An Innovative Way To Beat The State (radical, death, parties)
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.
The state as it exists now is in violation of the social contract and does not have the best interests of the people at heart. Therefore we must withdraw our consent, marginalize the state and the coercive capitalist institutions and perhaps through a change in our subjective experience we can bring about a radical change in the objective reality.
And where is it violating the social contract? Be specific. Refer to either the constitution, amendments and I will even accept John Locke.
Otherwise, what you have is nicely written but does not mean anything more then ranting. On the one hand you assert that reading and grasping it is too hard for you, and then state that you have the way to rebel.
The message that I get from your blog entry is to continue to not bother putting any effort into attempting to comprehend and anyone who is asking for(or otherwise believing differently) the above is apparantly worshipping law like a church.
You don't have to wear your seat belt if you don't want to. Just be prepared to pay some tickets and be beheaded when your door flies open in an accident, your head slides forward and out, and the door is hit by another vehicle or rolls over, thus slamming the door on your extended neck.
This does solve a couple of things for you:
1. You can stop complaining about all the unrighteous laws being forced upon you: You're dead, they no longer apply.
2. You can forget the concerns about your credit score.
Plus a few other things so blatantly obvious that they are simply not worth going into.
And where is it violating the social contract? Be specific. Refer to either the constitution, amendments and I will even accept John Locke.
Otherwise, what you have is nicely written but does not mean anything more then ranting. On the one hand you assert that reading and grasping it is too hard for you, and then state that you have the way to rebel.
The message that I get from your blog entry is to continue to not bother putting any effort into attempting to comprehend and anyone who is asking for(or otherwise believing differently) the above is apparantly worshipping law like a church.
Well let me start with the most basic point about the social contract. When did you give explicit consent to it?
No doubt you either rent or own your home and therefore you have documents with your signature on it stating that you agree to the terms of the contract.
You would have done the same with any contracts you agreed to whether it was a vehicle loan or anything else that was a contractual agreement between you and another party or parties. There is proof that you have given explicit consent to the terms and that proof is your signature on the document. My question is, when did you explicitly consent to the social contract? Is your signature on the US Constitution?
Now speaking of the Constitution, do you really think it is relevant today? As an example, the tenth amendment alone is violated constantly. The federal bail out was a violation of the tenth amendment. My whole point is, people generally know what is in their best interest and the best interest of their community and therefore should be left alone to follow their own consciences.
Hey, I have thought about this a lot lately. The answer is that we were born into it, and as far as we know, it was just random, dumb luck. And if the shoe doesn't fit you well, then it was bad luck. In another time, perhaps things could have been better for many of us (I know that's the case for me).
I hate to be a pessimist, but unless events lead to a climate similar to the nation just prior to 1776, or you can convince a whole lot of voters to share your views, the only way out is either to ignore it as much as possible (move to nowheresville and become a political atheist--this is my plan) or jump off a cliff.
Truthfully, you have two camps deadlocked against one another. One camp wants to throw you to the wolves, the other wants to control every minute aspect of your life. In my estimation, they both suck... and nobody is even open to the idea of a better way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Consent Withdrawn
My whole point is, people generally know what is in their best interest and the best interest of their community and therefore should be left alone to follow their own consciences.
There is a bit of a conflict in your sentence here... you say 'best interest of their community' and you say 'should be left alone to follow their own consciences.' These two ideas in your sentence, in my view, are a huge part of the problem today because the tug-of-war going on has these ideas at the two ends of the rope. One team is thinking only of the community and saying to hell with the fact that we are also individuals and as individuals we have needs and rights... and the other team that says we have our individual rights and screw the community--it's all about competition and coming out on top of the other guy. So in essence, its: it's all about the community and screw the individual, or it's all about the individual and screw the community. Those are our current choices. You either live a life as a social slave or you live a life as a race horse. It's too bad we are so shallow-sighted that we can't see beyond these two lame choices.
You "sign" the contract when you decide stay with in the boundaries that those parts of the contract are active, from Socrates, and you can get out of it by moving some where else.
"Many have argued that Plato's dialog Crito expresses a Greek version of social contract theory. In this dialog, Socrates refuses to escape from jail to avoid being put to death. He argues that since he has willingly remained in Athens all of his life despite opportunities to go elsewhere, he has accepted the social contract i.e. the burden of the local laws, and he cannot violate these laws even when they are against his self-interest."
I am very sorry though that you are being forced to pay for the debts that you took out during the boom, and now you blame everyone else for getting into that trouble instead of taking responsibility. I know you feel that civil law is unfair because it is hurting you for your mistakes, but as long as you stay within the country you are subject to its laws and regulations.
You "sign" the contract when you decide stay with in the boundaries that those parts of the contract are active, from Socrates, and you can get out of it by moving some where else.
"Many have argued that Plato's dialog Crito expresses a Greek version of social contract theory. In this dialog, Socrates refuses to escape from jail to avoid being put to death. He argues that since he has willingly remained in Athens all of his life despite opportunities to go elsewhere, he has accepted the social contract i.e. the burden of the local laws, and he cannot violate these laws even when they are against his self-interest."
I am very sorry though that you are being forced to pay for the debts that you took out during the boom, and now you blame everyone else for getting into that trouble instead of taking responsibility. I know you feel that civil law is unfair because it is hurting you for your mistakes, but as long as you stay within the country you are subject to its laws and regulations.
That is a valid opinion. Thank you. But we are still only talking of implied consent here, not expressed. Not sure that would work for an apartment lease or any other contract so it definitely should not suffice for presumably the most important contract of all. But if it works for you, hats off.
Last edited by Consent Withdrawn; 09-14-2009 at 01:31 PM..
Well let me start with the most basic point about the social contract. When did you give explicit consent to it?
The moment that you enjoyed any aspect of that contract. I am not talking about the happy-happy-joy-joy good time feeling.
Quote:
Is your signature on the US Constitution?
No. It isn't necessary for it to be.
Quote:
Now speaking of the Constitution, do you really think it is relevant today?
The Constitution is a contract between the states. Yes, it is relevent today. Have you examined the Articles of Confederation?
Quote:
As an example, the tenth amendment alone is violated constantly.
Then you have plenty of examples. State them. Now would be the time that you want to show your definition of explicit.
Quote:
The federal bail out was a violation of the tenth amendment.
How?
Quote:
My whole point is, people generally know what is in their best interest and the best interest of their community and therefore should be left alone to follow their own consciences.
My whole point is that you have had access to the same documents. You turned 18 and the rights became available to you. Which if they hadn't been incorporated during the 1940's-1960's......you wouldn't have jack. 1-8. The fact that you are saying that there has been a violation (10th)explicitly states that YOU considered yourself to be a member of that social contract (the people) otherwise, you wouldn't be crying.
There is no reason the constitution should be dumbed down. As a citizen it is your responsibility to educate yourself. Until that point of time, you do not have a viable argument. Until then,let me offer you some cheese.
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.
