the social contract

Sounds like socialism, eh? First, let me rant. Since this is my BLOG I'll do it anyway.

I HATE the idiots, mostly Tea Partiers, who complain: "That's Socialism and this is a Democracy.." IDIOTS!!!!!! First, if they would ever care about their beloved Pledge of Allegeance past the unconstitutional "under god" part, they would realize that it says: "...and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..." NOT "...and to the DEMOCRACY for which it stands...." The United States is a Republic NOT a Democracy.

Secondly, that is like saying : "I'm not German, I'm a male." A democracy, or Republic, is a political system. Socialism, like Capitalism, is an economic system. So the United States is mostly a capitalistic republic, with some socialist aspects, e.g. Social Security and Medicare.

I bring this up because a dear friend spoke of the changes to the State of Florida's contracts with teachers changing the medical coverage, pay methodology, retirement provisions, et. al. I'm not sure how much of it is contractural with a teacher's union and how much is "understood" and/or the beliefs of the individual when sie takes the job.

However, it is not that different than my situation. After doing what I was told to do for all those years, with an anticipation that I would have a job for doing what I was told for all those years, is there a social contract? Does my friend have one? I'm not talking about all the welfare class individuals against which my friend and the tea partier's complain. I've already agreed that the liberals screwed up in allowing a permanent welfare class and not demanding some individual responsibility from recipients of any form of welfare. I'm talking about people such as my friend, who rely on a system only to have it taken away from them at the end, or me, who would readily accept a job, even as a Park Ranger, if one were available.


What, if anything, are we "owed" by the system on which we relied? If you say "nothing" then you are a true Capitalist and a card carrying member of the Tea Party. The more that you think that the "TRULY"needy who depended on the system should be repaid for such loyalty, the closer you are to Socialism. If you think that a true welfare state is how it should be, in my opinion, you are an idiot, which brought me to my description of the Tea Partiers, because that is far from true Socialism. True Socialism, if you remember your civics, says: To each according to his needs. From each a according to his abilities." So in a true Socialist state there would not be welfare without some work, but there would also be work for all those who desired it? Add that the more that you did, the more that you received..... hmmm, almost sounds like Capitalism, eh?

Comments?