Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People will often say "if you don't like it here, move to ______", or "you agree to the laws of the land by living here". If you've ever said something like that, that's based on the Social Contract Theory...that you consent to government force being used against you if you don't obey them. If that argument was used in court today, imagine how it would go:
Quote:
Gov: But your honor, he agreed to the agreement.
Judge: How?
Gov: He was born into it.
Judge: Oh come on, we don't have slavery in this country. Haven't you read the 13th amendment?
Gov: Okay, yeah, but his parents agreed to it.
Judge: Parents can't enter into a contract for a minor. You know that. Your contract would be with the parents, but the minor can cancel it at any time, even after reaching the age of majority.
Gov: But he didn't. He turned 18 and didn't cancel it!
Judge: Didn't you hear what I just said? You don't have a valid contract with the parents to begin with, and even if you did, that does not in any way bind the child to agreeing to it.
Gov: But he didn't actually say he disagreed with it until now.
Judge: Come on, that's tacit consent, and no court in the civilized world upholds that.
Gov: He agreed to it because he didn't move somewhere else!
Judge: I'm this close to jailing you for contempt of court...because he didn't move somewhere else?? The only way any action can be considered agreeing to a contract is through estoppel, and you know that doesn't apply here.
Gov: I think it does, because we fed him and he took the food.
Judge: So you're saying that a slave agrees to be enslaved when he accepts food from his master?? Give me a break.
So why do people keep using this argument? If someone says they don't consent to their money being taken and used on things like war, the welfare state, and other things they find destructive, or if they don't agree with many of the laws being enforced, why do people act like they're in the wrong? They never agreed to any contract, so they have no obligation to fulfill it...right?
Which is funny, because most just want to live and let live...
But of course from the perspective of the group trying to control everyone, people who disprove their legitimacy are the "bad guys". It's a weird time to live in the land of the free.
Ironically, Americans are tricked into embracing a compact, when in fact, it is a legal impossibility.
Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, Americans are endowed with rights and liberties that government was instituted to secure.
Yet, citizens have mandatory civic duties that amount to the waiver / surrender of endowed rights in exchange for government privileges.
The 13th amendment further prohibits involuntary servitude in the UNITED STATES and THEIR territories, whereas one born in the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen and of the state in which he resides.
Wink, wink, nod, nod.
Either people are not 'born' subject citizens / slaves in the (plural) UNITED STATES or the 13th amendment does not apply to federal jurisdiction (U.S. in the singular) 14th amendment.
Politely ask 'your' public servants to explain that trick.
Ironically, Americans are tricked into embracing a compact, when in fact, it is a legal impossibility.
Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, Americans are endowed with rights and liberties that government was instituted to secure.
Yet, citizens have mandatory civic duties that amount to the waiver / surrender of endowed rights in exchange for government privileges.
The 13th amendment further prohibits involuntary servitude in the UNITED STATES and THEIR territories, whereas one born in the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen and of the state in which he resides.
Wink, wink, nod, nod.
Either people are not 'born' subject citizens / slaves in the (plural) UNITED STATES or the 13th amendment does not apply to federal jurisdiction (U.S. in the singular) 14th amendment.
Politely ask 'your' public servants to explain that trick.
Well, there's no need to ask a fictional state to opt out of a fictional "contract".
According to the state you are subscribing to the contract by existing.
If all this sounds familiar it's akin to how we all used to play as kids. Remember tag you're it, infinity? Or "no take backs" when making a deal?
So yeah, the entire state is operating on the maturity level/logic of a 10-year-old.
I thought I'd get at least one person who tried to defend it, but I guess not. The worst part is that they'll still continue to use it in their arguments. "You live in our society, so you play by our rules", "you use government roads and infrastructure, police, fire services, etc.", "if you don't like government, move to Somalia"...
Whenever I mention that it's only okay to use force in retaliation to someone else using force first, and that applies to the government as well, it creates a lot of cognitive dissonance in people. The only options are a) you consent to it, so it's okay (which obviously isn't true), or b) they're just threatening you if you don't do what they want, because you happen to be in their territory (which isn't rightfully owned by them). It's the mafia model, except it's only sustainable if people think the whole thing is legitimate.
People will often say "if you don't like it here, move to ______", or "you agree to the laws of the land by living here". If you've ever said something like that, that's based on the Social Contract Theory...that you consent to government force being used against you if you don't obey them. If that argument was used in court today, imagine how it would go:
So why do people keep using this argument? If someone says they don't consent to their money being taken and used on things like war, the welfare state, and other things they find destructive, or if they don't agree with many of the laws being enforced, why do people act like they're in the wrong? They never agreed to any contract, so they have no obligation to fulfill it...right?
Are there places to move to that are not based on Social Contract Theory?
Are there places to move to that are not based on Social Contract Theory?
Not that I can think of. It used to be divine right of kings, but people don't believe that politicians/rulers have the right to rule from God anymore...so the social contract was what replaced that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know that. Your contract would be with the parents, but the minor can cancel it at any time, even after reaching the age of majority.
You don't have a valid contract with the parents to begin with, and even if you did, that does not in any way bind the child to agreeing to it.
The only way any action can be considered agreeing to a contract is through estoppel, and you know that doesn't apply here.
Give me a break.
