huntcc02

Ok, our constitution was written with John Locke's Social Contract Theory in mind, which states that governments are created to protect the people, and in turn, the people must obey the laws of the government. However, it also states that if a government is in violation of the right of the people it protects, then the people have every right to either a)disobey the rule or b)overthrow the government which makes the rules. Isn't the law making pot illegal in violation of my rights? How is the government protecting me or anyone else by making that law? So if I got busted for possession, why couldn't I use as a defense that the government is violating the social contract theory, therefore I am disobeying the oppressive law?

LordIcer

Although the constitution may have a basis in some of Locke's writing...a law is a law. The US Government sees it in their best interest that you don't smoke pot. I haven't read any Locke since highschool, so I'm a little rusty...but if I remember correctly I also tried a similiar debate. In fact I think I wrote an essay on why we should overthrow the government using supporting arguments from . Sorry I couldn't help much, but maybe if I get some spare time I'll read "An Essay Concerning
Human Understanding" and "A Letter Concering Toleration" and get back to you. If only I didn't have a damn stoner memory

Bailey1138

With you're disobeying an oppressive law or not, you still end up in jail. We've got that clause in our constitution (I believe it's in there, been a while since Am. History class) that says we can create a new government if the old one isn't working out so good. But would the republicrats ever let us? Of course not! They're making too much money off the present system to ever let it change.

__________________
"All you do is head straight for the grave, a face just covers a skull awhile. Stretch that skull cover and smile."--Jack Kerouac, Visions of Cody

jade_420

That is a very cool point and i'd have to agree and with th right attorney you'd probably win that one. (maybe?)after all carrying around marijuana.....how is that harming you or society in ANY way? its not. at least not in my opinion.

Shaba Zero

True that, the top 1% owns 40% of everything. And, the top 20% reports 60% of the income in the U.S.

(I do my research too, that's from the 2001 U.S. Census.)

If anyone can buy influence or answers, the top 1% can. Funny though, they're the ones that benefit from the current setup.

Hmmm. And the people can't mobilize because we don't have a method or means of mass-communication that isn't owned by that top 1% -- who again has a self-interest in maintaining the status quo.

What about the internet you say?

Well, it would be great if huge corporations (except for Google) didn't own all the portals that everyone visits . Until a small group of creative individuals start taking the Internet back (through absurdly brilliant free content) everyone will continue to be influenced by cnn.com and msn.com and netscape.com. nah.. everyone's still searching for Jennifer Lopez and Britney Spears.

The least common denominator is still winning.

__________________
"My ignorance pains me."

mikey_c_tx

yes it is true that the american revolution, confederation, legue of friendship and eventually the United States was built on Locke's social contract (somebody taking US Government? huntcc02?)

Anyway. It was devised on the social contract theory. But keep in mind that action is a function of reaction. In this case they were reacting to the abuse of power from england. They revolted with the notion of creating 13 soveriegn states. That did not work so the constitution was created.

To get the states in, the bill of rights was added (the wrongs subtracted) and we had the US.

But over the years lockes social contract theory has become far removed and has prompted me to fomulate my own theory about the existence of government. One that is actually a composite of social contract, evolution and reactive government.

It works like this (microcausticly) a family needs protection from another family. The contract with another group to get power in numbers. the group evolves and grows, takes on more and more people. Then when it becomes strong enough, the crave for power makes said group go after littler groups to extend their power. After that their rule gows more and more unregulated. And, with history as a guide, invariably the people revolt (french revolution, magna carta, american revolution, confederate revolution, etc) the newly formed government (assuming the revolt was successful) decides not to make the same mistakes as in the past. They band together to limit everything they can think of that might lead to abuse of power.

From there a new situation arrises. The government, with no ability or need to validate laws periodicaly passes several laws, seemingly benificial laws. But over time the laws create holes in the reactionary system set up however long ago. Abuse begins again, because power is the most addictive drug there is. As the abuse intensifies, domestic angst grows. First in subcultures, then moving more main stream. If nothing is done to curb the abuse, the government will experience another revolution.

Currently we are at the stage of the progression where the subcultures are begining to revolt.

yes we are seeing the first spread of abuse in drug policy, one that seemingly is above the constitution in the heirarchy. with the crack in the seems, the jaws of life will slowly rip a whole for a flood of abuses.

We have abandoned social contract theory and have moved on to reactionism. Where the government feels that every problem a citizen may have is theirs to solve. If I were designing a government today, I would react to this idea by restricting what the government can do very precisley. But interpretation of the constitution has gone from loose to almost non existent. Nobody is interested in what is best for the country. just what will get them re-elected.

__________________
"-they have taken my right to freechoice. a godgiven right. So i must take it back by force. I am defying a law that I do not believe in, made by a government I do believe in. Peaceful coexistence is what I desire. I fear I shall never see it."--Me