• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

I have seen the light, Republicans ARE EVIL...

Stanley

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
375
Location
Reston, VA
The Constitution is a physical document, created by men, with a clear mechanism for altering it, and a clear precedent for abolishing it, if need be.

The mythical "social contract" is none of those things, and is not written down, so it can mean different things to different people. Beretta believes it entitles her to the wealth of others if they possess x+1 amount of it.

Ahhh...

I get what you are saying.
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
Yes, you are a slave. Sorry to break the news to you.
^Moron.

You have the Liberty to decide the validity of agreements. You do not have the Liberty to not suffer the consequences of not abiding by the agreement.

This sounds a lot like your "a mandate isn't force because you don't have to agree to the mandate, just be fined or imprisoned if you disagree" argument. I'm done playing semantic games with someone who doesn't know how to properly use the English language.

There were a number of factors that contributed to Hitlers mass murder. Socialism was not a necessary component.

I wasn't thinking only of Hitler.

But yes, collectivism, the idea that individuals are the property of the State and may be used to fulfill its ends, is at the heart of any abuse of rights and liberties.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
If you limit your idea to social contract as not infringing on the liberties of others, then you are on to something.

If you construe it to mean we are obligated to "take care of others" or surrender our liberties because you feel the government does a better job.....

I am under no 'social contract' to educate your children, take care of your elderly parents/grandparents, give up my property without due compensation for (too numerous to list), pay for my workers health care, or their retirement etc......

You are presenting a wonderful alternative to the current system:rolleyes:
 

ManInBlack

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
1,551
Location
SW Idaho
I have no interest in wealth. Just a modest, simple existence.

Paid for by others who have actually worked for their daily bread, of course.

You are a low-down thief, no different from any street criminal.

The only difference is that you are too cowardly to commit the deed yourself, and prefer to outsource your theft to the State.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I don't recall voluntarily agreeing to the constitution (well before joining the army) or our laws but I was forced into obeying them...

How is this not different??? I truly don't understand why one is bad and the other is ok...

As I said, the means are the ends. Justification cannot be made solely on outcome.

I do maintain that a "social contract" necessarily implies an abrogation of individual right. Words mean things, and all.

With that said, you've touched upon one of the great debates of liberalism, an issue unsettled even amongst the libertarian intelligentsia (come to think of it, they actually haven't settled very much :p).

I highly suggest you read the following:

No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

Most interesting food for thought.

Incidentally, because you are, quite understandably, sensitive to such issues -- the topic at hand is secession, initially that of the South from the Union, but then moving on to that of the individual -- keep in mind that the author, Lysander Spooner, was a respected and proven abolitionist whose prior work was cited routinely by many of the head figures of the abolitionist movement. I do remember our prior conversations, and I'm not trying to insult you by recommending this work.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee

Don't go getting all worked up about this. The next step is acceptance.

This sounds a lot like your "a mandate isn't force because you don't have to agree to the mandate, just be fined or imprisoned if you disagree" argument. I'm done playing semantic games with someone who doesn't know how to properly use the English language.

You are right, I do not know how to properly use the English language.

I wasn't thinking only of Hitler.

Neither was I, just an example.

But yes, collectivism, the idea that individuals are the property of the State and may be used to fulfill its ends, is at the heart of any abuse of rights and liberties.

You are associating Collectivism with individuals being property of the State; I don't agree with the association. I agree that such an association is an abuse of Rights and Liberties.

The State may use you to fulfill it's ends, if it sees fit. Or do you have the Power to overthrow the State? I don't think you have that Power. The only way that you might be able to is a Collective...interesting.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Paid for by others who have actually worked for their daily bread, of course.

You are a low-down thief, no different from any street criminal.

The only difference is that you are too cowardly to commit the deed yourself, and prefer to outsource your theft to the State.

You never know. I may be a sophisticated bank robber.

If the Government steal from the rich (as you term it), and gives to the poor (may be me, may not be), then the poor individual accepting the money is a criminal? Go on, I am intrigued.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
As I said, the means are the ends. Justification cannot be made solely on outcome.

I do maintain that a "social contract" necessarily implies an abrogation of individual right. Words mean things, and all.

With that said, you've touched upon one of the great debates of liberalism, an issue unsettled even amongst the libertarian intelligentsia (come to think of it, they actually haven't settled very much :p).

I highly suggest you read the following:

No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority

Most interesting food for thought.

Incidentally, because you are, quite understandably, sensitive to such issues -- the topic at hand is secession, initially that of the South from the Union, but then moving on to that of the individual -- keep in mind that the author, Lysander Spooner, was a respected and proven abolitionist whose prior work was cited routinely by many of the head figures of the abolitionist movement. I do remember our prior conversations, and I'm not trying to insult you by recommending this work.

So, the Constitution is therefore invalid. Shocker! Then there is a argument that if the Constitution is not done away with, it is assumed to be valid.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
You never know. I may be a sophisticated bank robber.

If the Government steal from the rich (as you term it), and gives to the poor (may be me, may not be), then the poor individual accepting the money is a criminal? Go on, I am intrigued.

Only the aggressor is, or ought to be, the criminal.

Are the police acting aggressively or criminally when they sell recovered stolen goods whose owner could not be found or identified?
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Only the aggressor is, or ought to be, the criminal.

Are the police acting aggressively or criminally when they sell recovered stolen goods whose owner could not be found or identified?

There is a flaw in your question. How does the police know that the property was stolen if the individual is not identified? Without a victim of theft you have no stolen property.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
There is a flaw in your question. How does the police know that the property was stolen if the individual is not identified? Without a victim of theft you have no stolen property.

Perhaps the thief admitted the property was stolen. Perhaps the property has some indicator that it is stolen, but it does not identify its owner. Perhaps its owner is known, but dead, with no heirs. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

There may be no criminal complaint without a victim, but that does not invalidate the exercise.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
The Constitution defines the extent of and restrains government, not me.

Think, B92FSL, think!

I agree.

You offered the link: " It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869." http://jim.com/treason.htm

The author of your link states that the Constitution at most is a contract between individuals of the time, more specifically, a contract between individuals that signed the contract. meaning, if an individual did not sign, or refused to sign the contract, they are not obligated to it; the Government can mandate you abide by it with the alternative being a punishment (the threat of force).
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I agree.

You offered the link: " It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869." http://jim.com/treason.htm

The author of your link states that the Constitution at most is a contract between individuals of the time, more specifically, a contract between individuals that signed the contract. meaning, if an individual did not sign, or refused to sign the contract, they are not obligated to it; the Government can mandate you abide by it with the alternative being a punishment (the threat of force).

Yes, hence the invalidity of the premise that every individual necessarily is party to a "social contract" by nothing more than virtue of having been born.

Whether government is justified in its punishment is a question of initiatory force, that is to say: who committed the initial act of aggression? Although, I prefer restitution (wherever possible) to punishment, as being more in line with right.

I am entitled to recompense as a victim of aggression. I needn't rely on a social contract to justify that.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Perhaps the thief admitted the property was stolen. Perhaps the property has some indicator that it is stolen, but its owner is dead, with no heirs. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

There may be no criminal complaint without a victim, but that does not invalidate the exercise.

A person might have stated they stole the property but there is no other proof that the property was stolen. In order for there to be a criminal act it requires some sort of victim. Am I wrong about this?

So, if a person states that they murdered someone, and the supposed victim is not identifiable by any means then incarceration for murder is valid?

Take it a step further and the State could enter your home, accuse you of murdering John Doe, throw you in prison, and the incarceration is valid? Maybe we ought to be discussing Just, and not-Just.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Yes, hence the invalidity of the premise that every individual necessarily is party to a "social contract" by nothing more than virtue of having been born.

Whether government is justified in its punishment is a question of initiatory force, that is to say: who committed the initial act of aggression?

I agree that the individual is not necessarily party to a social contract, I will concede that.

If that's the case then all of the signers of the Constitution are the aggressor against all of us.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
A person might have stated they stole the property but there is no other proof that the property was stolen. In order for there to be a criminal act it requires some sort of victim. Am I wrong about this?

So, if a person states that they murdered someone, and the supposed victim is not identifiable by any means then incarceration for murder is valid?

Take it a step further and the State could enter your home, accuse you of murdering John Doe, throw you in prison, and the incarceration is valid? Maybe we ought to be discussing Just, and not-Just.

I never said anything about prosecuting someone. I merely pointed out that taking possession of stolen property, or dispensing that property, is not inherently aggression.

I really don't see what this has to do with that.

To answer your question, yes, a criminal act requires a victim. That does not been the victim must be known.

If I find a body in the woods, decomposed and unidentifiable, but clearly murdered, that was still a crime.

More importantly, I cannot murder someone in the Alaskan bush just because the body will never be found and claim my act wasn't criminal.
 
Top