Busting the myth of a "social contract"

It implies nothing of the kind. A country is created by a contract or Constitution just as a partnership is. Contracts are governed by contractual law. Contractual law is very strict. If something is not specifically written in a contract it simply does not exist. It must exist, and it must exist in the text of the contract. Try taking your lease or your mortgage to a judge and try to convince him that some sort of contract exists which is not contained in the contracts text and see how far you get.

 

Then show ANY!

 

Where they get it wrong is, that the SOCIAL CONTRACT, is an POST HOC creation, to legitimate and explain where government receives its charter.

Not as a guiding document or principle. Simply adding the proper label.

 

If there is a social contract, then simply state the text of that contract. Tell me where you derived that text from. Do you even understand what a contract is? A contract by definition must be agreed to, how could we have agreed to a contract that does not exist and no one can find the contents. There are rules to a contract. You cannot just make something up and call it a contract.

 

And includes things like taxation, an interstate commerce clause, and a general welfare clause.

 

Except the "You are not the boss of me" folks have traditionally had no problem being the boss of other people if those people had a different skin color, different gender, different sexual orientation, etc.

 

It's not a "creation". It exists from the "get-go" by implication. Read my link.

 

A social contract is a standard created by a King and between a King and his subjects. It does not exist in a Constitutional Republic. If it does then show it to me. You cannot because it does not exist. It is a liberal fallacy.

 

I am USING the same standard as those I am arguing against. And to dispute MY definition, requires savaging the standard they use to insult us.

 

What I said.

 

So when did you sign the Constitution? Why do you think that contract automatically applies to you? Is that involuntary?

 

It always strikes me as odd that some say "you are not the boss of me" instead of just saying "you're not my boss". Just my quirk I guess.

 

What you said is that it "is an POST HOC creation, to legitimate and explain". That is a clear statement that it would be opposite what I said since it is not after the fact (post hoc) and it is not "done" to legitimate and explain anything. To "legitimate and explain" it would have to be in writing.

 

It seems you are the one lacking understanding.
https://legaldictionary.net/implied-contract/

 

It always existed, as a philosophical explanation. But, they thought about it at some first time, and named it, at a specific time. Therefore, it is not a contract you are asked, nor allowed to SIGN.

 

The constitution is the contract. You consented by accepting citizenship and remaining on US soil.

 

It doesn't, if you had any knowledge about the Constitution you would know that. It is written to define the limits of power of the government. It states exactly what powers the government has, and makes it clear the government has no powers which are not specifically written in that Constitution. Some people mistakenly think the Bill of Rights is what gives them their rights, but that is erroneous, your rights are derived from nature, the Constitution only "recognizes" that fact.

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."

Thomas Jefferson

 

Right, so when did you sign that contract? How can you be party to a contract at all if you haven't signed it? What exactly makes you one of "We the People" voluntarily?

 

False, all contracts must be specific. You cannot be held to a contract by simply existing nor from being compelled.

 

I am not party to the contract.

 

the US constitution is quite specific.

nor is that the reason you are being held to it. You are held to it because you were born a citizen (presumably) and you did not renounce it when you obtained the age of majority. You also remain on US soil. Because you have, you have voluntarily agreed to the social contract. It's why you currently pay, and will continue paying your taxes.

 

As a US citizen, on US soil, you most certainly are.

 

The Constitution exists. The so called "social contract" does not. There is nothing in the constitution allowing the Federal Government to implement an income tax. In fact it was ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS when first attempted in 1912. The world banking cartels then "persuaded" the justices to stand down so that they could push it through later. The purpose of the new tax was to provide collateral and income for the new debts that would be incurred by the Federal Government as it borrowed money at interest from the Federal Reserve, a group of private banks.

 

No, you obviously do not know anything about the constitution. But this is not a discussion about the Constitution, the topic is the liberal notion of a "social contract" please stay on topic.

 

So you do not vote or in any other way participate as a member of the government?