djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 17, 2013 23:03:12 GMT -5
every time we have this discussion it invariably leads to "the government is robbing me at gunpoint". are you suggesting that this is merely rhetorical? because clearly, it implies that the social contract has no basis in law. It means he believes the government has gone too far. Simply put, he believes there are fundamental limits to how burdensome to the individual the social contract can be. Taxes that are lawful, are employed to the noblest of ends, and are supported by 99% of a society can still be unfair. Unfair taxation is closer to racketeering than to robbery in my mind, but the point is clear that the contract is no longer one of mutual benefit to the individual and society at large. It changes from symbiosis to parasitism. if it is no longer of benefit to society at large, then it should be relatively easy to change it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 17, 2013 23:35:46 GMT -5
It means he believes the government has gone too far. Simply put, he believes there are fundamental limits to how burdensome to the individual the social contract can be. Taxes that are lawful, are employed to the noblest of ends, and are supported by 99% of a society can still be unfair. Unfair taxation is closer to racketeering than to robbery in my mind, but the point is clear that the contract is no longer one of mutual benefit to the individual and society at large. It changes from symbiosis to parasitism. if it is no longer of benefit to society at large, then it should be relatively easy to change it. "Society at large" is the beneficiary. The parasite in the analogy. The wealthy individual is the unwilling benefactor. We could forever debate how much a wealthy man owes society (and by extension how much taxation is just) but suffice it here to say that in Paul's mind there exists an x such that taxation in excess of x% of income switches the contract from symbiotic to parasitic. Or by analogy, from fair payment to highway robbery. My views on what constitutes fair taxation are far more complex. For the sake of this discussion, I'll simply say that my preferred model is neither an income tax nor a sales tax, neither flat nor progressive, and let you ruminate on the world of possibilities that opens up. The limits on x in my model are [0 100), or in other words, there are no artificial limits on x save for an asymptotic upper bound.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2013 0:01:10 GMT -5
if it is no longer of benefit to society at large, then it should be relatively easy to change it. "Society at large" is the beneficiary. The parasite in the analogy. The wealthy individual is the unwilling benefactor. there will always be unwilling benefactors. but keep in mind that the wealthy are also huge beneficiaries of this great and wonderful system.We could forever debate how much a wealthy man owes society (and by extension how much taxation is just) but suffice it here to say that in Paul's mind there exists an x such that taxation in excess of x% of income switches the contract from symbiotic to parasitic. Or by analogy, from fair payment to highway robbery. that debate goes on constantly. but i would point out that it was settled at numbers that are 2x higher than the current levels for over half a century. now, it could well be that Paul is right, and that two generations of Americans were just sipping the Kool-Aid, but i would tend to think that they were looking at the landscape and deciding that things needed to get done- that there were national projects that were underway, and that, by hell or high water, we were going to pay for them.My views on what constitutes fair taxation are far more complex. For the sake of this discussion, I'll simply say that my preferred model is neither an income tax nor a sales tax, neither flat nor progressive, and let you ruminate on the world of possibilities that opens up. The limits on x in my model are [0 100), or in other words, there are no artificial limits on x save for an asymptotic upper bound. 100% estate tax?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 16:46:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 6:17:01 GMT -5
Or...look I know this is cheesy but it is relevant...freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose. Good enough for me. Me and Bobby McGee.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 16:46:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 6:38:01 GMT -5
I agree that a contract must be between several parties, but I assert that it exists only because individuals as individuals signed up to it. A lot of the problems with contracts arise because of the woolly post facto assumption that all parties who initially signed up remain committed to the contract as currently operated and enforced. Marginal utility theory applies, which again is where I'm coming from a praxeological standpoint, and where I think I'm sharing Paul's perspective on the social contract and the "just consent" of the governed. i am unclear on Paul's position vis-a-vis the social contract. from what i gather, he thinks it doesn't have any legal, moral, or constitutional basis. do you? For a thing to be legal is merely for it to be backed by the implicit threat of force granted the State through its police power. Let's not pretty that up, for starters. A constitution is simply an instrument of law - the Second Amendment, for example, is an explicit post facto justification for open insurrection against the government of the day, the ultimate expression of individual freedom under the social contract just as the Tenth Amendment enshrines a more limited freedom for state actors under the federal contract (a freedom made all but meaningless by the Seventeenth Amendment). A contract, in general, is an agreement between two or more parties that is binding upon them and typically codifies some economic arrangement among them - some sort of quid pro quo. Law can provide support to that party wishing to enforce some clause stipulated in the contract by which some other party wishes to be bound: as a trivial example, law provides redress to the wronged party who has some private property of his confiscated against his will (eminent domain). Although law has three components - enactment, authorization, and enforcement - it is the latter of these that gives it its defining functional character as an operation of the State. Law is that which compels the individual in society to abide by the social contract; the two dangers there being that the individual is an implicit signatory to that notional contract, and that neither its burdens nor its benefits are made clearly manifest to that individual. We would not, in a courtroom, hold such a contract admissible or enforcible - the "tacit consent" of individuals to be bound by the contract, to have their conversations monitored, their homes invaded, their wages garnished, their liberties curtailed, their speech circumscribed, and their hours regulated is an illusion. It is simply the tyranny of the mob, that mass of hoi polloi for whom the palliatives doled out by the State are sufficient inducement to disregard the costs of the contract to the average individual. No bank or insurance firm offering contracts on this basis would be considered a moral actor in good faith. All the same, I consider social contracts a necessary evil. In fact, I cannot imagine any society of humans, of any size, that did not in their interactions accept implicitly some framework within those interactions take place and by which they are limited. Social conventions inevitably arise and are inevitably codified by the expectation of adherence to convention. Within any society, decisions must be made - concerning resource management, for example - and, once made, must be respected. This imperative gives inevitable rise to the police power, which must then be vested in some body. Thus, the State.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 16:46:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 7:22:47 GMT -5
Or...look I know this is cheesy but it is relevant...freedoms just another word for nothing left to lose. Good enough for me. Me and Bobby McGee. LOL I said I know it is cheesy but that is layman's terms for thinking you are free. You are free if you aren't afraid of losing anything. Since the majority of humans are not fearless it is possible to enslave them.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 16:46:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 7:36:40 GMT -5
Why? The law is codified by a select few that have the time and energy to lobby for it and take it through a complex process that most of us can not feasibly participate in. It has ended up extremely weighted in favour of an elite. Why must it be respected?
And on that theory we would never challenge the "resource management" decisions of another country.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 16:46:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 7:46:36 GMT -5
Why? The law is codified by a select few that have the time and energy to lobby for it and take it through a complex process that most of us can not feasibly participate in. It has ended up extremely weighted in favour of an elite. Why must it be respected? And on that theory we would never challenge the "resource management" decisions of another country. I fully concur with your point. The imperative for respect has the same source as the imperative for decision, i.e. it is the decision-maker, the wielder of the legitimized violence of the police power, who demands the respect. It is the decision-maker who says what must be so. If there were some overarching universal moral imperative to respect decisions made on our behalf by a handful of self-interested actors, that would be a different case. My thesis is that this isn't so. Social contracts arise because, in any group, someone will, through explicit or implicit threat of force, rise to a position of authority; and, from that position of authority, will decide for the group certain parameters that then guide their living. Government is the Leviathan, whose force in the final analysis overmasters that of any lesser bully. By all means, practice civil disobedience (or even uncivil) in defiance of the decisions that have been made on your behalf and without your say-so. But your disrespect of the decision-makers will be noted, and punished, in proportion with its impact on popular consciousness.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,561
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 18, 2013 8:17:01 GMT -5
Way too long without a Musical Interlude
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2013 9:57:13 GMT -5
i am unclear on Paul's position vis-a-vis the social contract. from what i gather, he thinks it doesn't have any legal, moral, or constitutional basis. do you? For a thing to be legal is merely for it to be backed by the implicit threat of force granted the State through its police power. Let's not pretty that up, for starters. . that is why i added the other two adjectives, Mojo. i have already stated that i disregard laws i consider to be capricious.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2013 10:03:31 GMT -5
We would not, in a courtroom, hold such a contract admissible or enforcible - the "tacit consent" of individuals to be bound by the contract, to have their conversations monitored, their homes invaded, their wages garnished, their liberties curtailed, their speech circumscribed, and their hours regulated is an illusion. It is simply the tyranny of the mob, that mass of hoi polloi for whom the palliatives doled out by the State are sufficient inducement to disregard the costs of the contract to the average individual. we would if they failed to meet the most basic obligations of citizenship: ie- ponying up for their taxes. in would argue that these basic obligations are so well established that they are not really "tacit". it is more like a birthright/responsibility that each citizen has. the fact that they may be civically unaware of them is an institutional problem that is readily soluble in a free and open society.
having said that, there are certain infringements that should not be tolerated. however, we have a system for challenging most or all of them, as specified in the bill of rights.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2013 10:05:53 GMT -5
i am unclear on Paul's position vis-a-vis the social contract. from what i gather, he thinks it doesn't have any legal, moral, or constitutional basis. do you? All the same, I consider social contracts a necessary evil. In fact, I cannot imagine any society of humans, of any size, that did not in their interactions accept implicitly some framework within those interactions take place and by which they are limited. Social conventions inevitably arise and are inevitably codified by the expectation of adherence to convention. Within any society, decisions must be made - concerning resource management, for example - and, once made, must be respected. This imperative gives inevitable rise to the police power, which must then be vested in some body. Thus, the State. where we may or may not part ways is that i firmly believe that the state should not be militarized to the point where it can enslave the electorate. when it gets to that point, it is time to disarm the state.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 16:46:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 10:13:15 GMT -5
Okay, that's just the fancy way of saying the same thing I said.
Okay, you are back to your abstract definition of enslave. I would argue that as soon as "the state" has the power to enforce any laws on those unwilling to buy into "the social contract" they have the power to enslave. As my first piece of evidence I present our prison systems.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2013 10:23:00 GMT -5
Okay, that's just the fancy way of saying the same thing I said. Okay, you are back to your abstract definition of enslave. no, in this case i was being quite literal, albeit melodramatic. I would argue that as soon as "the state" has the power to enforce any laws on those unwilling to buy into "the social contract" they have the power to enslave. As my first piece of evidence I present our prison systems. i think this is an abstraction. if you violate the law, it is for the benefit of the public that the state do something about it. if the law itself is unjust, then there are mechanisms to fix that. if there are no mechanisms to fix that, then we no longer live in a democratic republic. the FISA court is a good example of stretching that definition to the breaking point.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 16:46:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 10:34:02 GMT -5
Okay, that's just the fancy way of saying the same thing I said. Okay, you are back to your abstract definition of enslave. no, in this case i was being quite literal, albeit melodramatic. I would argue that as soon as "the state" has the power to enforce any laws on those unwilling to buy into "the social contract" they have the power to enslave. As my first piece of evidence I present our prison systems. i think this is an abstraction. if you violate the law, it is for the benefit of the public that the state do something about it. if the law itself is unjust, then there are mechanisms to fix that. if there are no mechanisms to fix that, then we no longer live in a democratic republic. the FISA court is a good example of stretching that definition to the breaking point. I know that to your mind you think you were being literal. I am claiming that you aren't. The fact that the current drug laws have not been overturned despite the fact that the majority agrees they should would support the idea that you do no longer live in a democratic republic.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2013 11:11:29 GMT -5
i think this is an abstraction. if you violate the law, it is for the benefit of the public that the state do something about it. if the law itself is unjust, then there are mechanisms to fix that. if there are no mechanisms to fix that, then we no longer live in a democratic republic. the FISA court is a good example of stretching that definition to the breaking point. I know that to your mind you think you were being literal. I am claiming that you aren't. The fact that the current drug laws have not been overturned despite the fact that the majority agrees they should would support the idea that you do no longer live in a democratic republic. it supports that thesis, but it doesn't prove it by any means. allow me to play the devil's advocate for a moment. the basis for a republic is not that it strictly follows the will of the people. the basis for a republic is that it is an "enlightened rule", that crafts laws against a background of "expertise" AND "popular will". in other words, it is somewhat paternal in it's outlook. there are two distinct visions of "democracy". one is that the people rule. this has never been practiced on anything other than a small scale, with rare exceptions, in thousands of years of civilization. the second is that of the Platonic Republic, where those that have no inclination or knowledge elect those that do to govern them. that is what we have here, like it or not. now, it may be true that our elected officials simply cast aside what we want and do what THEY want. i am willing to accept that argument. but there is a mechanism for dealing with that: it is called "the election".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 16:46:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 11:56:49 GMT -5
I know that to your mind you think you were being literal. I am claiming that you aren't. The fact that the current drug laws have not been overturned despite the fact that the majority agrees they should would support the idea that you do no longer live in a democratic republic. it supports that thesis, but it doesn't prove it by any means. allow me to play the devil's advocate for a moment. the basis for a republic is not that it strictly follows the will of the people. the basis for a republic is that it is an "enlightened rule", that crafts laws against a background of "expertise" AND "popular will". in other words, it is somewhat paternal in it's outlook. there are two distinct visions of "democracy". one is that the people rule. this has never been practiced on anything other than a small scale, with rare exceptions, in thousands of years of civilization. the second is that of the Platonic Republic, where those that have no inclination or knowledge elect those that do to govern them. that is what we have here, like it or not. now, it may be true that our elected officials simply cast aside what we want and do what THEY want. i am willing to accept that argument. but there is a mechanism for dealing with that: it is called "the election". When that mechanism is controlled by an elite minority that have effective control over the options presented it ceases to be what it claims. In the interest of an honest social contract it should be renamed and presented honestly.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 16:46:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 13:02:03 GMT -5
For a thing to be legal is merely for it to be backed by the implicit threat of force granted the State through its police power. Let's not pretty that up, for starters. . that is why i added the other two adjectives, Mojo. i have already stated that i disregard laws i consider to be capricious. This is churlish of me to a degree; but it is proportionate to the degree of disingenuousness displayed when I address all three adjectives in my response and you edit it to create the strawman to which you then responded here. All laws are capricious. That some law happens to accurately reflect the mores of its society is an accident of history; society is a dynamic system, and laws are static constructs, which is why for example we have income tax. All laws represent tokenistic efforts by the elite to retain their undeserved authority over the masses, at best. At worst, they are actively instruments of exploitation. In our happy little republic, a law may be passed by fewer than 300 Americans obeying the wishes of those special interests most necessary for the funding of their reelection campaigns. It may be authorized by a President whose executive agencies enjoy great lassitude in interpreting its provisions. It may injure persons who lack the means to seek redress, and who may despite injury be found by appointed judges to lack standing. And every election cycle, new members of Congress are elected expressly to tear down the existing labyrinth of laws that have outlived their usefulness and should sunset.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 16:46:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 13:08:52 GMT -5
We would not, in a courtroom, hold such a contract admissible or enforcible - the "tacit consent" of individuals to be bound by the contract, to have their conversations monitored, their homes invaded, their wages garnished, their liberties curtailed, their speech circumscribed, and their hours regulated is an illusion. It is simply the tyranny of the mob, that mass of hoi polloi for whom the palliatives doled out by the State are sufficient inducement to disregard the costs of the contract to the average individual. we would if they failed to meet the most basic obligations of citizenship: ie- ponying up for their taxes. in would argue that these basic obligations are so well established that they are not really "tacit". it is more like a birthright/responsibility that each citizen has. the fact that they may be civically unaware of them is an institutional problem that is readily soluble in a free and open society.
having said that, there are certain infringements that should not be tolerated. however, we have a system for challenging most or all of them, as specified in the bill of rights.
I can assure you, dj, that if I go after you in small claims court for a sum owed to me in a contract you never signed and were not made aware of, I will fail. This is true even if I have a very strong moral case for you owing me reparations. Your assertion that someone is born a citizen and therefore born into obligations to the government is exactly why the contract is immoral. The citizen, as party to the contract, has no opt-out clause. Neither has he any power to amend the contract, because he is just one party in millions. The solution is simply not as ready as you claim, and the situation is exactly analogous to the serfdom you decry - a citizen is entered involuntarily into a contract the terms of which can be adjusted only by the State. In the limit of his power, the citizen-serf may unionize and lobby the State, but still it is the State which considers the appeal and the State which modifies its own contract. The abusiveness of that system should surely be obvious.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 16:46:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 13:14:02 GMT -5
Okay, that's just the fancy way of saying the same thing I said. Okay, you are back to your abstract definition of enslave. I would argue that as soon as "the state" has the power to enforce any laws on those unwilling to buy into "the social contract" they have the power to enslave. As my first piece of evidence I present our prison systems. I'm pretty sure I was agreeing with you, in more formally propositional terms, so that works I also agree that the necessary function of the state is to carry the authentic threat of violence against its citizens. That is why it reserves to itself the authority to delimit the rights of any citizen (for example, an American citizen who converts to Islam, and becomes a radical advocate of anti-American terrorism, forfeits not only his right to speech but also his right to due process and to life by so doing). And that is why it's nonsense to talk of "natural rights" - because the only ones we can practically claim or defend are those constructed for us by our legislative overlords.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 16:46:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 13:26:10 GMT -5
but...
makes it look a lot like you don't see the lack of consent as the moral problem it is.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 18, 2013 13:30:31 GMT -5
And that is why it's nonsense to talk of "natural rights" - because the only ones we can practically claim or defend are those constructed for us by our legislative overlords. It's astounding how many people don't "get" this fact. Rights are purchased with authority, and authority is cemented with force. Ideally as little as possible, but genuine, bloody, guns-knives-n-bombs force. Natural rights are about as natural as the stuff they pump out the bottom of distillation columns at oil refineries and market as "Cheez Whiz".
|
|
damnotagain
Well-Known Member
Joined: Oct 19, 2012 21:18:44 GMT -5
Posts: 1,211
|
Post by damnotagain on Sept 18, 2013 13:40:24 GMT -5
Having been thrown out of a philosophy class , ethics in public and private life, this argument goes back to the Trial and Death of Socrates as written by Plato. My take on it was" justice is for those who have the authority to tell you what is right and what is wrong." My professor , while eating and drinking under a sign that said "no eating and drinking in class" disagreed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 16:46:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 14:22:22 GMT -5
So to bring this full circle to dj's premise that it is possible for other countries not to have a problem with "slavery" due to cultural norms for them, I agree and say that he is suffering from cultural bias not appreciating that many in our culture also do not mind a guilded cage. (Mojo word that better for me will you? there's a dear )
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Sept 18, 2013 14:40:03 GMT -5
So to bring this full circle to dj's premise that it is possible for other countries not to have a problem with "slavery" due to cultural norms for them, I agree and say that he is suffering from cultural bias not appreciating that many in our culture also do not mind a guilded cage. (Mojo word that better for me will you? there's a dear ) Mojo!? What about the lovable and pithy Virgil? "DJ's premise be right on, but he don't realize that folks done rightly reckon they's is slaves." Let's see your new best friend Mojo come up with something as elegant as that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2013 14:46:27 GMT -5
we would if they failed to meet the most basic obligations of citizenship: ie- ponying up for their taxes. in would argue that these basic obligations are so well established that they are not really "tacit". it is more like a birthright/responsibility that each citizen has. the fact that they may be civically unaware of them is an institutional problem that is readily soluble in a free and open society.
having said that, there are certain infringements that should not be tolerated. however, we have a system for challenging most or all of them, as specified in the bill of rights.
I can assure you, dj, that if I go after you in small claims court for a sum owed to me in a contract you never signed and were not made aware of, I will fail. This is true even if I have a very strong moral case for you owing me reparations. red herring. the social contract requires no signature. you know that.Your assertion that someone is born a citizen and therefore born into obligations to the government is exactly why the contract is immoral. no, it is not immoral. you have every right to renounce your birthright, and find another place when you reach adulthood to have a NEW UNSIGNED CONTRACT WITH. you are under no obligation to stay here. you are not a prisoner. it is not, as this thread would put it, slavery.The citizen, as party to the contract, has no opt-out clause. wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG! you absolutely DO have an opt-out clause. Severin just took it. you may, likewise.Neither has he any power to amend the contract, because he is just one party in millions. The solution is simply not as ready as you claim, and the situation is exactly analogous to the serfdom you decry - a citizen is entered involuntarily into a contract the terms of which can be adjusted only by the State. it would be, if it were as you described. but it is not as you described. you are free to go and live somewhere else where your rights are protected as well or better than here, and pay for THAT. or, i am sure you can find some state that is in complete chaos and fend for yourself, and pay nothing.In the limit of his power, the citizen-serf may unionize and lobby the State, but still it is the State which considers the appeal and the State which modifies its own contract. the Bill of Rights says otherwise. you have the right to petition for grievances. petition away.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2013 14:49:23 GMT -5
but... makes it look a lot like you don't see the lack of consent as the moral problem it is. children don't have consent, bro. but they DO get a free education, in many cases. they get the defense of courts and police. they get to ride on the same roads as their parents. that stuff is not free, sir. what you are claiming, here and elsewhere, is that the PRIVILEGE of being a citizen here should be FREE. i completely disagree. it costs money, and it should be paid for by citizens.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2013 14:50:41 GMT -5
that is why i added the other two adjectives, Mojo. i have already stated that i disregard laws i consider to be capricious. This is churlish of me to a degree; but it is proportionate to the degree of disingenuousness displayed when I address all three adjectives in my response and you edit it to create the strawman to which you then responded here. you didn't make reference to it in your first paragraph. that was the ONLY one i addressed in that response. if it was intended to be part of a coherent whole, and not a separate point, i apologize. but i assure you, no "red herring" was intended. only concision.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 1, 2024 16:46:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2013 14:57:39 GMT -5
but... makes it look a lot like you don't see the lack of consent as the moral problem it is. children don't have consent, bro. but they DO get a free education, in many cases. they get the defense of courts and police. they get to ride on the same roads as their parents. that stuff is not free, sir. what you are claiming, here and elsewhere, is that the PRIVILEGE of being a citizen here should be FREE. i completely disagree. it costs money, and it should be paid for by citizens. Did we mention brainwashing as an enslavement technique?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,294
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 18, 2013 14:59:38 GMT -5
but... makes it look a lot like you don't see the lack of consent as the moral problem it is. i don't see it as lack of consent. here, let me illustrate through example. let's say i give you an invitation to my club as your birthright. if you choose to exercise your birthright, you will have to play by certain rules- for example- you may not harm the person or property of a non-consenting other. everyone who joins plays by the same rules. until you start earning money, you may continue to be in the club, free of charge. upon the first dollar you earn, you will have to start paying dues, if you stay a member. however, if, prior to earning money, you decide that you don't want to join, you may find another club that has rules you agree with. now, mind you, not joining my club is really stupid- because my club is totally cool. but you have that right. but remember: being given access to a cool club is a GIFT. don't curse me for it. thank me. THAT is how i view citizenship and taxation.
|
|