ve earned it on their own, they are delusional. No one earns that much on their own. They need society, they need the rest of us, to have that position.

      Oh, they earned it. Look at how many #OWS senators there are.

  2. By the way, it’s not just the 1%. I consider myself in that category that gets more than I deserve because how society is structured. Thus I don’t complain about taxes and I try to give back in as many ways as I can!

    • I consider myself in that category that gets more than I deserve because how society is structured. Thus I don’t complain about taxes and I try to give back in as many ways as I can!

      Yes. You are the song bird in the story; providing beautiful music. I’m talking about the squirrel – not upholding his side of the deal.

  3. Without government and a stable society, the 1% wouldn’t have what they do. Yes, there would be organized criminal gangs that would get into that category, but it wouldn’t be as much wealth. A well regulated market economy operating with rule of law is a very precious entity that benefits the vast majority of people to some extent. Do people who “earn” $10 million bonuses for selling bonds that later destroy the housing market and the economy really deserve that money? Just because they can get it via the market doesn’t mean it’s really earned in any justified or moral sense. Indeed, I say they’re raking it in because they are in a society and a lot (indeed most) of their wealth comes from the work and efforts of those below them. To function, a market needs the parasitical wealthy class, they serve a function. But they are benefiting vastly in ways other just as hard if not harder working folk do not.

    • A well regulated market economy operating with rule of law is a very precious entity that benefits the vast majority of people to some extent.

      Yes. We need laws to protect contracts, property rights and theft. But the regulations that I suspect you are talking about – and never list – only serve to distort markets.

      Do people who “earn” $10 million bonuses for selling bonds that later destroy the housing market and the economy really deserve that money?

      Yes. In the same way that Bruce Springsteen ‘deserves’ his money.

  4. I’d say we’d need laws for more than those three things – indeed, again, I think virtually every conservative and liberal agrees that worker protection regulations are needed, banking regulations, and others. Most of our regulatory framework today expanded during the Nixon and Ford years. Your final point is exactly the point: markets do not equal justice, market results are not necessarily the best results for society (again, both parties agree on this – they just vary in how much they’d intervene. Sanders more than most Democrats – but remember – it was Nixon who imposed a wage and price freeze on the entire economy to stop a recession.

  5. Pingback: It Takes a Village | Tarheel Red

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *