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 Constitution is a social contract. There are unwritten social contracts and written social contracts. The Constitution is also the foundational law for our country. Laws are part of the social contracts that citizens have with their governments.
I don't know where you got the idea that there was only one citizen in England in the 17th century. Citizens can be subjects. Subjects aren't necessarily property. You are trying to oversimplify the concepts of citizenship and various forms of government in order to make your argument, and such oversimplification simply is unreasonable, given the fact that social constructs are inevitably complex.
Jurisdiction of any authority is simply an acknowledgement that the authority has the power to enforce rules.
I'm not sure that we do have victimless crime. Crimes may be committed that don't do specific harm to specific individuals, but can still have victims.
The truth is that part of assuming responsibility for one's self is understanding that one has a responsibility to others. My parents would have called that "growing-up". I think the majority of people understand that when you live amongst others, you must respect others and behave in such a way as to not harm others. These so-called "sovereign citizens" aren't assuming responsibility, they have simply constructed an elaborate rationalization to justify selfishness and irresponsibility.
A social contract is a theory; the constitution is supreme legal law of the land. Do you think the constitution is a theory?
Are you also saying that the subjects of England were not given their rights by the King? In order to give someone something you must first own it. If the King granted rights, then by reason he owned those rights and therefore owned the persons on whom he bestowed those rights.
If you deny there are victimless crimes, then you are less than credible, and have no knowledge whatsoever in common law.
Lastly it is only the pro government element of our society that demonstrates the irresponsibility to demand the government provide for them what they are unwilling to provide for themselves. It is they who put claims on what others have earned and sanctimoniously try to proclaim it is for the less fortunate and the poor for which they demand the fruits of other men’s work. They point their crooked fingers at others and accuse them of being selfish while in truth it is they themselves who greedily covet what they have not earned.
A social contract is a theory; the constitution is supreme legal law of the land. Do you think the constitution is a theory?
Are you also saying that the subjects of England were not given their rights by the King? In order to give someone something you must first own it. If the King granted rights, then by reason he owned those rights and therefore owned the persons on whom he bestowed those rights.
If you deny there are victimless crimes, then you are less than credible, and have no knowledge whatsoever in common law.
Lastly it is only the pro government element of our society that demonstrates the irresponsibility to demand the government provide for them what they are unwilling to provide for themselves. It is they who put claims on what others have earned and sanctimoniously try to proclaim it is for the less fortunate and the poor for which they demand the fruits of other men’s work. They point their crooked fingers at others and accuse them of being selfish while in truth it is they themselves who greedily covet what they have not earned.
Just as you are saying that the citizens of the United States aren't given their rights by the US government, I'm saying that the subjects of the crown of England weren't given their rights by the King. If rights aren't given by an authority, then they aren't given by an authority.
I think the Constitution is an example of a social contract. It's so nice when we have concrete examples of "theories", don't you think?
I don't consider myself particularly pro-government, but I think the fact that you assign this characteristic to people, and then attribute negative qualities, is actually irresponsible. We ALL receive numerous benefits from living with the government that the American people have chosen, and continue to choose with every election. We ALL understand that for the government to provide those benefits, such as highways, potable water, schools, and so on, that it has to have money. Your proposition that they should simply print it, that they don't need to collect taxes, is tremendously problematic. And your assertion that you shouldn't have to pay taxes, while all the while enjoying the benefits provided by those taxes, is the very definition of selfish and irresponsible.
Actually, the trend is for government to not outlaw suicide. I don't think there is currently any state or federal statute outlawing suicide. Assisting suicide is a different matter.
As for drugs, the regulations are intended for your safety. I agree with you that the government is heavy-handed in this regard. I do want the government regulating the manufacture and supply chain of drugs, because I think it's important that the quality and efficacy of drugs be maintained. I do want the government telling people who are high or impaired that they can't do things to put others in danger. Providing for the safety of the public at large is part of a government's responsibilities, and in no way connotes ownership of the citizen.
The trend of government???
Where did government get the power to tell a citizen what they can do with their own body? The government does not have that power. Show me the amendment in the constitution which bestowed that power on government.
So far as laws on drug use being designed for your safety, that is completely irrelevant. The motivation for doing something illegal does not somehow make it legal.
If someone does something illegal as a result of drug use the government has jurisdiction to then charge a crime. The government does not have the power to outlaw an activity the right to which is recognized by the constitution because it may or may not lead to the breaking of a law.
People have every right to take any drug they want; as was the case in this country until the industrial revolution when rich men had a financial stake in maintaining a sober workforce.
In fact they took their unlawful prohibitions to the point of nationally outlawing alcohol which was almost a big of a blunder as the war on drugs.
.
The trend of government???
Where did government get the power to tell a citizen what they can do with their own body? The government does not have that power. Show me the amendment in the constitution which bestowed that power on government.
Spare me your faux outrage. The federal government, nor any of the state governments as far as I can tell, does not have any laws against you taking your own life.
As for drugs, when you get behind the wheel high, it's not just your life you're gambling with. Since you don't believe in the responsibility you have for the people around you, then it falls to society to make you believe. You can still break the law, you simply are being held accountable. Because even if your car didn't hit someone else and kill them, and you want to whine about your crime being victimless, it actually wasn't. You put others at risk. That makes them victims of your irresponsibility.
Just as you are saying that the citizens of the United States aren't given their rights by the US government, I'm saying that the subjects of the crown of England weren't given their rights by the King. If rights aren't given by an authority, then they aren't given by an authority.
I think the Constitution is an example of a social contract. It's so nice when we have concrete examples of "theories", don't you think?
I don't consider myself particularly pro-government, but I think the fact that you assign this characteristic to people, and then attribute negative qualities, is actually irresponsible. We ALL receive numerous benefits from living with the government that the American people have chosen, and continue to choose with every election. We ALL understand that for the government to provide those benefits, such as highways, potable water, schools, and so on, that it has to have money. Your proposition that they should simply print it, that they don't need to collect taxes, is tremendously problematic. And your assertion that you shouldn't have to pay taxes, while all the while enjoying the benefits provided by those taxes, is the very definition of selfish and irresponsible.
Your response is one logical fallacy after another.
In the first place the people of England do not and did not exist under the same rule of law as US citizens.
You claim we derive benefits from government. I am not sure this is correct.
A benefit is something for which you are better off than before you acquired it. In the case of government services, what you mistakenly call as benefits, are indeed a tradeoff. A tradeoff is similar to a purchase in which you give up something in order to gain something different. That is known as a wash.
In the case of government services, that wash is tainted by the necessity of the service government is providing. Some people derive disproportional benefit from services, while others receive little or nothing. Often the biggest beneficiaries of government spending are government contractors who make huge profit at taxpayers’ expense. In return the politicians awarding contracts receive bribes in the way of campaign contributions.
As a result it is usually those who benefit from the government spending that support it while those who do not derive benefit from those services which do not support it. It is only the dishonest who claim the system benefits everyone fairly.
In addition I never said that people should not have to pay taxes, I said that Federal Income Tax is not necessary to support the Federal Government. This is a fact. If your take the time to educate yourself on Modern Monetary Theory you will understand what I am trying to tell you.
Spare me your faux outrage. The federal government, nor any of the state governments as far as I can tell, does not have any laws against you taking your own life.
As for drugs, when you get behind the wheel high, it's not just your life you're gambling with. Since you don't believe in the responsibility you have for the people around you, then it falls to society to make you believe. You can still break the law, you simply are being held accountable. Because even if your car didn't hit someone else and kill them, and you want to whine about your crime being victimless, it actually wasn't. You put others at risk. That makes them victims of your irresponsibility.
Just yesterday in Phoenix, a drunk in a pick up t-boned two ladies and mothers at an intersection and killed them both. He survived with moderate injuries and is in the hospital. The DUI law is not for the drunk, it's for the people they impact, like these two families who will never see their wives and mothers again.
Spare me your faux outrage. The federal government, nor any of the state governments as far as I can tell, does not have any laws against you taking your own life.
As for drugs, when you get behind the wheel high, it's not just your life you're gambling with. Since you don't believe in the responsibility you have for the people around you, then it falls to society to make you believe. You can still break the law, you simply are being held accountable. Because even if your car didn't hit someone else and kill them, and you want to whine about your crime being victimless, it actually wasn't. You put others at risk. That makes them victims of your irresponsibility.
You are right, in the late 1960s; all but eighteen U.S. states had laws against suicide.
By the late 1980s, thirty of the fifty states had no laws against suicide or suicide attempts but every state had laws declaring it to be felony to aid, advice or encourage another person to commit suicide.
By the early 1990s only two states still listed suicide as a crime. Much of this change came from attention paid these laws after publicity concerning the issue became a national debate.
That does not change the fact that many state and local governments did try to usurp power over your right to your own life. They do not, and never did have that power. That did not stop them from jailing and putting people in mental hospitals.
As for drugs, who said anything about driving impaired? Of course driving impaired is illegal and irresponsible.
That is not the issue we are discussing. You have made the assertion that because someone used a drug that they were automatically going to break the law. That is nonsense.
In the first place the people of England do not and did not exist under the same rule of law as US citizens.
You claim we derive benefits from government. I am not sure this is correct.
A benefit is something for which you are better off than before you acquired it. In the case of government services, what you mistakenly call as benefits, are indeed a tradeoff. A tradeoff is similar to a purchase in which you give up something in order to gain something different. That is known as a wash.
In the case of government services, that wash is tainted by the necessity of the service government is providing. Some people derive disproportional benefit from services, while others receive little or nothing. Often the biggest beneficiaries of government spending are government contractors who make huge profit at taxpayers’ expense. In return the politicians awarding contracts receive bribes in the way of campaign contributions.
As a result it is usually those who benefit from the government spending that support it while those who do not derive benefit from those services which do not support it. It is only the dishonest who claim the system benefits everyone fairly.
In addition I never said that people should not have to pay taxes, I said that Federal Income Tax is not necessary to support the Federal Government. This is a fact. If your take the time to educate yourself on Modern Monetary Theory you will understand what I am trying to tell you.
It doesn't matter what system of government a people live under. If rights are inherent and not given, then rights are inherent and not given. You cannot assert that Americans' rights are inherent, but Haitians rights are not inherent.
Government services, government benefits. You are trying to obfuscate the point. Governments exist because they give people something that people want. People give governments power so that governments can provide these services or benefits. That's the social contract. And yes, it's a trade-off. So what?
Yes, people, and therefore governments that are run by people, can be corrupted. So what?
I understand what you are saying about taxes. I think if you would study the situation more, you would understand that if the government didn't collect taxes but relied on alternative methods to fund itself, that those alternative methods are rife with problems, and we're better off with taxes.
You are right, in the late 1960s; all but eighteen U.S. states had laws against suicide.
By the late 1980s, thirty of the fifty states had no laws against suicide or suicide attempts but every state had laws declaring it to be felony to aid, advice or encourage another person to commit suicide.
By the early 1990s only two states still listed suicide as a crime. Much of this change came from attention paid these laws after publicity concerning the issue became a national debate.
That does not change the fact that many state and local governments did try to usurp power over your right to your own life. They do not, and never did have that power. That did not stop them from jailing and putting people in mental hospitals.
As for drugs, who said anything about driving impaired? Of course driving impaired is illegal and irresponsible.
That is not the issue we are discussing. You have made the assertion that because someone used a drug that they were automatically going to break the law. That is nonsense.
Went and googled "suicide laws" did you?
As for drugs, I've already agreed with you that many drug laws are overreaching. I simply pointed out that people on drugs do tend to be impaired, and that the government's actions are meant to protect us from the actions of those who are impaired. I don't care about Johnny getting high in his basement. And since millions of Johnnies do get high in their basement every day, I don't think the government cares all that much, either. They care when Johnny sets fire to that basement. Or when Johnny gets the munchies and gets in the car to make a run to Taco Bell. Yes, the law against Johnny getting high in the basement is overreaching. But it's meant to stop Johnny from putting people at risk.
And I would point out that attitudes about Johnny getting high in the basement are changing, and our government's approach is changing. Just Say No has really fallen by the wayside, though I respect Mrs Reagan for her efforts.
It doesn't matter what system of government a people live under. If rights are inherent and not given, then rights are inherent and not given. You cannot assert that Americans' rights are inherent, but Haitians rights are not inherent.
Government services, government benefits. You are trying to obfuscate the point. Governments exist because they give people something that people want. People give governments power so that governments can provide these services or benefits. That's the social contract. And yes, it's a trade-off. So what?
Yes, people, and therefore governments that are run by people, can be corrupted. So what?
I understand what you are saying about taxes. I think if you would study the situation more, you would understand that if the government didn't collect taxes but relied on alternative methods to fund itself, that those alternative methods are rife with problems, and we're better off with taxes.
Obviously you do not understand, because there are no problems, outside of relinquishing control over the lives of private citizens.
You think the government deals in actual physical money, they do not. They deal in virtual money, keystrokes on a computer. The Federal Reserve has been creating money for 5 years in massive amounts to purchase toxic assets and yet during that entire time period the actual amount of physical money in circulation (M2) has decreased.
This has not stopped hysterical idiots who lack the grey matter to understand the monetary system from screaming the world is ending because of hyperinflation.
When the country used a gold standard there was a need for taxes because dollars could be exchanged for physical silver which limited the government’s ability to create dollars. That is no longer the case. The Federal Reserve itself explains the purpose of income tax is to drain purchasing power from the economy, not to fund the government. Our economy is "managed" in order to meet specific goals.
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.
