Busting the myth of a "social contract"

this has been repeatedly refuted. The language of the contract is the constitution of the united states. Your continued presence on US soil, while remaining a US citizen is your consent to said contract.

 

Your argument is nonsensical, and I am sure the vast majority of people reading your posts are aware that DOI is in fact the founding document of the country and that you are dealing in self generated fallacy.

 

It has been repeatedly proven that the citizens of the United States are not parties to, nor signatures to, the Constitution and therefore there is no imaginary social contract, with imagined language which no one can identify. Remaining on the soil of your birth is a right and comes with no conditions. These are the facts, and everyone seems to understand this except you.

 

It's just the legal reality. The DOI did not found the United States of America. It was a letter of intent to the british that they were seceding from the empire. No country was formed at that point. The country known as the United States of America was founded by the constitution.

 

but you are perfectly aware that everything you just posted above is completely false. We know, as a matter of legal fact, that the constitution is the agreement between citizens and the government. it's why people have rights, and not states.

demonstrably false. The conditions are spelled out in the contract.

those aren't the facts, as has been repeatedly proven. You and the other 12 libertarians in this country believe all sorts of whacky things. Reality remains the same however.

 

I'm tired of your twisting simple information for what purpose is beyond comprehension. You don't want to discuss the issue, then don't, but kindly comprehend what is laid out before you.

YOU claimed the rights were enshrined by law, and I said the government does not grant those rights. See the common factor? You can't 'enshrine' something that doesn't belong to you. Geez!

The comprehension issue is not on my side, that is obvious.

Carry on, Nigel.

.

 

lol, I quoted the conversations verbatim. You tried to make a strawman argument, and got caught.

so your problem is you don't know what enshrined in the law or granting means. Now it makes sense why you are so confused.

what is obvious is that you don't know what words mean.

 

Then why is the "Unitied States of America" identified as the country authoring the Declaration of Independence? Why is the United States of America identified as the country in the Articles of Confederation?
You really have no argument here and are just making yourself look less than educated on this subject. The Declaration was the first of the founding documents of the United States and that is not disputable. It is not within your power to change the meaning of a "founding document" to support your opinion no matter how hard you try.

 

I will not continue a discussion with someone who fabricates untruths. You couldn't comprehend the relationship, that is your problem, not mine.

NO WHERE DID I SAY YOU SAID THAT. Continue at your peril.

 

it isn't.

because that's what they wanted to call themselves at the time. That country was abolished with the constitution.

by schooling you on constitutional law, legal precedent and historical fact? lol, ok.

it is demonstrably not. it is a declaration of intent to secede from the british empire. the united states of America was founded by the constitution.
.

which is why I'm not changing anything. I'm correcting you.

 

you understand that you made up an argument and attributed it to me right? that would be YOU fabricating untruths, and getting caught.

I quite clearly pointed out that words mean things, and that what I said is not what you claimed I did.

I am not in any peril. I have quite successfully shown you made something up.

 

jdog said: ↑
Then why is the "Unitied States of America" identified as the country authoring the Declaration of Independence?

rahl said:
it isn't.

OK, here is one more example that you are uneducated in this subject and making nothing but eneducated statements.

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free"

Declaration of Independence

Now I do not expect you to concede this point as it is not in line with your imagined facts, but for the rest of the people reading this thread, you can make your own judgements on credibility.

 

Opinions don't have proof. They aren't right or wrong. They are just opinions.

 

No, it wasn't. It wasn't even taught in any college classes I took.

The above comments remind me of my daughter arguing for candy when she was three years old.

No one in this thread has established the US Constitution is a social contract. As a matter of fact, the argument for the social contract is that it existed prior to the Constitution and even prior to the DOI.

Then please reference your own scholarly article making the case. Also, was address with specifics the article I linked and the parts that are wrong and the logic behind why it is wrong.

While I disagree with the "move to Somalia" sentiment (Why would I move? It's my land), at least you seem to understand the concept of the social contract so credit were credit is due. May you should educate your fellow statist @rahl ?

 

It's just a legal reality. the united states did not exist as the sovereign nation it is today, until the constitution was ratified. That will never stop being true, no matter how hard you stomp your feet.

 

of course it was.

don't care. the facts remain the same. the constitution is a social contract existing between the citizenry, and the government.

already shown why it's wrong.

I have remained consistently correct this entire thread.

 

Opinions not backed by facts or logic are just foolspeak.

 

Congradulations, you have proven to everyone reading this thread that not only uneducated in this subject, you lack all credibility in your arguments.

 

It is a philosophical concept, not a written agreement. You’re being intentionally obtuse.

 

No, they are just opinions. Everybody has them. Everybody shares them. Human nature.

 

Well you can run along if you ever want to discuss this again I'll be here

 

I don't have to prove to you that I'm being sincere. And I'm not going to try.

If you doubt my sincerity don't f****** talk to me.

 

by proving you wrong, and showing you don't know anything about constitutional law, or history? lol, ok

 

I can. 1848; “Manifesto of the Communist Party” Almost 70 years after the declaration of independence. Though most colonists lived in communes (Where Communism got its name) that was because it made sense to do so and nothing to do with Communism, Marx and Engel weren’t even born in the 1770s.
Washington and his mates had no need to live in a commune as most of them had hundreds of slaves to do their work.

 

There is nothing that can stop the government from doing any thing it wants. And apparently we all tacitly consent to any thing the government does.

Why? Because social contract, apparently.