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

stealthyeliminator · Jul 7, 2014

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

skidmark · Jul 7, 2014

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.

davidmcbeth · Jul 7, 2014

You are soft ..

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

When life gives you lemons ...

OC for ME · Jul 7, 2014

davidmcbeth said:
When life gives you lemons ...

Slice them and put one in your Long Island Ice Tea.

sudden valley gunner · Jul 7, 2014

skidmark said:
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!

MurrayRothbard · Jul 16, 2014

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)?

sudden valley gunner · Jul 16, 2014

MurrayRothbard said:
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.

davidmcbeth · Jul 16, 2014

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.

Primus · Jul 17, 2014

davidmcbeth said:
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

stealthyeliminator · Jul 17, 2014

MurrayRothbard said:
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.

twoskinsonemanns · Jul 17, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
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”

MurrayRothbard · Jul 17, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
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.

stealthyeliminator said:
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?

PistolPackingMomma · Jul 17, 2014

MurrayRothbard said:
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/4d421b6dd1b5912e091923564a5cbac4/tumblr_n56stxhTO21rbi0oio1_500.gif

sudden valley gunner · Jul 17, 2014

MurrayRothbard said:
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.

MurrayRothbard · Jul 17, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
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).

Primus · Jul 17, 2014

MurrayRothbard said:
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

sudden valley gunner · Jul 17, 2014

Primus said:
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.

Primus · Jul 17, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
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

sudden valley gunner · Jul 17, 2014

MurrayRothbard said:
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.

MurrayRothbard · Jul 17, 2014

Primus said:
I'd disagree that this country doesn't own any land.

Yes but does it Legitimately own the land is the appropriate question. If gov't only gathers it's wealth through theft (taxation), how can they own anything legitimately? Additionally, there's a lot of property that the gov't has just owned via it's own decree, they've not actually done anything at all to own the land. They haven't legitimately purchased it, or homesteaded it.

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

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member