Life, Liberty, and Property?

[2Parties]

You made no point. You said the social contract didn't exist, then you demonstrated that it does.

Showing how government works does not demonstrate social contract theory which is your error.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You made no point. You said the social contract didn't exist, then you demonstrated that it does.

Showing how government works does not demonstrate social contract theory which is your error.

demonstrating that social systems (including forms of government) are formed through the social contract (which you've said yourself is th case) proves the social contract theory, which posits that demonstrating that social systems (including forms of government) are formed through the social contract.

Your trying to say that proving a theory correct doesn't prove the theory correct. You sound like an idiot.

 

[PeterS]

How can a governing body necessarily protect life, liberty, and property when it must, by necessity, remove life, liberty and property?

Its called negative liberty where government basically did nothing whatsoever and laws only existed to protect citizens from other citizens. In this kind of law government always protected the interest of any citizen against other citizens such as laws against theft.

How can it enforce this without taxes (which are nothing more than institutionalized theft)?

If you aren't going to fund government with taxes then how are you going to fund it? What you are missing is that we have choice: we can elect leadership that will tax us as we choose or move to a country where the level of taxation is more to our suiting. How is taxation thief when you are the one in control?

 

[2Parties]

demonstrating that social systems (including forms of government) are formed through the social contract (which you've said yourself is th case) proves the social contract theory, which posits that demonstrating that social systems (including forms of government) are formed through the social contract.

They are NOT formed by the social contract. They are formed by force and consent of a majority. There is no social contract (consent of a majority is not a social contract) involved. The only way it's used is to justify the acts of the state.

 

[2Parties]

If you aren't going to fund government with taxes then how are you going to fund it?

You don't.

What you are missing is that we have choice: we can elect leadership that will tax us as we choose or move to a country where the level of taxation is more to our suiting.

What justifies a tax to you?

6 people in a town of 10 want a new community pool. They agree to force the other 4 to contribute. Is this justified?

How is taxation thief when you are the one in control?

I'm not.

 

[PeterS]

You made no point. You said the social contract didn't exist, then you demonstrated that it does.

Showing how government works does not demonstrate social contract theory which is your error.

If a social contract does not exist then our revolution was and is fully illegal and we remain the provenience of the King of England. The Declaration of Independence was a document demonstrating how the King of England had violated the social contract and therefore why, based on natural law, we had a right to rebellion.

Government has no workings whereby the social contract does not apply.

 

[2Parties]

If a social contract does not exist then our revolution was and is fully illegal and we remain the provenience of the King of England.

I don't accept that we were ever the provenience of the King of England.

The Declaration of Independence was a document demonstrating how the King of England had violated the social contract and therefore why, based on natural law, we had a right to rebellion.

Had the King of England ever abided by the social contract?

Government has no workings whereby the social contract does not apply.

What exactly is the contract?

 

[PeterS]

If you aren't going to fund government with taxes then how are you going to fund it?

You don't.

Then what is the purpose of forming a government if you cannot fund it?

What you are missing is that we have choice: we can elect leadership that will tax us as we choose or move to a country where the level of taxation is more to our suiting.

What justifies a tax to you?

Because I live in this country based on my own free will and it is the form of government that I want to live under.

6 people in a town of 10 want a new community pool. They agree to force the other 4 to contribute. Is this justified?

As long as you have the ability to leave a community there is no force.

How is taxation thief when you are the one in control?

I'm not

Only because you choose not to be. Do not blame others because you are not willing to exercise the power you hold.

 

[2Parties]

Then what is the purpose of forming a government if you cannot fund it?

There isn't one.

Because I live in this country based on my own free will and it is the form of government that I want to live under.

Does your ability to leave it justify it's actions?

As long as you have the ability to leave a community there is no force.

So if I bought a house in this community and work here, they can rightly force me to fund something I have no interest in and this is justified because I can sell my house and find a job somewhere else?

Only because you choose not to be. Do not blame others because you are not willing to exercise the power you hold.

If I'm opposed to the principal (and power) of voting why would I use it?

 

[PeterS]

If a social contract does not exist then our revolution was and is fully illegal and we remain the provenience of the King of England.

I don't accept that we were ever the provenience of the King of England.

The founders did and that is what is important.

The Declaration of Independence was a document demonstrating how the King of England had violated the social contract and therefore why, based on natural law, we had a right to rebellion.

Had the King of England ever abided by the social contract?

Read the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson was very explicit in how the King violated the Social Contract.

Government has no workings whereby the social contract does not apply.

What exactly is the contract?

It's the tie that binds...Man to Government and Government to Man. You need to read Rousseau and Locke. While they weren't the only source they were the principles that led us to revolution.

 

[2Parties]

I've read some Roussea and Locke. While they got a lot right they also got a lot wrong.

 

[PeterS]

If I'm opposed to the principal (and power) of voting why would I use it?

You can do what you want with the power but you cannot stand there and say you are oppressed when you refuse to do anything about it. The oppressor in this case is yourself, not government.

 

[PeterS]

I've read some Roussea and Locke. While they got a lot right they also got a lot wrong.

They were also the principle influence in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. If they got a lot wrong then so did our founders. And have you ever considered that maybe you got it wrong? If there is a flaw in the logic you are certainly welcome to present the critical argument demonstrating the flaw.

 

[2Parties]

You can do what you want with the power but you cannot stand there and say you are oppressed when you refuse to do anything about it. The oppressor in this case is yourself, not government.

This is the exact type of attitude that government schools and establishment thinking have established. This type of attitude is to their benefit.

The government can tax, destroy, make war, and destroy economies. Neighbors can take from each other legally with millage's. To everyone who believes and subscribes to social contract theory all these actions of government is justified because of voting.

It's scary and sad at the same time.

 

[PeterS]

You can do what you want with the power but you cannot stand there and say you are oppressed when you refuse to do anything about it. The oppressor in this case is yourself, not government.

This is the exact type of attitude that government schools and establishment thinking have established. This type of attitude is to their benefit.

The government can tax, destroy, make war, and destroy economies. Neighbors can take from each other legally with millage's. To everyone who believes and subscribes to social contract theory all these actions of government is justified because of voting.

It's scary and sad at the same time.

You are presenting a rant not an argument. You can work to change the world you live in or move. That you choose to do neither is no ones fault but your own. That is not the teachings of a 'government school' but the simple fact of the life you've chose to live. If you do not want government to have the power of taxation, war, and regulation of commerce then present your case and convince a majority to act towards your beliefs. If you cannot convince the majority of what you believe do not blame others for failing to follow. It is not government fault nor my fault that you've failed to implement your beliefs...

 

[ihopehefails]

While your boss does own your free actions while you work for him. This may seem that he owns you by definition but since you can reclaim your freedom at any time by quitting this means you are free because if the form can simply cease to be controlled by its own choosing then it is the form (aka employee) that is ultimately in control of their free actions and not the employer.

The slave may revolt at any time, reclaiming his actions. However, both have little choice but to comply with the system, if they are to propagate their own existence and welfare. Your argument applies to the American Negro in the 1700s just as it dos to the modern proletarian.

A slave may revolt but the law and the owner will feel that they can reclaim their property just like a dog that would run away. A worker can nullify the agreement without such complications. They are free to enter into the agreement and they are free to leave but you can not say the same thing about slavery.

 

[ihopehefails]

How can a governing body necessarily protect life, liberty, and property when it must, by necessity, remove life, liberty and property?

Its called negative liberty where government basically did nothing whatsoever and laws only existed to protect citizens from other citizens. In this kind of law government always protected the interest of any citizen against other citizens such as laws against theft.

How can it enforce this without taxes (which are nothing more than institutionalized theft)?

Taxes are a necessary evil just like government but I was talking about laws designed to protect the interest of another citizen such as laws against murder or tresspassing. These are good laws that protect citzens from the unwanted actions of other citzens such as someone involuntarily murdering me.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Bullshit.. you have the right to exist to fend for yourself

You have the right to exist, but not to the means to sustain that existence? Does a man have a right to travel freely, but not to be unchained from a rock?

And YOU talking about ruling class??? Absolutely laughable you ******* ignoramus... Your little faulty system of 'communism' or 'socialism' cannot exist without a ruling class

The ruling class in socialism is all the people; no class rules over another. Kinda like liberal promises, but in socialism it's the reality.

You act as if this" man "drops out of the sky .
Men are raised in families, taught skills and values and ideally take on the responsibility of there own existence.
An existence that is independent of other mens forced cooperation.
Not enslavement of the state.

 

[Foxfyre]

Its called negative liberty where government basically did nothing whatsoever and laws only existed to protect citizens from other citizens. In this kind of law government always protected the interest of any citizen against other citizens such as laws against theft.

How can it enforce this without taxes (which are nothing more than institutionalized theft)?

Taxes are a necessary evil just like government but I was talking about laws designed to protect the interest of another citizen such as laws against murder or tresspassing. These are good laws that protect citzens from the unwanted actions of other citzens such as someone involuntarily murdering me.

Our Founders put a great deal of thought into the U.S. Constitution and gave us an elegant document outlining what must be the responsibility of the government in order for us to be a people governed by social contract, but mostly it is a document intended to limit the power, scope, reach, and authority of the Federal government.

They rightfully knew that a strong military would be necessary as there would be enemies determined to take our freedom and self determination from us. And they knew that we would each need to contribute something to sustain the government including the military so that it could carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

But mostly their intent was for government to defend us and to put sufficient enforceable laws and regulation into place to discourage us from doing physical or economic violence to each other and/or treading on each other's unalienable, constitutional, legal, and civil rights. Otherwise government was intended to get out of our way and allow us to live our lives and prosper or not according to our own industry.

 

[DiamondDave]

How can it enforce this without taxes (which are nothing more than institutionalized theft)?

Taxes are a necessary evil just like government but I was talking about laws designed to protect the interest of another citizen such as laws against murder or tresspassing. These are good laws that protect citzens from the unwanted actions of other citzens such as someone involuntarily murdering me.

Our Founders put a great deal of thought into the U.S. Constitution and gave us an elegant document outlining what must be the responsibility of the government in order for us to be a people governed by social contract, but mostly it is a document intended to limit the power, scope, reach, and authority of the Federal government.

They rightfully knew that a strong military would be necessary as there would be enemies determined to take our freedom and self determination from us. And they knew that we would each need to contribute something to sustain the government including the military so that it could carry out its constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

But mostly their intent was for government to defend us and to put sufficient enforceable laws and regulation into place to discourage us from doing physical or economic violence to each other and/or treading on each other's unalienable, constitutional, legal, and civil rights. Otherwise government was intended to get out of our way and allow us to live our lives and prosper or not according to our own industry.

Well said... if only the cradle-to-gravers and the big government proponents and the entitlement junkies would simply understand this... and get some resemblance of personal responsibility... we would all be better off