[bumby]

FWIW, I agree with you but think it’s also important to recognize the devils advocate position.

>I'm perfectly capable of deciding for myself

I think there’s a decent amount of evidence that humans aren’t as capable of making rational decisions, or at least not nearly as rational as we’d like to think. In the context of systems like nationalized healthcare, this can become a negative externality. If I’m responsible (in part) of paying for your healthcare, there may be an argument that I (in part) have a say in the decisions you make that effect your health.

[thegrimmest]

> I (in part) have a say in the decisions you make that effect your health.

Well then you (in part) become my master. No person has the right to be master of another. One doesn't need to always make rational decisions in order to be entitled to make them. This is also why I'm against nationalized healthcare.

[bumby]

>One doesn't need to always make rational decisions in order to be entitled to make them.

Agreed. But regarding the “master” comment, I think that’s a bit hyperbolic. You give up certain decisions as part of the social contract. I can’t decide, for example, that I want to drive on the other side of the road. Giving up that choice also doesn’t make me subservient, especially in a representative democracy. It just means I know how to balance the rights of the individual with the overall welfare of society.

[thegrimmest]

I don't think it it's hyperbolic really. The only relevant question is where the line is and by what principle it is defined. Is the difference between freedom and slavery clear and well-drawn? or is it a spectrum? I'm inclined to the former view. The only legitimate social contract is the one keeps the peace and manages the commons (this is already quite a lot). Everything on top that tries to shape our behaviour or compel us to cooperate is a violation of a person's right to be their own master.

> I can’t decide, for example, that I want to drive on the other side of the road.

You can perfectly well drive on whatever side of whatever road you want assuming it's a private road. Public spaces have rules, and always have. What's not fine is managing the interactions of private people minding their own business.

[bumby]

If you’re in the US, there is a “general welfare” clause within the social contract

[thegrimmest]

Where is this social contract written? I don't see anything about welfare in the constitution.

[bumby]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States

Nationalized healthcare which you’ve previously stated you're against, for example, would likely be payed for by a tax. If you remember, the Supreme Court ruled the penalties within the ACA amounted to a tax and were legal. Article I Section 8 also outlines Congress’s ability to regulate commerce, despite your claim that amicable interactions of private individuals “minding their own business” are outside its jurisdiction. You can be against all of these as policy, but that doesn’t mean they breach the social contract or are somehow immoral.

Your Rugged Constitution[1], while old, is interesting because it frames each Article in terms of both what you give and what you get from the social contract, the former part being lost on many people. For example, regarding the aforementioned clause, you give the federal government additional power in exchange for the ability “to take care of the needs of the country at home”, I.e., general welfare.

[1] Findlay, Bruce Allyn, and Esther Blair Findlay. Your Rugged Constitution: How Americas House of Freedom is Planned and Built. -, 1919.