The slavery in taxation

constance tench

kickoutthejams wrote: »

What?

...Well, I'm an army reservist so I've already expressed my consent to the social contract when being sworn in, likewise, we do the same when taking citizenship pledges, taking political office or swearing in for jury duty.

The People, the Primary Law-Makers and the ulitmate source of authority under God, are The Irish Nation?

Lockstep

constance tench wrote: »

The People, the Primary Law-Makers and the ulitmate source of authority under God, are The Irish Nation?

I don't know what oath you're referring to, but the RDF Oath of Alliegance is swearing your loyalty to Ireland and the Irish Constitution (as well as other things like not joining any secret societies or obeying lawful orders)

simplistic2

kickoutthejams wrote: »

What?



But the institution is fundamentally different. The feudal era was one without any democratic legitimacy.

If North Korea morphed into a stable, capitalist democracy with popular consent tomorrow, its past as a totalitarian basket case doesn't change the fact that it it now a government chosen by the people.

Democratic legitimacy? Does this mean that you believe that because a certain number of people believe in a concept that others must comply with it leave or be thrown in prison ? Just taking the transition of North Korea into a democracy as an example.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

How do you know this?
Given that they vote in their governments and are free to leave or form political parties at will, the burden of proof is on you to show that people do not want what they are partaking in.

Come on you know that the government would collapse in a day if they asked for donations instead of taxes. People would simply turn to the free market and set up voluntary institutions to the provide the services morally and more efficiently.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Again, you seem hell bent on using rape as an example, despite the obvious differences (if I dislike paying taxes, I can leave the country easily. If I dislike being raped, then even on my way to the border, I can still be raped and forced to do something I don't want to)
Now, if you voluntarily enter into a house where you *know* persons meet with the purpose being to have wild uninhibited sex, then your presence in the house can be taken as an implied acceptance that you are there to have sex.

How can you like paying taxes? If you really care why wouldn't you just pay for all those services voluntarily?

kickoutthejams wrote: »

What does the M50 have to do with rape?

Nothing...bad joke..

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Yes, there is a contract. As I have illustrated, implied contracts all the time: going into resteraunts being a prime example.
If a bank manager said "If you take this money, you are agreeing to the terms and conditions of the bank's contract" and you then took the money, you'd have a hard time wriggling out of it, even if you didn't sign anything.

You are universalising your own personal views: that not even a mad man would sign a social contract.




Well, I'm an army reservist so I've already expressed my consent to the social contract when being sworn in, likewise, we do the same when taking citizenship pledges, taking political office or swearing in for jury duty.

I'd be grand with persons being asked to sign something along the lines of "I accept the need for a State and government, in exchange I will pay taxes".
Are you saying the majority of Irish people are anarchists who would happily abolish the State?

That seems like an awfully small contract would you not demand a tighter contract considering the government is going to be in every area of your life from education to spending money on bailouts that your future children are going to have to pay? Theres more clauses in a mobile network contract.

If you cared about the future generations would you not are bare minimum demand that as a clause in the contract that the government should be restricted from bailing out banks?

Lockstep

simplistic2 wrote: »

Democratic legitimacy? Does this mean that you believe that because a certain number of people believe in a concept that others must comply with it leave or be thrown in prison ? Just taking the transition of North Korea into a democracy as an example.

By moving to Ireland and affirming your citizenship, you are consenting to the Irish State. Likewise, if you were born here, your parents made the decision for you.

Why leave an apartment block just because you dislike the lease? Because it isn't yours, likewise, the country isn't yours (you can own property within the nation, like you can own rooms within an apartment block)
North Korea belongs to it's citizens, it is they who must decide what they want to do with it.

simplistic2 wrote: »

Come on you know that the government would collapse in a day if they asked for donations instead of taxes. People would simply turn to the free market and set up voluntary institutions to the provide the services morally and more efficiently.

Is this an admission that you can't substantiate your previous statement?

The free market isn't some magic superhero who'll swoop down from the heavens and save humanity from itself.
In the absence of a central government, chances are that you get a morass like in Somalia, with various robber-gangs and warlords extorting the population. Not much moral or efficient there.

simplistic2 wrote: »

How can you like paying taxes? If you really care why wouldn't you just pay for all those services voluntarily?

I don't, but I'm happy out paying taxes when the alternative is a society where persons can be killed and robbed due to their inability to pay for private defence contractors.
There are some things I could pay voluntarily (for example, I'm young and healthy so my health insurance premiums would be low) However, not everyone is in the same boat as me. What happens to those who can't pay for services at all?

simplistic2 wrote: »

That seems like an awfully small contract would you not demand a tighter contract considering the government is going to be in every area of your life from education to spending money on bailouts that your future children are going to have to pay? Theres more clauses in a mobile network contract.

If you cared about the future generations would you not are bare minimum demand that as a clause in the contract that the government should be restricted from bailing out banks?

As that's basically what the Social Contract entails. Most political ideologies accept the need for a State (be they socialists, conservatives, liberals or even libertarians). From minarchists onwards, there is a universal agreement that a State should exist. Only anarchists disagree.
There is a broad consensus that a State should exist, so such a social contract is broadly accepted. Where people differ is to what extent the State exist and what it should provide. Which is a matter for the political arena and not the social contract.

constance tench

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I don't know what oath you're referring to, but the RDF Oath of Alliegance is swearing your loyalty to Ireland and the Irish Constitution (as well as other things like not joining any secret societies or obeying lawful orders)

I was referring to the Principles in the Constitution and the Proclaimation

Lockstep

constance tench wrote: »

I was referring to the Principles in the Constitution and the Proclaimation

Dunno what you're getting at with the Constitution then, as it clearly illustrates the institutions of the State, taxation and so on.


As for the Proclamation, it doesn't have legal effect.

constance tench

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Dunno what you're getting at with the Constitution then, as it clearly illustrates the institutions of the State, taxation and so on.


As for the Proclamation, it doesn't have legal effect.

"We the People of Éire..."

"The name of the State is Éire, or in the English Language Ireland"

The 'Republic of Ireland' is a Statutory Title that appears to have nothing to do with the People or the Constitution

So...Does the 'Republic of Ireland' give Lawful Orders?

Lockstep

constance tench wrote: »

"We the People of Éire..."

"The name of the State is Éire, or in the English Language Ireland"

What is your point here?

constance tench wrote: »

The 'Republic of Ireland' is a Statutory Title that appears to have nothing to do with the People or the Constitution

Then you'd be wrong. Ireland (Éire) is the name given to the sovereign State (which encompasses the courts, government, legislature) which gets its sovereignty from the Irish people and has it's power based in the Constitution.
It is the Constitution that enumerates the State institutions and it is the people who are sovereign. All 3 are interlinked.
Check out Article 6 of the Constitution.

constance tench wrote: »

So...Does the 'Republic of Ireland' give Lawful Orders?

No. But the instruments of the State (who are designated by the people to govern the State) such as the executive do.


If we're going to have this discussion I'd really appreciate it if you'd substantiate your points. As it stands, you bring out vague quotes and statements so it's fairly hard to follow what it is you're trying to say.

constance tench

kickoutthejams wrote: »

What is your point here?




Then you'd be wrong. Ireland (Éire) is the name given to the sovereign State (which encompasses the courts, government, legislature) which gets its sovereignty from the Irish people and has it's power based in the Constitution.
It is the Constitution that enumerates the State institutions and it is the people who are sovereign. All 3 are interlinked.
Check out Article 6 of the Constitution.

Yes, where does it mention 'the Republic of Ireland'?...The point is Title
and what's being done through that Title

The Republic of Ireland act 1948 states that the description of the State
Shall be the 'Republic of Ireland'

Walsh J in the Supreme Court said "it does not purport to change the name of the State nor could the Oireachas.An amendment of the constitution would be required for a change of name."

It appears 'Ireland Inc' is 'the Republic of Ireland' by statutory Title

Lockstep

constance tench wrote: »

Yes, where does it mention 'the Republic of Ireland'?...The point is Title
and what's being done through that Title

It doesn't mention the Republic of Ireland in the Constitution. I never said otherwise.

constance tench wrote: »

The Republic of Ireland act 1948 states that the description of the State
Shall be the 'Republic of Ireland'

Yes, the *description*. The legal name remains as Éire/Ireland but it can be described as the Republic of Ireland, given that the ROIA came into effect after the writing of the Constitution.

constance tench wrote: »

Walsh J in the Supreme Court said "it does not purport to change the name of the State nor could the Oireachas.An amendment of the constitution would be required for a change of name."

It appears 'Ireland Inc' is 'the Republic of Ireland' by statutory Title

Seriously man, I mean no disrespect but I'm having horrendous trouble following your posts. They come across as vague sentences without much coherency.

What exactly is the argument that you're trying to make here?

constance tench

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I mean no disrespect but I'm having horrendous trouble following your posts. They come across as vague sentences without much coherency.

What exactly is the argument that you're trying to make here?

My apologies for any perceived vagueness and incoherency

I feel my point has been made...

Thanks.

Lockstep

constance tench wrote: »

My apologies for any perceived vagueness and incoherency

I feel my point has been made...

Thanks.

What is your point thought? I'm really not trying to be smart or rude here, but I'm having difficulty following what you're trying to say.

If you're saying that there is no Constitutional mention of the ROI, then you have no objections from me.

Lockstep

constance tench wrote: »

..That apparently the 'Republic of Ireland' is a juristic body only providing the services of a Government without having to be a Government, constitutionally.

But there is no Republic of Ireland providing any governmental services. The ROI exists only as a descriptive term, with the government and Irish State being in existence.

simplistic2

kickoutthejams wrote: »

By moving to Ireland and affirming your citizenship, you are consenting to the Irish State. Likewise, if you were born here, your parents made the decision for you.

Why leave an apartment block just because you dislike the lease? Because it isn't yours, likewise, the country isn't yours (you can own property within the nation, like you can own rooms within an apartment block)
North Korea belongs to it's citizens, it is they who must decide what they want to do with it.

The apartment block metaphor is irrelevant, what matters is was it built consensually.

So for example if North Korea where to move to a democracy. It would happen roughly like this. First the authoritarian regime collapses then some small group takes over the state. Now never history had any group full 100% support from the all the people. So the people who are in disagreement with the new democratic party can either submit, be killed, imprisoned or leave.

I call this the violence and amounts to a type of slavery to the herd. You can call it Democratic legitimacy or a social contract but no euphemisms can cover up the violence that backs up the theft from an invalid contract that nobody agreed to in the first place.

If a bunch of slaves kill the slave master and take over the farm. Do they then own the rest of the slaves on the farm? What if they give the slaves a democratic vote ? You see its irrelevant what benefits and handouts are given out whether its the illusion of a vote of a sub subsidized education democracy was immorally forced on people who did not agree to it invalidating it as a valid contract.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Is this an admission that you can't substantiate your previous statement?

The free market isn't some magic superhero who'll swoop down from the heavens and save humanity from itself.
In the absence of a central government, chances are that you get a morass like in Somalia, with various robber-gangs and warlords extorting the population. Not much moral or efficient there.

No when a thief steals it is an admission that he is incapable of providing a service people would pay for. The government is a thief.

It is fundamentally irrelevant what happens after we stop using violence to solve social problems. The same as it was fundamentally unimportant what happened to slaves after you freed them. The only thing that mattered was that you stopped aggressing against them.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I don't, but I'm happy out paying taxes when the alternative is a society where persons can be killed and robbed due to their inability to pay for private defence contractors.
There are some things I could pay voluntarily (for example, I'm young and healthy so my health insurance premiums would be low) However, not everyone is in the same boat as me. What happens to those who can't pay for services at all?


As that's basically what the Social Contract entails. Most political ideologies accept the need for a State (be they socialists, conservatives, liberals or even libertarians). From minarchists onwards, there is a universal agreement that a State should exist. Only anarchists disagree.
There is a broad consensus that a State should exist, so such a social contract is broadly accepted. Where people differ is to what extent the State exist and what it should provide. Which is a matter for the political arena and not the social contract.

So do you believe that a majority of people in a given area have the right to force their ideas on people?

Lockstep

simplistic2 wrote: »

The apartment block metaphor is irrelevant, what matters is was it built consensually.

So you agree that when there is consensus, there is legitimacy?
This is the fundamental basis of democracy.

simplistic2 wrote: »

So for example if North Korea where to move to a democracy. It would happen roughly like this. First the authoritarian regime collapses then some small group takes over the state. Now never history had any group full 100% support from the all the people. So the people who are in disagreement with the new democratic party can either submit, be killed, imprisoned or leave.

Given that we're referring to democracy, the citizens decide what sort of government they will have. We're talking about democracy, not mob-rule here (although I presume you don't see any difference between the two) which is why democracies have Constitutions as they acknowledge the rights of the minority.
The citizens decide on a new government, those who are unhappy with this new regime are given the choice of living with it, leaving or seeking to alter it and bring others around to their way of thinking.

simplistic2 wrote: »

I call this the violence and amounts to a type of slavery to the herd. You can call it Democratic legitimacy or a social contract but no euphemisms can cover up the violence that backs up the theft from an invalid contract that nobody agreed to in the first place.

Contracts are fundamentally based on violence; if you and I have an agreement for you to sell me cows and I accept the cows without reimbursing you, then you would seek to get the contract enforced.

The social contract *is* agreed to, given that citizens take part in civic duty, voting etc. We are either born into it (our parents accepting it on our behalf, which we are free to renounce when we come of age) or else we voluntarily accept it when we move to a country.

simplistic2 wrote: »

If a bunch of slaves kill the slave master and take over the farm. Do they then own the rest of the slaves on the farm? What if they give the slaves a democratic vote ? You see its irrelevant what benefits and handouts are given out whether its the illusion of a vote of a sub subsidized education democracy was immorally forced on people who did not agree to it invalidating it as a valid contract.

If the slaves kill the slave master and then hold a vote on what the new system is to be, then what is the issue here? Every slave had the same vote in deciding what the new system should be and provided fundamental rights are provided for (the new system can't force them to work or kill them) then I fail to see what the issue is here.

Governments don't own their citizens, it's the other way around. Most democratic Constitutions (I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority do) underline this point. If the majority of citizens seek to alter the Constitution or bring about a regime change, then the government is forced to act.

Your entire argument seems to revolve around people being brainwashed and/or stupid.

simplistic2 wrote: »

No when a thief steals it is an admission that he is incapable of providing a service people would pay for. The government is a thief.
It is fundamentally irrelevant what happens after we stop using violence to solve social problems. The same as it was fundamentally unimportant what happened to slaves after you freed them. The only thing that mattered was that you stopped aggressing against them.

No it's not. The State provides services that can't be effectively provided at a market level. The vast majority of political ideologies accept this, but they do differ on what can be provided: minarchists believe that police and soldiers can't be provided by the market whereas extreme socialists think the government should provide Skittles and mustard.
You haven't answered my question: what will happen to those who can't afford to pay for private security associations?

simplistic2 wrote: »

So do you believe that a majority of people in a given area have the right to force their ideas on people?

To an extent. The majority, as the majority shouldn't be prevented from shaping things. If 85% of the people in a room want to leave the lights on, whereas 10% want them off, should the minority be allowed to determine the course of events?

However, the minority need to have rights and protections against mob-rule. Democracy is based on the will of the majority and as such, precludes the existence of a minority. Constitutions provide freedom from disproportionate government interference, the right to life, right to privacy and so on.

simplistic2

kickoutthejams wrote: »

So you agree that when there is consensus, there is legitimacy?
This is the fundamental basis of democracy.

Yes I believe when people enter a contract voluntarily that legitimacy is established however the social contract was not entered voluntarily by all parties.

If it was you would be able to tell me the exact day that it became legitimate? But you cant because it was never agreed to and like any contract that is not agreed to by all parties it is not a contract but the violent imposition of certain individuals ideologies.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Given that we're referring to democracy, the citizens decide what sort of government they will have. We're talking about democracy, not mob-rule here (although I presume you don't see any difference between the two) which is why democracies have Constitutions as they acknowledge the rights of the minority.
The citizens decide on a new government, those who are unhappy with this new regime are given the choice of living with it, leaving or seeking to alter it and bring others around to their way of thinking.

Again since anarchy is the original state of humanity to even move to a new system of democracy there would have to be agreement of all parties this never happened. A small few who use the desperation and herd mentallity of humans exploit the idea of democracy as a moral system. Democracy is immoral by its very nature as it allows for violence to be used against people who dont fulfil the obligations of the ideology. To be compelled to action under threat of force is a type of slavery , not as brutish as it used to be but still immoral.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Contracts are fundamentally based on violence; if you and I have an agreement for you to sell me cows and I accept the cows without reimbursing you, then you would seek to get the contract enforced.

The social contract *is* agreed to, given that citizens take part in civic duty, voting etc. We are either born into it (our parents accepting it on our behalf, which we are free to renounce when we come of age) or else we voluntarily accept it when we move to a country.

Tell me the day it was agreed to then?

kickoutthejams wrote: »

If the slaves kill the slave master and then hold a vote on what the new system is to be, then what is the issue here? Every slave had the same vote in deciding what the new system should be and provided fundamental rights are provided for (the new system can't force them to work or kill them) then I fail to see what the issue is here.

The issue is that not all the slaves agreed to voting as a system yet they are still governed by those that did.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Governments don't own their citizens, it's the other way around. Most democratic Constitutions (I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority do) underline this point. If the majority of citizens seek to alter the Constitution or bring about a regime change, then the government is forced to act.

Your entire argument seems to revolve around people being brainwashed and/or stupid.

Most of my argument is about pointing out the violence that people do not see.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

No it's not. The State provides services that can't be effectively provided at a market level. The vast majority of political ideologies accept this, but they do differ on what can be provided: minarchists believe that police and soldiers can't be provided by the market whereas extreme socialists think the government should provide Skittles and mustard.
You haven't answered my question: what will happen to those who can't afford to pay for private security associations?

Again its irrealvant what happens to people that cant afford to pay for private security , what matter is first people are not robbed to fund your "security".
Nor do I even know what will happen Im not a central planner I dont believe I can predict the future.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

To an extent. The majority, as the majority shouldn't be prevented from shaping things. If 85% of the people in a room want to leave the lights on, whereas 10% want them off, should the minority be allowed to determine the course of events?

However, the minority need to have rights and protections against mob-rule. Democracy is based on the will of the majority and as such, precludes the existence of a minority. Constitutions provide freedom from disproportionate government interference, the right to life, right to privacy and so on.

Following your logic then if I gather the majority of people in my estate should I be able to force the other 10% to pay for a new park that we have decided on building?

Lockstep

simplistic2 wrote: »

Yes I believe when people enter a contract voluntarily that legitimacy is established however the social contract was not entered voluntarily by all parties.

Yet again, you have failed to show how they havn't agreed to it. I've already pointed out the citizenship oaths, parent's accepting on your behalf or your voluntary moving to a state but you endlessly keep saying it's invalid without substantiating.

simplistic2 wrote: »

If it was you would be able to tell me the exact day that it became legitimate? But you cant because it was never agreed to and like any contract that is not agreed to by all parties it is not a contract but the violent imposition of certain individuals ideologies.

Yes, it was agreed to, the day it was agreed to varies from person to person, based on when they were born, took their citizenship oaths etc.

simplistic2 wrote: »

Again since anarchy is the original state of humanity to even move to a new system of democracy there would have to be agreement of all parties this never happened. A small few who use the desperation and herd mentallity of humans exploit the idea of democracy as a moral system. Democracy is immoral by its very nature as it allows for violence to be used against people who dont fulfil the obligations of the ideology. To be compelled to action under threat of force is a type of slavery , not as brutish as it used to be but still immoral.

Merely because something was the original state does not make it desirable. The orignal state of humanity was lying in ditches poking berries up our noses. Not something most of us want to return to.

I fail to see how democracy is immoral as it involves the will of the majority combined with the protection of the minority (Constitutionalism)
Your issue isn't with violence, as you obviously believe in the need to enforce contracts. However, you act as if violence in this contract is somehow invalid.

simplistic2 wrote: »

Tell me the day it was agreed to then?

Given that it's a mutlilateral contract, it wasn't agreed to on a single day. When it was agreed on depends on the citizen in question, in the same way that the common contract of an insurance company can be made with multiple subscribers.
In my case, it was originally made when I was born in Ireland, although it was re-signed when I voluntarily moved back to Ireland as an adult and when I took the Oath of Allegiance.

simplistic2 wrote: »

The issue is that not all the slaves agreed to voting as a system yet they are still governed by those that did.

Unless someone else owns the land then the slaves who have taken it over now have sovereign rights over it. A new social contract is formed with the slaves forming their own government.
What do you propose instead then? The slaves who aren't happy with what the majority want can either try to change the new social contract or else they can leave.
Unless you think that the majority should be bound by the minority.

simplistic2 wrote: »

Most of my argument is about pointing out the violence that people do not see.

What violence is this?

simplistic2 wrote: »

Again its irrealvant what happens to people that cant afford to pay for private security , what matter is first people are not robbed to fund your "security".
Nor do I even know what will happen Im not a central planner I dont believe I can predict the future.

You are advocating a system without being able to say how security (one of the most central issues to humanity) would be provided?
How would contracts be enforced between, say, a labourer and a landlord, when the labourer lacks the ability to properly enforce the contract?

simplistic2 wrote: »

Following your logic then if I gather the majority of people in my estate should I be able to force the other 10% to pay for a new park that we have decided on building?

No, as the others in your estate don't have sovereignty over the entire estate.

simplistic2

Ive made this to help clear things up...

oscarBravo

Who enforces the "valid contracts"?

simplistic2

Individuals that provide that service or the individual them-self. I could voluntarily contract with a third party that will back up my contracts with force or even provide me with insurance on the contract and then collect the payment themselves if it is not upheld.

oscarBravo

simplistic2 wrote: »

Individuals that provide that service or the individual them-self. I could voluntarily contract with a third party that will back up my contracts with force or even provide me with insurance on the contract and then collect the payment themselves if it is not upheld.

Hm. Enforcement of a contract through the use of physical force. Okay...

It's not hard to envisage a scenario where it becomes impossible to enter into a contract without there being an automatically-deducted insurance premium to cover the cost of contract enforcement. Which is fine, because - let's face it - a contract is meaningless unless someone is entrusted with the task of enforcing it.

So the enforcement charge becomes a standard part of the cost of entering into a contract, to the point where it's not optional - except insofar as you can avoid paying the charge only by refusing to enter into any contracts with anyone, ever.

But hey, that's better than a tax, right?

Lockstep

simplistic2 wrote: »

Ive made this to help clear things up...

Contracts *always* involve the use of force. Plus, when a contract exists, the contractees have 3 choices: renege on it, accept it or seek to change it.

You have yet to show how it *isn't* a valid contract (I know the burden of proof is on me here but I've explained numerous times why it is no different to other contracts, which you have yet to address)

simplistic2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Hm. Enforcement of a contract through the use of physical force. Okay...

It's not hard to envisage a scenario where it becomes impossible to enter into a contract without there being an automatically-deducted insurance premium to cover the cost of contract enforcement. Which is fine, because - let's face it - a contract is meaningless unless someone is entrusted with the task of enforcing it.

So the enforcement charge becomes a standard part of the cost of entering into a contract, to the point where it's not optional - except insofar as you can avoid paying the charge only by refusing to enter into any contracts with anyone, ever.

But hey, that's better than a tax, right?

Yeah I suppose a business owner would just refuse to sell bread to anybody wouldn't pay a premium that would be genius business practice...:rolleyes:

simplistic2

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Contracts *always* involve the use of force. Plus, when a contract exists, the contractees have 3 choices: renege on it, accept it or seek to change it.

You have yet to show how it *isn't* a valid contract (I know the burden of proof is on me here but I've explained numerous times why it is no different to other contracts, which you have yet to address)

A valid contract does not exist until it is accepted. You are claiming that it exists first and then is accepted later , this makes no logical sense and amounts to fraud.

It is invalid because if I am the red guy in the image then by your logic I could first create a contract. I can then round up my red friends and knock on my neighbors door tell him I have a contract that says I own his house and if he doesn't like my red friends will kill him.

If you set the rule that first contracts are created and bind both the party that has created it and the party that has yet to even accept it , then we can literally steal from or murder anybody we please similar to what a government claims the authority to do.

Lockstep

simplistic2 wrote: »

A valid contract does not exist until it is accepted. You are claiming that it exists first and then is accepted later , this makes no logical sense and amounts to fraud.

You might not see it as logical but this is an extremely common form of contract law.
It operates in a similar way to renting a house where there is a contract between the owner and the residents association. The contract already exists but you aren't yet a party to it. By moving in and agreeing to the contract, you then become a party to it.

simplistic2 wrote: »

It is invalid because if I am the red guy in the image then by your logic I could first create a contract. I can then round up my red friends and knock on my neighbors door tell him I have a contract that says I own his house and if he doesn't like my red friends will kill him.

Straw-man. The red guy doesn't have sovereignty over your land, whereas the State (ie: the citizens) have sovereignty over their country. You can own land within the territory but the country doesn't belong to you individually.

simplistic2 wrote: »

If you set the rule that first contracts are created and bind both the party that has created it and the party that has yet to even accept it , then we can literally steal from or murder anybody we please similar to what a government claims the authority to do.

Again, contracts like this exist all the time. Trade union contracts exist between employers and unions. I'm not a party to the contract (but it already exists) but if I join the union, I then become a party to it and am bound by it.

simplistic2

kickoutthejams wrote: »

You might not see it as logical but this is an extremely common form of contract law.
It operates in a similar way to renting a house where there is a contract between the owner and the residents association. The contract already exists but you aren't yet a party to it. By moving in and agreeing to the contract, you then become a party to it.

I agree. The contract existed prior to the resident moving in. The contract with the state did not exist prior to the state moving in.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Straw-man. The red guy doesn't have sovereignty over your land, whereas the State (ie: the citizens) have sovereignty over their country. You can own land within the territory but the country doesn't belong to you individually.

There is no such thing as a country in reality. The two red guys in the image just need you to believe there is so they can extract money form you. Similar to priest needing you to believe in god so they can profit form you.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Again, contracts like this exist all the time. Trade union contracts exist between employers and unions. I'm not a party to the contract (but it already exists) but if I join the union, I then become a party to it and am bound by it.

I agree. Its a voluntary contract whereas the state is a concept that is violently imposed upon people.

Lockstep

simplistic2 wrote: »

I agree. The contract existed prior to the resident moving in. The contract with the state did not exist prior to the state moving in.

I'm not sure I follow here.
Are you saying that because a contract didn't exist at one point, it's invalid?
In both cases, the contract existed from one party, the RA form a contract for how the apartments are run, the citizens form a contract for the governance of their State.

simplistic2 wrote: »

There is no such thing as a country in reality. The two red guys in the image just need you to believe there is so they can extract money form you. Similar to priest needing you to believe in god so they can profit form you.

Country, territory, sovereign region etc.
All of these exist in numerous Constitutions and treaties across the world. It merely seems to be yourself (and a few others) who claim otherwise.

simplistic2 wrote: »

I agree. Its a voluntary contract whereas the state is a concept that is violently imposed upon people.

No more violent than the trade union contract. You choose to join a union, you choose what State you want to live under.

All contracts are underlined by violence. Otherwise, they would be unenforceable and useless.

simplistic2

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow here.
Are you saying that because a contract didn't exist at one point, it's invalid?
In both cases, the contract existed from one party, the RA form a contract for how the apartments are run, the citizens form a contract for the governance of their State.

I think your jumping a step a head each time to justify the state. For example how was democracy brought to Iraq? At the point of a gun. Im not saying the original government was any better. The point is that because individuals representing a government forced there ideology on to the Iraq people that there is no valid contract between the individuals living there and the conquers. In the image the Americans are the red guys.What your saying is now that the red guys have taken over that it is valid because the people of Iraq did not move out of the territory.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Country, territory, sovereign region etc.
All of these exist in numerous Constitutions and treaties across the world. It merely seems to be yourself (and a few others) who claim otherwise.

Objectively there are no such things as a country, territory or sovereign region. If you were to use the scientific method to test for "a country" you would not find one and the argument that it is written in a constitution is no more valid then saying god is real because it is written in a bible.

Lockstep

simplistic2 wrote: »

I think your jumping a step a head each time to justify the state. For example how was democracy brought to Iraq? At the point of a gun. Im not saying the original government was any better. The point is that because individuals representing a government forced there ideology on to the Iraq people that there is no valid contract between the individuals living there and the conquers. In the image the Americans are the red guys.What your saying is now that the red guys have taken over that it is valid because the people of Iraq did not move out of the territory.

Nah, states only exist as long as there is legitimacy.
Iraq is a state where most persons are prevented from voting due to intimidation and the lack of a secret ballot. Not really comparable to somewhere like Ireland or the US.
It's still in the transitional stage of moving towards democracy so no, I don't see the social contract as currently existing, given that the citizens aren't choosing their own government.

simplistic2 wrote: »

Objectively there are no such things as a country, territory or sovereign region. If you were to use the scientific method to test for "a country" you would not find one and the argument that it is written in a constitution is no more valid then saying god is real because it is written in a bible.

Objectively, there's no such thing as the stock market, capitalism or private property. Do you deny these don't exist?
Democratic governments exist due to voluntary human interaction and cooperation.
Using God is an extremely poor example as theism claims to exist on an alternate/higher plane than the mundane world. States exist based on the will of the people and claim to be as much.

simplistic2

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Nah, states only exist as long as there is legitimacy.
Iraq is a state where most persons are prevented from voting due to intimidation and the lack of a secret ballot. Not really comparable to somewhere like Ireland or the US.
It's still in the transitional stage of moving towards democracy so no, I don't see the social contract as currently existing, given that the citizens aren't choosing their own government.

So tell me when people either have the choice to accept the contract or leave? And when you see that youll see it is an invalid contract because there will never be acceptance by every individual thus making it an immoral act of aggression towards those who do not accept it.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Objectively, there's no such thing as the stock market, capitalism or private property. Do you deny these don't exist?
Democratic governments exist due to voluntary human interaction and cooperation.
Using God is an extremely poor example as theism claims to exist on an alternate/higher plane than the mundane world. States exist based on the will of the people and claim to be as much.

The stock market is a concept used to describe the groups of individuals buying and selling. It does not exist outside our minds neither does capitalism or private property.

Willing states into existence is no different than willing gods into existence.