Wisconsin Revolt

[Coolwhip]

Ahhhh "the social contract" . Smirk.

For a contract to be valid it should have at least two willing parties that are both free to be parties to the contract....or not. Of course a person that leaves others alone has every right to pick and choose what they will participate in as long as they do not use fraud.

Your shoplifting analogy doesn't apply to me, I've never advocated NOT paying for what I use. It is the person or institution that initiates the "must", the force, the "or else" that is the party violating the peace.

You don't want to pay your taxes, than move out of the US, we don't want you. Unless you live in a cabin you built in the woods with your own 2 hands and a rock, and shit in a hole, then you are enjoying the benefits of society and have entered the contract.

 

[Carthoris]

Only a worthless human who knows they are substandard and will never be average would support taking from everyone above average to pad their lives. Piece of craps.

 

[UncleBuck]

Ummm the capital building is the other direction . . . Human rights? These people need better pay!

[sarc]

no way those signs can be two-sided.

that is a physical impossibility.

let's rule it out a priori.

[/sarc]

 

[UncleBuck]

Ahhhh "the social contract" . Smirk.

For a contract to be valid it should have at least two willing parties that are both free to be parties to the contract....or not. Of course a person that leaves others alone has every right to pick and choose what they will participate in as long as they do not use fraud.

Your shoplifting analogy doesn't apply to me, I've never advocated NOT paying for what I use. It is the person or institution that initiates the "must", the force, the "or else" that is the party violating the peace.

The "social contract" relies on word smithing to gain credence. The essay below does a better job than I can explaining this myth...

bullshit.

you constantly express how you should be free to mooch off society, how you are forced to pay for things you don't want (but don't mind deriving benefit from, thus the 'mooch' comment).

"No man is an island," wrote the English poet John Donne. "Hell is other people," wrote the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. Most of human history was an attempt to reconcile these two seemingly irreconcilable truths.

Technically speaking, a man could survive on his own. He could hunt for food, construct shelter, and if not reproduce, at least produce a reasonable facsimile of a mate using twigs, branches, and two coconuts. But we were social creatures who functioned best living in close proximity to one another, and living in groups vastly improved both our safety and our gossip. So we banded together into communities governed by shared sets of morals and values. Such a group was referred to as a society. It was the central organizing unit of our civilization, and the catch-all scapegoat for any part of your life that didn't work out the way you thought it would.

A society was simultaneously one unified mass and a large collection of individuals. Therein lay the tension; for to be part of a group was to exchange certain individual freedoms for certain other collective benefits. These benefits derived largely from economies of scale. A city of five million people is far better equipped to construct, say, a working mass-transit system than an individual family of four. It just is. But in exchange for the mass-transit system, each member of society was expected to adhere to rules regarding its use, i.e. not masturbating on it. Such harsh, at times maddeningly frustrating trade-offs were the basis of the social contract, a document that differed from other contracts only in that you had no choice but to enter it, and it didn't exist.

The social contract provided a framework in which human interaction could occur on a reasonably fair basis. For example, let's say Person A owned a slave that Person B wanted. Were they not inhabitants of a civil society governed by law, Person B could have simply stolen Person A's slave through brute force. Such an existence would have been cruel and terrifying for all members involved-Person A and Person B. But for members of a society, violence was forbidden. Person B was allowed to purchase the slave, but if he stole him he was guilt of a crime, and had to repay Person A the dollar value of the human being he had stolen. This was how a civilized society operated.

This is not to imply the social contract was fixed or unchangeable. There were thousands of different contracts. Some put power in the hands of one man; others, in the hands of thousands of men. (It was usually men though. That part rarely changed.) Each contract itself was subject to constant change and revision; a society that failed to periodically amend outdated provisions regarding how to dress or how much to subjugate women and minorities could find itself the laughing-stock of the diplomatic community. Unless it happened to be strategically situated atop vast reserves of natural resources.

 

[Rob Roy]

You don't want to pay your taxes, than move out of the US, we don't want you. Unless you live in a cabin you built in the woods with your own 2 hands and a rock, and shit in a hole, then you are enjoying the benefits of society and have entered the contract.

Not quite Cool Whip.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]This is an excerpt from Direct Citizen Action: How We Can Win the Second American Revolution Without Firing a Shot.[/FONT]
​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Permit me to digress into a discussion of the meaning of political consent and its withdrawal. I am not saying that the American people ever explicitly consented to be ruled by the regime on the Potomac, or that they are parties to some mysterious Social Contract that implies their consent. That is all utter nonsense and propaganda. I know I never consented to be ruled by a regime that I have strongly opposed since my teenage years. Nor have I ever signed a Social Contract allowing them to rule over me. I'd be a jackass if I had.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]To the best of my knowledge, no living American ever signed a contract to be ruled by the creepy politicians in DC. There are people long dead who signed a proposed Constitution and there are 11791 people long dead who voted at state conventions to ratify the Constitution. However, no living American ever agreed to be bound by the consent to be governed apparently given by people long dead that they did not know.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Libertarian legal scholar Randy Barnett has brilliantly refuted all possible theories of how citizens can be found to have implicitly consented to be ruled when it is perfectly obvious that they have not explicitly consented. See, Restoring the Lost Constitution (2004), pp. 11 et seq.[/FONT]

​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Voting does not imply consent as we never get to vote on the legitimacy of the regime itself. And what if you vote against the regime as I have done in every election since I was allowed to vote? How in the world can that be construed as consent? Well, I played the game. Okay, so if I stop voting, I have withdrawn my consent? That's a bargain! I will stop voting, withdraw my consent and the tax bills will cease. Hurray! Yeah, but you could have played the game, they will say. Barnett replies: "It is a queer kind of ‘consent' where there is no way to refuse one's consent." (p. 16). Barnett goes on to demolish all the familiar rationalizations for why average citizens have "consented" to be governed by political thugs in DC:[/FONT]

1. [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Residency — this argument "presupposes that those who demand that you leave already have authority over you." (p. 1 It's a circular argument.[/FONT]
   
2. [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Acquiescence to the laws. "Does one really manifest a consent to obey the commands of someone much more powerful simply because one does not physically resist the threat of violence for noncompliance?" (p. 21)[/FONT]
   
3. [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Acceptance of the regime. This proves too much, according to Barnett. Even oppressive regimes have the passive acceptance of their people in the sense they do not actively revolt.[/FONT]
   
4. ​
   [FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Acceptance of benefits. This is the most common argument made by liberals these days. With respect to the alleged benefits of the state's legal system, Barnett simply notes that there can be no consent since there is no way to opt out. The argument from receipt of tangible "benefits" also fails. These are paid for by compulsory taxes you never consented to. Only if such things as roads, schools, and fire protection were funded voluntarily, could you be said to have consented to the regime by using them. That never happened of course. Also, again, to consent, there must be a reasonable way not to consent. If I refuse to use the streets, I die of starvation. It's a distorted view of consent that leads to the "argument": join us or die![/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Thus, we the living never consented to the current regime in the first place in any meaningful way. Thus, what I am proposing is this: we need to make explicit what is already implicit. We need to announce that we do not accept the legitimacy of the regime. This regime is blatantly, openly and proudly violating our natural rights. It is not legitimate within the clear understanding of our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. Thus, you have no moral obligation to support it. Withdrawing moral support for the regime is critical since public support is the very basis of the regime's power. That is why government schools are so critical to the maintenance of the regime's power. And that is why even totalitarian regimes have elaborate propaganda operations.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]I emphasize again that I do not advocate civil disobedience. Why engage in risky and costly law-breaking when we can take America back through lawful and peaceful means?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]If the regime begins to unambiguously violate its own constitution, then it becomes the practitioner of civil disobedience and the people will have a moral and legal right to resist as I explain further in Chapter 20.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Note[/FONT]

 

[Carthoris]

And the things the government does that doesn't benefit us in any real way? Foreign aid for instance? What is my benefit, yours, or anyone elses who is part of the US for buying Israel weapons for instance? Also, there is no such thing as a social contract. It is something that the left made up as an excuse for taking things from those who don't want to give them. There is no way for anyone to leave society. Even if I bought my property in the middle of the forests, and grew my own food and built my house from twigs and mud, eventually society would come to me and destroy what I had, or demand I change. Doubly so if I wanted to grow marijuana for instance or something else taboo, even if I weren't selling them. That means there is no way to leave society ever and therefor it is not a contract, it is oppression.

The constitution was designed to keep the left and the right from taking too much from the individual. The right wants to tell you how to live, the left wants to take part of your life. Both are disgusting in that. The Constitution, in large part, was intended to keep individual rights safe from the majority.

Eventually our government will go too far, and we will rebel, it will implode under its own weight, or another country will conquer us. This has happened in every society since the dawn of man. We are real close to the second one now. Here's to implosion. (cheers)

 

[Rob Roy]

Uncle Buck your comment regarding "mooching" is another mischaracterization. I'm obligated to pay for what I use and have not indicated otherwise.

I'm not obligated to pay for that which I do not use and haven't agreed to. Neither are you or anybody else.
If that WERE the case, the justification doesn't lie in consent...it lies in the rationalization of might makes right, which of course is illogical.

 

[UncleBuck]

Uncle Buck your comment regarding "mooching" is another mischaracterization. I'm obligated to pay for what I use and have not indicated otherwise.

I'm not obligated to pay for that which I do not use and haven't agreed to. Neither are you or anybody else.

i take it since you are typing this from a computer and disseminating your message over the internet, you are using the public infrastructure. thus, by your own words, you are obligated to help pay for it.

"but i didn't agree to it!" you might say, as that was the second component of your statement.

FUCK that. implied consent. you agreed to it the second you got on the internet. if you didn't agree to it, you wouldn't be sitting here shoving a raccoon up my ass and telling me it is raining.

 

[Rob Roy]

i take it since you are typing this from a computer and disseminating your message over the internet, you are using the public infrastructure. thus, by your own words, you are obligated to help pay for it.

"but i didn't agree to it!" you might say, as that was the second component of your statement.

FUCK that. implied consent. you agreed to it the second you got on the internet. if you didn't agree to it, you wouldn't be sitting here shoving a raccoon up my ass and telling me it is raining.

What you do with raccoons is your business.

This is an excerpt from a recent article...Not that I'm a fan of tyranny of the majority, but it does look like some people are waking up.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The notion that governments derive their only just authority from the consent of the governed is a foundational principle of the American experiment. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]However, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 23% of voters nationwide believe the federal government today has the consent of the governed. Sixty-two percent (62%) say it does not, and 15% are not sure. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]These figures have barely budged since February.[/FONT]

 

[UncleBuck]

What you do with raccoons is your business.

This is an excerpt from a recent article...Not that I'm a fan of tyranny of the majority, but it does look like some people are waking up.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The notion that governments derive their only just authority from the consent of the governed is a foundational principle of the American experiment. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]However, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 23% of voters nationwide believe the federal government today has the consent of the governed. Sixty-two percent (62%) say it does not, and 15% are not sure. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]These figures have barely budged since February.[/FONT]

if you're not a fan of the "tyrannical majority", why cite it? you just shoot yourself in the foot.

in any case, this is what i have been saying all along. you are part of a greater society who, for whatever reason, have no major grievances with compulsory taxation besides what it funds and how much they have to pay.

as i am fond of saying, you can always try countries without so much taxation and more "freedom". check out somalia! you might enjoy it there.

btw, learn to read. i clearly explained that YOU are trying to shove a raccoon up my ass and tell me it's raining. i have no such desires. so quit shitting on my face and telling me it's shitting outside.

 

[NewGrowth]

Those that can care for themselves will live; those who cannot will die.
-Laws of Nature

 

[Carne Seca]

Those that can care for themselves will live; those who cannot will die.
-Laws of Nature

Yet in nature many higher order of animals care for their own when sick or injured. I'm sure you're trying to invoke Social Darwinism. That train of thought belongs in the late 19th century where it was spawned.

 

[Rob Roy]

if you're not a fan of the "tyrannical majority", why cite it? you just shoot yourself in the foot.

in any case, this is what i have been saying all along. you are part of a greater society who, for whatever reason, have no major grievances with compulsory taxation besides what it funds and how much they have to pay.

as i am fond of saying, you can always try countries without so much taxation and more "freedom". check out somalia! you might enjoy it there.

btw, learn to read. i clearly explained that YOU are trying to shove a raccoon up my ass and tell me it's raining. i have no such desires. so quit shitting on my face and telling me it's shitting outside.

Your taxes bought his bullets...shoot myself in the foot? Not me!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1183904817279114761

 

[Carthoris]

i take it since you are typing this from a computer and disseminating your message over the internet, you are using the public infrastructure. thus, by your own words, you are obligated to help pay for it.

"but i didn't agree to it!" you might say, as that was the second component of your statement.

FUCK that. implied consent. you agreed to it the second you got on the internet. if you didn't agree to it, you wouldn't be sitting here shoving a raccoon up my ass and telling me it is raining.

Also, in using it, he is paying for it. Im sure he pays his monthly payment or they wouldn't let him continue using it. This is a very flawed example. A better example would be using GPS equipment.

 

[Carthoris]

if you're not a fan of the "tyrannical majority", why cite it? you just shoot yourself in the foot.

in any case, this is what i have been saying all along. you are part of a greater society who, for whatever reason, have no major grievances with compulsory taxation besides what it funds and how much they have to pay.

as i am fond of saying, you can always try countries without so much taxation and more "freedom". check out somalia! you might enjoy it there.

btw, learn to read. i clearly explained that YOU are trying to shove a raccoon up my ass and tell me it's raining. i have no such desires. so quit shitting on my face and telling me it's shitting outside.

Or we can say the opposite and if you want to live in a country with more government control and less personal freedom - go live in Cuba.

 

[Carthoris]

Yet in nature many higher order of animals care for their own when sick or injured. I'm sure you're trying to invoke Social Darwinism. That train of thought belongs in the late 19th century where it was spawned.

They might care for their sick and injured, but they abandon their retards too. They also would not let a sick or injured member come and take something out of their hand they were eating. That's the difference between charity and stealing.

A fair way to do income taxes and the like is let each state vote on whether they agree to what the Feds are doing and whether they want it in their state. That way all the people who want welfare can move to New York or California and all the businesses can move somewhere more productive without having to leave the country.

 

[Carthoris]

Your taxes bought his bullets...shoot myself in the foot? Not me!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1183904817279114761

Haha, I would of been laughing so hard if I was there.

 

[MrDank007]

Also, in using it, he is paying for it. Im sure he pays his monthly payment or they wouldn't let him continue using it. This is a very flawed example. A better example would be using GPS equipment.

Also, aren't the cable and phone lines owned and maintained by private companies? Except, of course, for the heart of the internet, which is Al Gore's basement...

 

[NewGrowth]

Yet in nature many higher order of animals care for their own when sick or injured. I'm sure you're trying to invoke Social Darwinism. That train of thought belongs in the late 19th century where it was spawned.

Your assumption is wrong. Just making a simple statement about the nature of the world we live in. The statement had nothing to do with good will, which I believe is necessary for human survival. No matter what society or institution you build it will fall with time. The laws of nature cannot be denied even by the most arrogant

 

[NewGrowth]

I recommend listening to both parts, "The Drum Major Instinct"
[youtube]LRFzBBrRJFk[/youtube]