Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 102

Thread: If you don't like the laws, move & you're consenting, entering a social contract

  1. #1
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318

    If you don't like the laws, move & you're consenting, entering a social contract

    I think this is about as simple as one could make it

    You Can Always Leave - Taxation and Legitmacy
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP8cCtgpInA
    Advocate freedom please

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Pretty much like how all those folks living in New Orleans could have all moved to avoid Hurrican Katrina? Or like all those folks living in <location> could have moved to avoid <social unrest>?

    I don't know how many folks here at OCDO have ever seen refugees in person - folks who have made the decision that continuing to live in Place A was so bad that it was worth giving up almost everything you owned and risking the lives of not only yourself but your family to try and find a place where the danger was not quite as immediate and deadly. Refugees do not find a job in another state, sell their house, and settle in to the new neighborhood.

    The majority of folks in the USA are not able to just pick up, move, and resume life as they knew it in some new location. If it's not the lack/uncertinty of finding a job, it's the lack of finances to cover the costs of moving. This goes for folks that are labeled as upper-middle-class as well as for those who are labeled as poor. Think about it - how much liquid cash do you have that you could afford to spend and not replace in order to finance picking up and moving?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162
    Hmmpf! Depends on where ones priorities lie. What I left is easily social unrest.

    The cost of living here is so much lower than where we moved from that the expense of moving has been recovered many times over.

    Example; my State Farm Insurance Companies account was forty years old, but I gave it up for a local company that charges less for complete coverage than SF did for homeowners insurance.

    Example: Where we moved from the AC runs year around for dehumidification if not heating and cooling. Only this exceptonal winter has our heating bill exceeded our previous monthly average.

    Refugees have many labels/epithets. A (ex-LURRP) co-worker started three business to give to his Vietnamese wife's family members, about fifty of them, to enable them to stay in the US. There are Hmong veterans in Wisconsin that arrived with what they had in their pockets and still disrespected.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 07-07-2014 at 10:44 AM. Reason: typo
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162

    Social unrest - WAR ZONE: 11 Killed, At Least 60 Wounded In Chicago Shootings ...

    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162

    Social unrest - Two-time illegal immigrant charged with rape in Philly’s sanctuary ..

    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    You are soft ..


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5bHHBi6Cgc


    When life gives you lemons ...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    You are soft ..When life gives you lemons ...
    LOL I just came in from two hours of mowing my roadside with a scythe and a push mower. ...just soft enough that my wife finds me cuddly.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    When life gives you lemons ...
    Slice them and put one in your Long Island Ice Tea.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Pretty much like how all those folks living in New Orleans could have all moved to avoid Hurrican Katrina? Or like all those folks living in <location> could have moved to avoid <social unrest>?

    I don't know how many folks here at OCDO have ever seen refugees in person - folks who have made the decision that continuing to live in Place A was so bad that it was worth giving up almost everything you owned and risking the lives of not only yourself but your family to try and find a place where the danger was not quite as immediate and deadly. Refugees do not find a job in another state, sell their house, and settle in to the new neighborhood.

    The majority of folks in the USA are not able to just pick up, move, and resume life as they knew it in some new location. If it's not the lack/uncertinty of finding a job, it's the lack of finances to cover the costs of moving. This goes for folks that are labeled as upper-middle-class as well as for those who are labeled as poor. Think about it - how much liquid cash do you have that you could afford to spend and not replace in order to finance picking up and moving?

    stay safe.
    The state is a lot like a Hurricane!
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    The state is a lot like a Hurricane!
    Well said.

    All here should read Vilfredo Pareto, an Italian Nineteenth Century engineer, economist and political scientist, whose Pareto Principal (a.k.a., 80/20 Rule of the Vital Few) and Pareto Distribution accurately describes empirical phenomena.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 07-08-2014 at 07:36 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member MurrayRothbard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    70
    I enjoyed the video, but I feel like the video glossed over the objection that "When you go to a restaurant, there's an enforceable implied contract"...Can anyone expound on why the implied restaurant contract differs from (and is therefore legitimate) the implied social contract (which is illegitimate)?

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by MurrayRothbard View Post
    I enjoyed the video, but I feel like the video glossed over the objection that "When you go to a restaurant, there's an enforceable implied contract"...Can anyone expound on why the implied restaurant contract differs from (and is therefore legitimate) the implied social contract (which is illegitimate)?
    Because there is no such thing as a "social contract" its a made up tactic to get people to feel like they need to pay the state for being born into society which simply means "the people".

    It is theft and a form of initiating force to go to a restaurant take property and services of someone else when doing so is a form of contract you will pay them or compensate them for those services.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I took the advice and moved .. across the street .. I'm still screwed ...

    Why should we move when a right is in play ... let the commies move.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I took the advice and moved .. across the street .. I'm still screwed ...

    Why should we move when a right is in play ... let the commies move.
    If the "street" was the ocean you'd be all set.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  15. #15
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by MurrayRothbard View Post
    I enjoyed the video, but I feel like the video glossed over the objection that "When you go to a restaurant, there's an enforceable implied contract"...Can anyone expound on why the implied restaurant contract differs from (and is therefore legitimate) the implied social contract (which is illegitimate)?
    I suppose there might be more than one way to tackle that, since there's probably quite a number of differences. I'd probably start by saying that in the case of a restaurant, the owner of the restaurant actually has the authority to enter a contract regarding entry to the premises in the first place, whereas "the state" doesn't have the authority to enter any sort of contract, whether implied or explicit, since they have no rights to the land in question to begin with.
    Advocate freedom please

  16. #16
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Because there is no such thing as a "social contract" its a made up tactic to get people to feel like they need to pay the state for being born into society which simply means "the people".

    It is theft and a form of initiating force to go to a restaurant take property and services of someone else when doing so is a form of contract you will pay them or compensate them for those services.
    Nice. The term "social contract" irritates me. The "greater good" of society allows me to trump any individual at any time for any reason.

    The latest Idiot in Chief's words ring in my ears...“if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that”
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  17. #17
    Regular Member MurrayRothbard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Because there is no such thing as a "social contract" its a made up tactic to get people to feel like they need to pay the state for being born into society which simply means "the people".

    It is theft and a form of initiating force to go to a restaurant take property and services of someone else when doing so is a form of contract you will pay them or compensate them for those services.
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    I suppose there might be more than one way to tackle that, since there's probably quite a number of differences. I'd probably start by saying that in the case of a restaurant, the owner of the restaurant actually has the authority to enter a contract regarding entry to the premises in the first place, whereas "the state" doesn't have the authority to enter any sort of contract, whether implied or explicit, since they have no rights to the land in question to begin with.
    Thanks.

    Here's what I was thinking:

    A restaurant doesn't coerce people to enter their establishment, but forces people to pay for what food they've ordered (via an implied contract).

    Louisiana doesn't coerce people to enter their State, but forces people to pay for the services Louisiana requires (via an implied contract).

    But the reason the restaurant's implied contract is legitimate is b/c they actually legitimately own their property, whereas, it is impossible for the gov't to currently legitimately own anything at all. Is there another reason I am missing here that legitimizes the restaurant's implied contract compared to the gov'ts?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by MurrayRothbard View Post
    Thanks.

    Here's what I was thinking:

    A restaurant doesn't coerce people to enter their establishment, but forces people to pay for what food they've ordered (via an implied contract).

    Louisiana doesn't coerce people to enter their State, but forces people to pay for the services Louisiana requires (via an implied contract).

    But the reason the restaurant's implied contract is legitimate is b/c they actually legitimately own their property, whereas, it is impossible for the gov't to currently legitimately own anything at all. Is there another reason I am missing here that legitimizes the restaurant's implied contract compared to the gov'ts?
    Off the top of my uncaffieneted skull, I would say that the restaurant does not employ force; it's a voluntary exchange of goods/services. If I do not like their food, prices, or tshirts, I am able to go to another restaurant or cook for myself.

    Government has a monopoly on the state and use of force; I cannot escape their infliction by moving to another state, or voluntarily choosing a different form of (self) government. It's play ball, or don't play at all.

    Sycophants chant "move out of the country if you don't like it!", then turn around and robotically state how great it is to live in the land of the free.


    http://38.media.tumblr.com/4d421b6dd...i0oio1_500.gif

  19. #19
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by MurrayRothbard View Post
    Thanks.

    Here's what I was thinking:

    A restaurant doesn't coerce people to enter their establishment, but forces people to pay for what food they've ordered (via an implied contract).

    Louisiana doesn't coerce people to enter their State, but forces people to pay for the services Louisiana requires (via an implied contract).

    But the reason the restaurant's implied contract is legitimate is b/c they actually legitimately own their property, whereas, it is impossible for the gov't to currently legitimately own anything at all. Is there another reason I am missing here that legitimizes the restaurant's implied contract compared to the gov'ts?
    Walter Block put it this way, if you move to a high crime area did you consent to being robbed? No you would have all the expectation of defending against that and not surrendering your property.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  20. #20
    Regular Member MurrayRothbard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    70
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Walter Block put it this way, if you move to a high crime area did you consent to being robbed? No you would have all the expectation of defending against that and not surrendering your property.
    I'm a Blockhead for sure...I did read a recent article by him where he said that....and I agree.

    I'm just looking for more reasons why the implied contract of the restaurant is different from the implied contract with the gov't.

    The only solid reason I can see is the restaurant legitimately owns their property and gov't doesn't. It's a solid enough of a reason, but I was just wondering if anyone else could see another reason(s).

  21. #21
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by MurrayRothbard View Post
    I'm a Blockhead for sure...I did read a recent article by him where he said that....and I agree.

    I'm just looking for more reasons why the implied contract of the restaurant is different from the implied contract with the gov't.

    The only solid reason I can see is the restaurant legitimately owns their property and gov't doesn't. It's a solid enough of a reason, but I was just wondering if anyone else could see another reason(s).
    I'd disagree that this country doesn't own any land. Part of the "contract" is realizing this is the United Stated. Meaning you acknowledge this place is run by an entity.

    It'd like going to Walmart and even though there's s big sign ghst says Walmart refusing to acknowledge the company owns anything. How can a "company" own anything? It can't. The PEOPLE of said company own it. Same thing with the US. We all own a little share. But we give the board members majority control.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162
    A contract implied (contra explicit) contract is hardly a contract, it is whatever one of the parties wants it to be, kind'a like the living-constitution.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    I'd disagree that this country doesn't own any land. Part of the "contract" is realizing this is the United Stated. Meaning you acknowledge this place is run by an entity.

    It'd like going to Walmart and even though there's s big sign ghst says Walmart refusing to acknowledge the company owns anything. How can a "company" own anything? It can't. The PEOPLE of said company own it. Same thing with the US. We all own a little share. But we give the board members majority control.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Why do you keep insisting on comparing public entities to private?

    There is no contract. We don't own a share of anybody else's property.

    The state was created under the ruse of protecting private property not your socialist meme of social contract to one another.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Why do you keep insisting on comparing public entities to private?

    There is no contract. We don't own a share of anybody else's property.

    The state was created under the ruse of protecting private property not your socialist meme of social contract to one another.
    You do own a share of this country. Hence the reason you can go on "public" land. You are the public. IRS YOUR land. Just like BLM land and national parks. They are YOUR land because your a citizen. But you don't run said land because you've given control to the board.

    No different then being a shareholder of a large company. You own a piece and enjoy the benefits but you may not own enough to have a say in certain matters. Want more say? Buy more shares (run for office).

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  25. #25
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by MurrayRothbard View Post
    I'm a Blockhead for sure...I did read a recent article by him where he said that....and I agree.

    I'm just looking for more reasons why the implied contract of the restaurant is different from the implied contract with the gov't.

    The only solid reason I can see is the restaurant legitimately owns their property and gov't doesn't. It's a solid enough of a reason, but I was just wondering if anyone else could see another reason(s).
    That is a great point about who legitimately owns what.

    I think the main thing is that it is a false comparison because there is no "implied contract" with a government. That is a ruse put forth by state apologist who need to rationalize the theft of others.

    Where as if I go into your private property and order a meal I am not just implying a contract I am instituting one with you for your goods and services, one where I can choose not to eat at your establishment or not.

    The implied contract crowd would have you believe that if you were born in a restaurant you owe that restaurant for your birth there, so must be forced to buy food from there for the rest of your life, unless of course you move to another restaurant and decide to pay them instead. I call bull on that theory because it makes a false dichotomy between private property and public. The state does not own us or our property it supposedly was instituted to protect private property not steal it to give to others.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •