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

Primus said:

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

Click to expand...

LOL....No I own myself and my property.

I never authorized the state to buy up land. Even so that still does not even closely approach the level of me owing the government a share because they happen to have stole some money to buy some public land I am allowed to go to.

You are grasping at illusionary straws and making silly arguments. I cannot still own some thing and give up control of it, unless they are renting it and paying me for their control.

How does running for office make you magically own more shares? Are you admitting the government is ran by people who bought their way in?

sudden valley gunner said:

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.

Click to expand...

very good example...thank you!

MurrayRothbard said:

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.

Click to expand...

Apparently by his rationalization if you buy a share of a corporation they then have the right to tell you what to do with your life. Even though the overwhelming majority of us didn't buy any shares of the government. Somehow by magic just being born into a state makes you owe the state, yet somehow that means owning the state. It's a silly contradiction on his part.

Nightmare said:

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.

Click to expand...

+1 Where they can erase contract clauses that benefit you and then say it is for your good.

Primus said:

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

Click to expand...

lol

Primus said:

You do own a share of this country.

Click to expand...

lol

Original posts below:

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

Click to expand...

Primus said:

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

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, Primus, you're way off base. First of all, "country" is an abstract with a definition rarely agreed upon. Secondly, you can't just inject elements into an imaginary contract at whim. According to what is an element of this make-believe contract acknowledging that "this place" is "run by" an "entity?" And if I don't make that acknowledgement have I not entered the agreement? And what does that mean? The IRS will leave me alone? Let's not get off-track though.

Walmart has a deed or lease agreement to the property they put their signs on. Please show me the deed or lease agreement that the government has legitimately and legally, through voluntary contract and exchange, acquired for the property it claims authority to regulate.

Please explain 1. who the original, undisputed rightful owners of the property in question were ("public land") 2. when they transferred control to "the board" (the state) and 3. by what method they transferred control (voluntarily signed contract, exchange of money for deed/title, etc.)

After that your analogy falls apart even to the point of being offensive. Running for office is equivalent to buying more shares of a company? Are you kidding?

I understand you're probably just typing as you are theorizing, but please...

stealthyeliminator said:

lol



lol

Original posts below:





Unfortunately, Primus, you're way off base. First of all, "country" is an abstract with a definition rarely agreed upon. Secondly, you can't just inject elements into an imaginary contract at whim. According to what is an element of this make-believe contract acknowledging that "this place" is "run by" an "entity?" And if I don't make that acknowledgement have I not entered the agreement? And what does that mean? The IRS will leave me alone? Let's not get off-track though.

Walmart has a deed or lease agreement to the property they put their signs on. Please show me the deed or lease agreement that the government has legitimately and legally, through voluntary contract and exchange, acquired for the property it claims authority to regulate.

Please explain 1. who the original, undisputed rightful owners of the property in question were ("public land") 2. when they transferred control to "the board" (the state) and 3. by what method they transferred control (voluntarily signed contract, exchange of money for deed/title, etc.)

After that your analogy falls apart even to the point of being offensive. Running for office is equivalent to buying more shares of a company? Are you kidding?

I understand you're probably just typing as you are theorizing, but please...

Click to expand...

Original undisputed owners were Native Americans... Hence "native"....

Transferred control to the board on sep. 17th 1787 when constitution was signed which set up the board and broke down how said board would run said country....

And it was taken by force.

Any other questions?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

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?

Click to expand...

Most people don't move into their state; they are born there.

By your logic, one can legitimately be a slave simply by being born into the appropriate "social contract".

Primus said:

Original undisputed owners were Native Americans... Hence "native"....

Transferred control to the board on sep. 17th 1787 when constitution was signed which set up the board and broke down how said board would run said country....

And it was taken by force.

Any other questions?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

They did not "own" it as a collective.

Much of the original land was bought from the natives.

1787 isn't a contract of ownership at all it is a union of sovereign states with limited enumerated powers.

You don't understand law, the constitution, history, or logic.

sudden valley gunner said:

They did not "own" it as a collective.

Much of the original land was bought from the natives.

1787 isn't a contract of ownership at all it is a union of sovereign states with limited enumerated powers.

You don't understand law, the constitution, history, or logic.

Click to expand...

Much of the land was bought from the natives? Hmmm... How could they sell something they didn't own? And if it was "bought" doesn't it mean someone else now owns it?

Union of sovereign states..... How can u physically have a union of anything if you don't have the land to be on?

Kinda like Walmart is Union of sovereign individuals... Each with a tiny share who give power to board members and managers to pass corporate policies (laws?).

Real simple.....
CEO -POTUS
EEO- VP or maybe speaker of the house?
Board members with majority shares who get to vote on corporate policy- congress
Employees who may get a share of the company- citizens
Legal counsel (not sure name but I know companies have them) - DOJ or even attorney general.

See the parallel yet?




Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Nightmare said:

American-indians replaced an earlier culture that replaced the Asians that walked over. There is good evidence for paleo-Europeans' pre-Clovis culture already established, as at Topper in Allendale Co., SC.

History is written by the victors - includes aborigines.

Click to expand...

And the tribes often replace each other on any piece of ground at any given time.

The battles between the tribes were often bloody with many killed over territory.

I live with in 20 miles were 700 Sioux warriors were ambushed and killed by the Chippewa over territory.

So who really owned the land those who control it.

Firearms Iinstuctor said:

And the tribes often replace each other on any piece of ground at any given time.

The battles between the tribes were often bloody with many killed over territory.

I live with in 20 miles were 700 Sioux warriors were ambushed and killed by the Chippewa over territory.

So who really owned the land those who control it.

Click to expand...

Which leads back to my original statement /premise.... Natives "owned" it until it was taken or "bought" from them by Colonials. The country was formed and that is the current "owners". Management of said company changes every 4 years but it still has the same owners.

This company happens to be nice enough to grant shares just by being born here.

The more I think this through the more I see the parallels.

To be more accurate it would be a large corporation with many smaller companies in it. Thinking like proctor and gamble (the big company that owns like ever cleaning/house product ever? Clorox?)

Back to restaurants.....feds are the parent company states are the franchised stores. Each store has some leeway in making rules and under its own management (states). But follows under corporate policy/rules (constitution).

If you dont like McDonald's (Mass) you can walk across the street and get some burger king (Rhode Island). Burger kind will have crappier food but your free to choose it.


Edit: I know burger king and McDonalds aren't owned by same company. It would be more like a pizza hut and something else.... You guys get the point...
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

Much of the land was bought from the natives? Hmmm... How could they sell something they didn't own? And if it was "bought" doesn't it mean someone else now owns it?

Union of sovereign states..... How can u physically have a union of anything if you don't have the land to be on?

Kinda like Walmart is Union of sovereign individuals... Each with a tiny share who give power to board members and managers to pass corporate policies (laws?).

Real simple.....
CEO -POTUS
EEO- VP or maybe speaker of the house?
Board members with majority shares who get to vote on corporate policy- congress
Employees who may get a share of the company- citizens
Legal counsel (not sure name but I know companies have them) - DOJ or even attorney general.

See the parallel yet?




Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

No, and what's more is that there shouldn't be a parallel. The bottom line is that the government's bottom line is coercion. Walmart's is not.

Primus said:

Much of the land was bought from the natives? Hmmm... How could they sell something they didn't own? And if it was "bought" doesn't it mean someone else now owns it?

Union of sovereign states..... How can u physically have a union of anything if you don't have the land to be on?

Kinda like Walmart is Union of sovereign individuals... Each with a tiny share who give power to board members and managers to pass corporate policies (laws?).

Real simple.....
CEO -POTUS
EEO- VP or maybe speaker of the house?
Board members with majority shares who get to vote on corporate policy- congress
Employees who may get a share of the company- citizens
Legal counsel (not sure name but I know companies have them) - DOJ or even attorney general.

See the parallel yet?




Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Are you that obtuse? They had private property rights and recognized it, they sold their private property.

Nope it's not a parallel at all so there is nothing to see.

stealthyeliminator said:

No, and what's more is that there shouldn't be a parallel. The bottom line is that the government's bottom line is coercion. Walmart's is not.

Click to expand...

At this point he is woefully ignorant or purposefully obtuse. Trying to equate the extortion of government because you happened to be born here to choosing to be part of a corporation and its private property rights and rules.....

Saying you owe the government for simply being born in it is like that old social contract where someone of African decent owed their masters the fruits of their labor and can be compelled or disposed at will because they happen to be born from parents in that situation.

There is no Social Contract, it is a lie.

stealthyeliminator said:

No, and what's more is that there shouldn't be a parallel. The bottom line is that the government's bottom line is coercion. Walmart's is not.

Click to expand...

sudden valley gunner said:

Are you that obtuse? They had private property rights and recognized it, they sold their private property.

Nope it's not a parallel at all so there is nothing to see.

Click to expand...

Good rebuttal guys.... Name calling and saying "no".... Damn that debate was won....

Glad you guys set me straight. Let me know where to send the payment to.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus said:

Good rebuttal guys.... Name calling and saying "no".... Damn that debate was won....

Glad you guys set me straight. Let me know where to send the payment to.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

No, and what's more is that there shouldn't be a parallel. The bottom line is that the government's bottom line is coercion. Walmart's is not.

"No" was one of 25 words in my post.

Did you even watch the video? How about you address the video. Explain where and how the video is wrong.

stealthyeliminator said:

No, and what's more is that there shouldn't be a parallel. The bottom line is that the government's bottom line is coercion. Walmart's is not.

"No" was one of 25 words in my post.

Did you even watch the video? How about you address the video. Explain where and how the video is wrong.

Click to expand...

exactly right sir. coercion.

Primus said:

Good rebuttal guys.... Name calling and saying "no".... Damn that debate was won....

Glad you guys set me straight. Let me know where to send the payment to.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Hahahaha you are so hilarious, your posts are almost always fallacy ad hominem, straw men and red herring and you want to then cry about others are pointing out that your lack of even attempting to address something is either on purpose or not?

There is only so many times someone can try to lead the ass with a carrot.

stealthyeliminator said:

No, and what's more is that there shouldn't be a parallel. The bottom line is that the government's bottom line is coercion. Walmart's is not.

"No" was one of 25 words in my post.

Did you even watch the video? How about you address the video. Explain where and how the video is wrong.

Click to expand...

"Governments bottom line is coercion".

Anything to back that up? Because at this point all I can say is I disagree. And then we are at an impasse.

I'll address the video soon. Been busy.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk