Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: I never signed the "Social Contract"

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 7, 2011, 5:04 p.m. EST by Dionysuslives (170)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Thus, my "consent" to be governed is neither "tacit" nor explicit. If I derive the "benefits" of the existing social order, it is only at the expense of bowing down in equal or greater measure to its detriments that I never agreed to. Eat THAT, John Locke! And all other apologists of bourgeois democracy!

:-P

85 Comments

85 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 10 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

One thing the anarcho-communists and extreme libertarians can agree upon: "I didn't sign a fucking social contract."

Good reading: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html#contract

[-] 2 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

you signed the fucking contract when you got a social security number

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Check the link. We agree. That wasn't endorsement.

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 2 years ago

You can give me your social security if you don't want it anymore. lol.

[-] 2 points by ScrewyL (809) 2 years ago

False argument.

The Social Security "contract" has been held by the courts to be unenforceable for multiple reasons:

  1. It is an unconscionable adhesion contract made under duress by coersion, which invalidates agreements prima facie.

  2. It a-lien-ates sovereign citizens from their unalienable rights, which is never legal for a contract to do, even if signed.

  3. It is often applied prior to the age of consent, or by unauthorized proxy, and almost always without cognizance.

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Hmm. So then why haven't these courts overturned the requirement that we pay income or property taxes? Or Social Security itself?

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 2 years ago

Because there is no revenue in that?.... It is not a requirement to pay taxes EXCEPT on profits made on the stock exchange.. The rest is fraud.. & our birth certs are traded on the stock exchange all the time. THAT is the collateral they use! Google the number on your birth cert.. It is a bond, & it is worth money if you know about UCC1

[-] 0 points by honestyblaze (151) 2 years ago

no you didn't. That was generated because of the Birth certificate your PARENTS got when THEY registered you...THEY are party to the contract, but a baby cannot be. That's the real reason for the 'heel prick' test.. The BLOOD is the signature, but without INFORMED consent, no contract exists..

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 2 years ago

The fundamental basis for government and law in this system is the concept of the social contract, according to which human beings begin as individuals in a state of nature, and create a society by establishing a contract whereby they agree to live together in harmony for their mutual benefit, after which they are said to live in a state of society. This contract involves the retaining of certain natural rights, an acceptance of restrictions of certain liberties, the assumption of certain duties, and the pooling of certain powers to be exercised collectively.

The social contract is very simple. It has only two basic terms: (1) mutual defense of rights; and (2) mutual decision by deliberative assembly. There are no agents, no officials, that persist from one deliberative assembly to another. The duties of the social contract are militia. There may be customs that persist from assembly to assembly, such as customs for due notice, parliamentary procedure, judicial due process, and enforcement of court orders by militia. This second term could be called the constitution of society, but it precedes a constitution of government and should not be confused with it.


The ONLY other option is to not have a social contract and thereby NO Government. That would be Anarchy.

Dionysuslives,

You didn't need to sign the contract and if it you can't get your grievances resolved to your satisfaction then you need to leavr this country. Like it or not this is the way it is. We have laws and you can't murder or steal from me. If you don't like it, leave. Plain and simple. You are taking an extreme position and the consequences can also be extreme. You really want to go there?

[-] 4 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Social Contract? I never signed no steenking social contract.

That argument and some of the following libertarian arguments are commonly quoted from Lysander Spooner.

The constitution and the laws are our written contracts with the government.

There are several explicit means by which people make the social contract with government. The commonest is when your parents choose your residency and/or citizenship after your birth. In that case, your parents or guardians are contracting for you, exercising their power of custody. No further explicit action is required on your part to continue the agreement, and you may end it at any time by departing and renouncing your citizenship.

Immigrants, residents, and visitors contract through the oath of citizenship (swearing to uphold the laws and constitution), residency permits, and visas. Citizens reaffirm it in whole or part when they take political office, join the armed forces, etc. This contract has a fairly common form: once entered into, it is implicitly continued until explicitly revoked. Many other contracts have this form: some leases, most utility services (such as phone and electricity), etc.

Some libertarians make a big deal about needing to actually sign a contract. Take them to a restaurant and see if they think it ethical to walk out without paying because they didn't sign anything. Even if it is a restaurant with a minimum charge and they haven't ordered anything. The restaurant gets to set the price and the method of contract so that even your presence creates a debt. What is a libertarian going to do about that? Create a regulation?

The social contract is like no other because it can be "unilaterally" modified. Not true. Consider the purchase of a condominium. You have a contract with the condominium association, agreeing to pay the fees they levy for the services they provide and obey the rules that they create. You have an equal vote with the other residents on the budget and the rules. If you don't like the budget or rules that are enacted, you can vote with your feet or persuade everyone to change them.

There are numerous other common sorts of contracts that allow changes by one or both sides without negotiation. Gas, electric, oil, water, phone, and other utility services normally have contracts where at most they need to notify you in advance when they change their rates. Insurance companies raise their rates, and your only input is either pay the new rates or "vote with your feet". (The exception is when rates are supervised by government regulatory agencies.)

Other misc. claims denying the social contract. One commonly cited Spooner argument is that the social contract is like no other, and thus not a contract. That's a nonsequitur. A unique feature or combination of features doesn't disqualify something from being a contract.

Some complain that the social contract is fundamentally unjust because it doesn't treat people equally, that people are taxed unequally or receive services unequally. So? Like insurance, rates can vary from individual to individual, and services received may be more or less than premiums paid.

Some complain "Any contract where the enforcing agency is one of the contractors is hardly fair." But the U.S. Constitution is a contract between SEVERAL parties: the three branches of the government, the states, and citizens. It's a multilateral contract where every party is subject to enforcement by one or more of the other parties, and every party is involved in enforcement for at least one other. This pattern of checks and balances was specifically designed to deal with precisely this fairness issue.

Why should I be coerced to leave if I don't like the social contract? Why leave an apartment if you change your mind about the lease? You do not own the apartment, just as you do not own the nation. At most, you may own some property within the apartment, just as you may own some property within the nation.

Do Cubans under Castro agree to their social contract? If you define contracts as voluntary, then you probably wouldn't say the Cuban government operates by social contract, since most people who wanted to emigrate have not been permitted to.

Most libertarians have a peculiar definition of voluntary: contractual agreement makes all requirements of the contract "voluntary", no matter how unexpected they are, no matter how long the contract lasts for, no matter if the contractee changes his mind. However, they're seldom willing to view our social contract in that manner.

Our social contract in the USA is one of the nice, voluntary contracts that libertarians should like. Even better, because you can terminate it by leaving at any time. There is no US government obstacle to emigration from the US.

Isn't that "love it or leave it"? Nope. This is a distinction that seems too subtle for a lot of libertarians: the difference between having a choice and having to leave.

For example, let's say you live in a condominium, and are very fond of it. As long as you can move out, you have a choice. No matter how firmly you intend to stay. No matter how much you prefer your current condo. No matter how good or bad your current condo is for you, you still have a choice.

This is analogous to living in a nation. You choose which one to live in, and you can change. You may not be able to improve some things about it all by yourself, because it is not entirely yours.

You have at least 4 choices. 1) Tolerate the social contract, and perhaps try to amend it. 2) Leave it by emigrating. 3) Violate it. 4) Revolt.

Why should we be coerced to accept the social contract? Why can't we be left alone? You are not coerced to accept US government services any more than you are coerced to rent or purchase a place to live.

The above is from:

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html#might

[-] 3 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

I'm not as smart or as well read as some of the debaters in this thread, so I apologize if I am over-simplifying. It seems to me that this consent is part of an if-then statement. If you decide to live within the borders of the US, then you are subject to its rules. I'm not necessarily trying to say "love it or leave it" - but the fact is that the world is divided into political regions and each region has rules that it expects the people that live there to follow.

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 2 years ago

How did the US come to HAVE rules? Because the PEOPLE created Government... That means the people are superior, but we have been conditioned to FEAR government. If you think about it, Without people to REPRESENT it, it has no power. Those people should now be charged & held to account personally, IE,having liens placed on their homes as compensation for the individual imposing company policy to a human by means of a 'contract' that they are not party to.. We can demand payment from them! A contract is between 2 people, it cannot be between a 'legal entity' & a human WITHOUT the human CONSENTING that it is also a 'legal fiction'. It is fraud.. Do any of you know what a strawman is? It is the persona that government creates at your birth, & it is who you THINK you are. But a person can only REPRESENT a legal fiction, it cannot be one. That is how this has been made possible. We are not created by the State, The State exists because of us. The created cannot be greater than the creator by any lawful means... WE have a superior creator than the State does. The people have lost sight of who REALLY has the power, & it is not the Government

[-] 1 points by friendlyopposition (574) 2 years ago

How did the US come to HAVE rules? The PEOPLE wrote them through the government. In some cases, people have been conditioned to fear the government (IRS, police) and in other cases people have been conditioned to rely on the government (aid programs and entitlements).

I'm sorry, the rest of that was gibberish. I don't understand what you are saying about strawmen and legal fiction and having a superior creator than the State. Can you try to explain it a little better to help me out?

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

that's right. As fandango just said . . ..

fuckin hit it.

and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[-] 2 points by Dionysuslives (170) 2 years ago

Thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll stay right where I am. How about refuting the argument instead of resorting to hyperbole?

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

Why? your ego is so huge you do not feel bound by the Constitution of the United States, despite the many benefits of that august document?

Neither do you feel compelled to state with clarity the why, what and the how behind your assertion?

The men who composed the first Articles of that document did so at risk of their own lives. They gave us something no other nation had at that time - and it remains a thing upon which we can improve and so improve ourselves and our lot in life, and the lives of those to come.

Either you are full of cynicism, or you are paid to argue on behalf of corprotocracy.

I do not care which.

If you do not value the social contract, that is, the Constitution, then like I said, hit it.

[-] 1 points by Dionysuslives (170) 2 years ago

"Why? your ego is so huge you do not feel bound by the Constitution of the United States, despite the many benefits of that august document?"

First, don't assume that I'm a resident of the US. I was born and raised in Canada but I would extend my critique to this country and all others founded on the basis of European social contract theory -- so don't give me that isolationist nonsense about, "if you're not American, you have no business criticizing America." This same critique can be applied just as easily to any other so-called 'democratic republic,' so the assertion is without substance.

"Neither do you feel compelled to state with clarity the why, what and the how behind your assertion?"

What I am critiquing here is the logic underlying the bourgeois democratic notion of citizenship -- i.e., the idea that, prior to forming cohesive 'societies,' human beings existed in a "state of nature" and, recognizing the difficulty and precariousness of existing in such a fashion, freely agreed to give up certain "natural freedoms" in order to collectively attain the benefits of a cohesive social order. The fact is, this sharp distinction between 'society' and "the state of nature" never existed in such a clearly delineated fashion. In ancient times, pre-state modes of social cohesion (bands, tribes, etc,) coexisted, warred with, and were often exterminated by state-based societies. This is the argument that I am presenting and the onus is on you to refute it.

"Either you are full of cynicism, or you are paid to argue on behalf of corprotocracy."

I'm cynical about certain things, profoundly optimistic about certain others.

"If you do not value the social contract, that is, the Constitution, then like I said, hit it."

And I said no. So where do you suppose that leaves us?

[-] 4 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

What I am critiquing here is the logic underlying the bourgeois democratic notion of citizenship -- i.e., the idea that, prior to forming cohesive 'societies,' human beings existed in a "state of nature" and, recognizing the difficulty and precariousness of existing in such a fashion, freely agreed to give up certain "natural freedoms" in order to collectively attain the benefits of a cohesive social order. The fact is, this sharp distinction between 'society' and "the state of nature" never existed in such a clearly delineated fashion. In ancient times, pre-state modes of social cohesion (bands, tribes, etc,) coexisted, warred with, and were often exterminated by state-based societies. This is the argument that I am presenting and the onus is on you to refute it.

None of this diatribe refutes social contract theory. The progression from the state of nature into various forms of social cohesion is the progression towards more and more formalized social contracts. Only a hermit has no social contract. A family has one, a tribe has one, two people on an island have one. Where it fails, there is violence - which seems to be exactly what you propose.

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 2 years ago

If people could do this Social Contract that God suggests, 'Cause no harm or injury' 'Cause no loss to another' 'Treat others as you want to be treated' 'Love Thy neighbor' It covers every abuse man has come up with. If everyone, including the Police followed these 'Golden Rules', there would BE no conflict anywhere..It just shows that Govt is NOT from God, so you have to wonder because you're human, where is it from then?

[-] 1 points by Dionysuslives (170) 2 years ago

If you want generalize the definition of "social contract" to the point that you completely divource it from its historical and theoretical/philosophical context then, yes, even two people on an island have a social contract; but it is not this general understanding that informs contemporary "democratic" understandings of "citizenship," "legality," "social order," etc. It is only through the supposed passage (by way of free agreement) from the state of nature to a social order that "citizens" can constitute themselves as such. If this passage never occurred, then "citizenship" itself is drawn radically into question.

[-] 2 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

That's all it is, formalized. When someone breaks a social contract, violence ensues - and without a formal contract (government), the character of that violence is unpredictable and chaotic. By delegating the only authority for violence to the state itself, we have provided a degree of justice and stability otherwise lacking.

The social contract provides for a fuller expression of your natural rights than you would have in a state of nature. It requires the sacrifice of some liberty and property so that the greater share is legitimized and protected by the state. Until you can prove that you have a lesser expression of your natural rights than you would in a more natural state - can a warlord/gang beat you, take your property, rape your wife, your children, and ride away without fear of reprisal? - then you don't have a legitimate grievance with the basic contract.

However, could we have a fuller expression still? Has it been better in the past? Yes. I turn to John Rawls' difference principle for the best example of how we could improve the social contract.

[-] 1 points by Dionysuslives (170) 2 years ago

So violence, by definition, is legitimate as long as it's the state that's engaging in it, is that what you're saying? In contrast, I would argue that the "stability" you refer to could not exist without systemic violence -- which can be but often times is not overt in nature.

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

No, but the only legitimate violence is that of the state in enforcing the social contract as accepted in the luminous conception of the general will (Rousseau).

So you're arguing in favor of chaotic and unpredictable violence?

Interesting.

[-] 1 points by Dionysuslives (170) 2 years ago

No, I'm arguing for the strategic/ethical use of whatever tactics intelligent and compassionate people feel are geared toward the situations in which they find themselves. I am not an advocate of 'nonviolence' in any and all situations but do not think that violence is to be romanticized either. Nor do I think that violence is rendered legitimate simply because it is engaged in by the state and, thus, is at the service of 'stability.'

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

You seem to be an advocate of nothingness. Bored.

[-] 0 points by Dionysuslives (170) 2 years ago

And "the general will" is a reified idea with no substantive existence above and beyond those who formulate it in their minds.

[-] 2 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Once you descend into ontology the same can be said about society - or any other social construct. Existence itself... That sort of thinking is good at tearing us apart but not at building anything worthwhile. Fortunately most of us grow out of our angst.

[-] 0 points by honestyblaze (151) 2 years ago

But when the State use that authority to brutally control the people it is meant to protect, it is wise to remove the authority. We don't have to be violent to do that. Let THEM show themselves for the tyrants & criminals they have become, & the people meet that without violence. They can only beat a non-violent person for so long before they realize how wrong their actions are, & that THEY are the people too. The State does not have the authority to commit violence against the very thing that gives it power, The people.

[-] 1 points by misterioso (86) 2 years ago

"In ancient times, pre-state modes of social cohesion (bands, tribes, etc,) coexisted, warred with, and were often exterminated by state-based societies." Dont forget, these pre-state models also did plenty of warring with each other, its not like state-based societies invented violence or caused them be violent. While there is a lot of violence in the todays world of nation states, by historical standards violence is the lowest its ever been. There are many studies that prove hunter gather societies had far greater percentages of violent deaths. The myth of the noble savage has been thoroughly debunked. While they were both armchair anthropologists, it turns out Hobbes was right and Rousseau got it wrong

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, like Shaftesbury, also insisted that man was born with the potential for goodness; and he, too, argued that civilization, with its envy and self-consciousness, has made men bad. However Rousseau never used the term "noble savage" and was not a primitivist.

The notion that Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality was essentially a glorification of the State of Nature, and that its influence tended to wholly or chiefly to promote "Primitivism" is one of the most persistent historical errors. – A. O. Lovejoy, “The Supposed Primitivism of Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality” (1923).

Rousseau argued that in a state of nature men are essentially animals, and that only by acting together in civil society and binding themselves to its laws do they become men. For Rousseau only a properly constituted society and reformed system of education could make men good. His fellow philosophe, Voltaire, who did not believe in equality, accused Rousseau of wanting to make people go back and walk on all fours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage#Erroneous_identification_of_Rousseau_with_the_noble_savage

(emphasis mine)

It's quite a leap to go from accepting that the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short, to accepting that the only viable alternative is absolute monarchy (Hobbes). Rousseau's view is far closer to the truth.

[-] 1 points by misterioso (86) 2 years ago

so Rousseau never actually used the term noble savage, and I understand that his views were much more nuanced than the characterizations you often hear, but let me be more clear about what exactly Rousseau got wrong and Hobbes got right,

from the same wikipedia article you referenced, discussing his discourse on inequality

"As they began to live in groups and form clans they also began to experience family love, which Rousseau saw as the source of the greatest happiness known to humanity. As long as differences in wealth and status among families were minimal, the first coming together in groups was accompanied by a fleeting golden age of human flourishing. The development of agriculture, metallurgy, private property, and the division of labour and resulting dependency on one another, however, led to economic inequality and conflict."

now contrast this with Hobbes characterization of pre-civilization human experience, from his Leviathan

"So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory. ........Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man............... and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

at the time they were both speculating, neither Rousseau nor Hobbes had evidence to back up these claims, but enough studies have been done and now we know that the further back in history you go, you get more violence, more conflict. Maybe you can argue that hunter-gatherer societies were more egalitarian(even this turns out to be problematic), but you cant argue that there was less conflict. In my previous post, I never took a position on the different arrangements that these two were advocating, but for the record I would take Rousseaus social contract over monarchy any day.

[-] 1 points by Joyce (375) 2 years ago

Now we have Canadian tantrums as well. Very nice.

[-] 1 points by Coriolanus (272) 2 years ago

I don't know much about this kind of stuff, but it seems that folks are making it more complicated than it needs to be. The people who have power (numbers, weapons, organization, a shared purpose, whatever) tell other people what to do. I think that is how it has always been. Now if you come along and get a big enough following, and enough weapons that you can depose the existing power structure, then you get to tell people what to do.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

And i said no. So where do you suppose that leaves us?

In fundamental disagreement.

In ancient times, pre-state modes of social cohesion (bands, tribes, etc,) coexisted, warred with, and were often exterminated by state-based societies. This is the argument that I am presenting and the onus is on you to refute it.

I do not refute that at all. It is true. It hardly establishes the Illegitimacy of the Social Contract as you have suggested with your op.

[-] 0 points by Dionysuslives (170) 2 years ago

Okay, why not? If there is no clear distinction between "society" and "the state of nature," it seems to me that the entire logic of the social contract falls apart because the supposed passage from the earlier state to the later one never took place.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

that's just twisted logic.

Of course it took place. It was a gradual evolution, one that paced itself differently among different peoples in different places. Carried to its most natural terminus, one can claim that even concrete is itself a part of nature.

Just because this is so does not mean that those organisms that have produced it in prodigious amounts should not examine with close scrutiny what impacts they are having on the environment that produced them - they have that capacity and it must be put to use, lest they pave over every single living thing that produces the air they breathe.

Were you a member of a people who were indigenous to America before the arrival of the Europeans - then I might be tempted by your argument - precisely because that social construct - the Constitution - and that measure of equality it is intended to codify in our social fabric - has in effect been withheld in some way.

I will leave it to those descendants of the First Americans to articulate the full measure of this failure.

[-] 1 points by Dionysuslives (170) 2 years ago

"It was a gradual evolution, one that paced itself differently among different peoples in different places."

And yet, in all times and places, proceeded in a linear fashion toward a singular goal -- or so your argument goes; but, in fact, evolution is a messy, nonlinear process that often involves the violent suppression and conquest of entire populations who pose a perceived threat to another's narrow conception of "social order."

"Were you a member of a people who were indigenous to America before the arrival of the Europeans - then I might be tempted by your argument - precisely because that social construct - the Constitution - and that measure of equality it is intended to codify in our social fabric - has in effect been withheld in some way."

And how was this "codification" accomplished? Genocide and cultural assimilation.

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

And yet, in all times and places, proceeded in a linear fashion toward a singular goal

I don't believe I said that. And I did not intend to imply that the process was not messy. Nature itself is messy.

And how was this "codification" accomplished? Genocide and cultural assimilation.

That has been an unfortunate and undeniable fact of the march of civilization.

Yet I say that social contract that is the Constitution does embrace principles that either do or would forbid such behavior.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 2 years ago

You still think this country follows the constitution?

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

are you and the rich, through corporate owned media, able to say anything you want with out being sent to interment camps. is not those who VOTE, compromise and form groups able to change the direction our nation goes. and are not all those who choose not to participate able to keep on keeping on. people fail to participate at their own demise. you can't get freer than that.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 2 years ago

When two parties have a stranglehold on power do you really think that one or the other will change the direction of this country? Really? Is Obamas health care forcing citizens to buy it constitutional? Is an FBI sniper killing an unarmed woman holding an infant constitutional? or burning to death a bunch of religious nuts? Or blowing the arms off a 12 year old in Iraq?

Yeah mr. Patriot. You keep on thinking that the constitution is still the law of the land? Yeah, okay. You just

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

We have some problems, true. Unreasonable seizure of your personal data is, I think, one of them. Corporations induce you to give it up with bribery, promising a discount on merchandise - but in fact your buying and spending habits can present a picture of you that is as clear as if you had been stalked - for years.

Wire tapping.

Mass harvesting of telecommunications - I think these are issues. I don't have any easy answer.

Principles of human engineering combined with demographics research can reveal ways to manipulate elections - as with the butterfly ballot in Florida, 2000 - and many other ways as well.

That is an issue.

We still have the right to bear arms.

I have not been arrested for the use of either pen or tongue - and so it seems there is some security left to the people in their persons, if not their various effects. If the government were intent on violating the Constitution with it's bill of rights, certainly I could have been arrested long before now using the Patriot Act.

We still have the right to speech, and to assemble. There is a difference between lawful assembly and setting up a camp out - this is where our lawful assembly crosses over into civil disobedience. It is a tradition that goes back to the revolution.

Are there those who would, with their arguments, toss out the Constitution?

Yes.

Even the establishments of power are divided. We can see that with the policies they have laid, and what it portends.

Yet I say we are still a free people. The utter subversion of everything this nation was built upon has not taken place. The legal framework alone is in place. Within the minds of Americans there is still this thing, that is us, that has made this nation what it is, and that begins with a respect for human dignity and human right.

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As long as this mental framework remains, there is still hope, and that hope is that everything we have built over two centuries need not be torn asunder. Because this mental framework still exists, it cannot be torn asunder.

As a movement, we must embrace this fact, this mental framework that does still exist, and with it certain commitments, certain oaths. Where it can be shown that these oaths have been violated, the law must have its say.

The Constitution is The Law.

If the law can be shown to no longer serve the people, then that argument must be presented to them in incontrovertible fashion, and together we will proceed from there.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

If you believe in the concept of property ownership, you did sign it.

[-] -1 points by honestyblaze (151) 2 years ago

WE never own anything. Everything registered with the State becomes State property, & the 'contract' we sign gives them ownership, & us the right to use it. that's why they can take our houses off us.. It becomes subject to a trust, & we relinquish the position of beneficiary when we consent to BE a legal fiction, stand in front a judge, & ALLOW him to make him the beneficiary & us the trustees, so WE can be charged! If we assert ourselves AS the beneficiary by insisting the Judge declare himself the trustee, WE can then allow the EXECUTOR(the lawyer you thought was representing YOU) to pay the judge. This is why lawyers must take a chequebook to court.. In case they cannot get us to play their game.. & it is how the law takes everything from us. Trust law is about contracts, & we are DUPED soooo badly. We can take it back if we know who we are, & that no HUMAN can dictate terms of a contract THEY are not party to.. This is the law they keep hidden with their 'Dog &Pony shows'.. ie, courtrooms... Courts are playing fields, it is a game. Rackets are used in courts.. That is NOT accidental that they use these words.. Maritime law is used, that's why courts have docks, we have birth (Berth) certificates.. We are cargo... We have to know the laws they use to win. Statutes are not laws.. they are company policies, & can only REALLY be applied to those who agree that they work for the company that is trying to implement them. If we don't, we can CHARGE for our compliance.. it is THE law..

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Nothing to do with the state, property is a social construct first.

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 2 years ago

then walk up to an empty house & tell the State it is yours... You would think that was true, because the people build the houses, but it is not. The State have claimed EVERYTHING as its own. Even Our sweat equity, which is NOT taxable. Everything earned with our sweat & effort is EARNED by us. Govt unlawfully steals it. Only earnings from the stock market as truly taxable earnings..

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Even before days of modern governments, the idea of property ownership is a social construct. You are part of society, whether you like it or not.

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 2 years ago

I am, but my society does not have 7 billion people in it... I don't chose to be part of Government's society. It is foisted upon me.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

You cannot have the perks and not pay. Get off the internet if you don't want to be part of society.

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 2 years ago

the internet is a virtual society, so i am not really here. & SERIOUSLY? What Perks? Servitude? The prospect of FEMA camp detention, a resurgence of Hitlerite domination? Can you honestly say that Society is good to the people? It is the work of the people that has given US govt the wealth to decimate societies to scavenge more wealth from other countries! There is a slaughter by your govt in Africa & the middle east paid for by your 'society'...Your people are killing themselves because they can't get food stamps, yet trillions of $'s can be spent on wars that they create? By their own admission, they did 9/11! & laugh at you for being fooled! Your tripping! It's not your internet, but Even that hasn't escaped your paranoid govt's meddling & censorship. If they had nothing to hide, they wouldn't try to hide anything! I don't see perks, I see a slaughter coming to the US & Europe while your Govt is attacked by China & Russia for encouraging Israel to attack Iran, & ignoring the warning China has issued.

[-] 2 points by misterioso (86) 2 years ago

"Can you honestly say that Society is good to the people?"
Yes. When you look at the big picture, the standard of living in the world today is the highest its ever been by historical standards. Countries with strong democratic institutions have the highest standard of living while countries with weaker governments tend to have a lot more problems. Maybe you could try your luck in the lawless lands of Afghanistan or how about the stateless Somalia, possible the most violent place the world. Thanks to modern technology and medicine, developed exclusively in nation states, life expectancy is the highest its ever been. Of course the are a lot of problems, our government is corrupt and our foreign policy is criminal, corporations exploit the developed world, thats why you should never stop fighting to improve society, but by dismantling government you dont solve any problems, you create a lot more.

Also, as technology and communication advances, societies trade and enter into non-zero sum relationships, the probability of going to war decreases because it becomes apparent that it will be bad for both parties overall. Its not likely that China will attack the US because by damaging our infrastructure and economy they hurt themselves and vice versa. As the world has become more interconnected, war has declined.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

I did read your reply, just sounds too Ron Lawly Christian Patriot Libertarian for me. I do appreciate though.

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 2 years ago

Who is Ron Lawley, & I don't know what libertarian is... will look it up...

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

I am very curious to know what religion you are. I think it may influence your fear/hate of society and govt, I don't mean to be insulting.

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 2 years ago

My Religion is not the Basis of my comments, so to have My God bought into this would malign his good name. I am not preaching God's word, so I cannot say God is associated with my activity on this site. I do, however pray for God's kingdom to come & end all this, so people can have true peace & security, As I am sure those who pray for 'Thy kingdom come', are praying for too. I don't hate people at all, I care very much for the trouble that is about to befall them. society today doesn't even TRY to create good hearted, healthy happy people. I don't fear anything except God, & what is going to happen to people if they don't wake up now & see the elephant in the room. US Govt is a dangerous Beast. It is attacking 8 countries in the middle East, & has moved in to African. It is not to protect it's country-men, it is to claim resources, nothing more. People kill themselves because they can't get food stamps, but trillions can be spent on war? that is a crime against humanity.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Thank you for your answer. I just wonder if the religious tend to support the 1% without realizing it, and further misogyny and racism. Not accusing you specifically. http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/real-reason-why-libertarians-love-property-rights-/

[-] 2 points by honestyblaze (151) 2 years ago

Any body that is truly religious. & listens to Jesus, would never support either side because Jesus did not involve himself in political situations of his day... I am rebellious in that respect, because I actually do care enough to risk eternal condemnation to relate the idea that govt is NOT above the people, because God gave us rights, like to grow our own food, the right to life & water, & those rights CANNOT be taken away. They are Unalienable. we cannot even GIVE them away with consent. The Law the govt imposes is corrupt, deceptive, against humanity, even, & God is about to destroy it altogether according to the prophets he sent. The people are the creation of God, whether they believe in him or not. We CAN call on his laws to protect us, & the Govt cannot stand up against God's laws.. But I was really trying not to go down the God route with this because, although I have free will to do this, I don't think it will go unpunished.. but some things are worth dying for. If I didn't warn somebody of danger, I would be responsible for their blood being spilled. So I can say nothing & be condemned, or say something & be condemned. I shall rely on God's mercy, as we all will. I am not a misogynist, & not racist because God, through Jesus teaches tolerance of every race & creed. His kingdom will be made up of people from ALL nations, tongues & creeds. I am nobody to judge anybody because by doing this, I could be affronting Jehovah, but i am compelled to do this work.Who wouldn't want their own bit of land to grow fresh food, have clean air & water, & live in peace? That was what God intended, & it is going to happen after the earth is cleaned of all wickedness the system has created.. I support good govt. this is not good Govt. It will get much wprse before it gets better, but it will get better..

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

Thank you very much for your answer.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

or maybe you signed the "Social Contract" the minute you took the help of another

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 2 years ago

In that case, all things have not been disclosed, so no contract exists. There are 4 elements to a lawful contract.. An offer: an expression of willingness to contract on a specific set of terms, made by the offeror with the intention that, if the offer is accepted, he or she will be bound by a contract.

Acceptance: an expression of absolute and unconditional agreement to all the terms set out in the offer. It can be oral or in writing. The acceptance must exactly mirror the original offer made.

A counter-offer is not the same as an acceptance. A counter-offer extinguishes the original offer: you can’t make a counter-offer and then decide to accept the original offer! But…
A request for information is not a counter-offer. If you ask the offeror for information or clarification about the offer, that doesn’t extinguish the offer; you’re still free to accept it if you want.
[-] 1 points by stuartchase (861) 2 years ago

Well, you can always come here. There are no contracts to sign. Come and go as you please.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/make-a-stand-join-the-clan/

The Revolution starts here!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20453) 2 years ago

You do realize that our Constitution is based on the political philosophy of John Locke. Therefore, it doesn't matter that you didn't "sign" his social contract. The delegates of the Constitutional Convention signed the Constitution, and thus, it, with Locke's ideas, rule our nation. I suppose you could give up your citizenship and move elsewhere.

[-] 0 points by honestyblaze (151) 2 years ago

The Constitution is a contract that the American people have not signed... It does matter that you haven't signed it because it means the YOU are not party to it. That is HOW they have been allowed to usurp the authority GIVEN by the people, & ignore it altogether. Obama didn't sign it. He is not party to it. CONTRACT is between 2 living entities to be valid..

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20453) 2 years ago

Definition of Constitution:

The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution. The document in which such a system is recorded.

It does not get signed by every person. It is not a contract.

[-] 0 points by honestyblaze (151) 2 years ago

ok then. it isn't a contract, so the government are not obliged to uphold it. & they are not, so it's ok... 1st amendment rights are gone. That is why this site exists... the right to bear arms is being made defunct. Posse comitatus has been repealed. US army can now police US citizens. These things are what the constitution protected you from. Are you saying that the Govt is upholding the constitution? It WAS a contract until they decided to CHANGE the law.. All Law is contract Law. They have revoked even the part o the Constitution that prevents it from being changed. A Contract is an AGREEMENT. To be a valid contract needs 2 signatories. It was signed on your behalf as a contract... It was a social contract between the people & government...

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20453) 2 years ago

Nope, it isn't a contract, but it is the overall guiding principle of our government. I fear you simply do not respect government. That's your prerogative, but an anarchist society is no place I want to live in.

[-] 1 points by honestyblaze (151) 2 years ago

I have the greatest respect for the constitution. It is a commendable system of governance when it is implemented. & I totally approve & support GOOD governance. But THIS is not it. Government is NOT implementing the law as it is meant to be applied. The Constitution applies to all those men & women REPRESENTING govt, as common law applies the same to all people.. But they are NOT supporting it's application to the people. If the German's were a bit anarchistic, maybe 6 million Jews would have been saved from slaughter. Because that is coming to America NOW because the people have just laid down to take it, then ask 'What went wrong?'... America has been bought to its KNEES because the have bit by bit, repealed YOUR Constitutional RIGHT to Good Governance, freedom of expression, & freedom from tyranny. Tell me FEMA camps are not going to be like Auschwitz, or Belsen.... & that it is for the good of the American people to cage you all up like animals... Talk about hidden in plain sight.!! America as been an inspiration to the Western world for decades because of its freedoms. They no longer exist because of fear of government. When you are taught to be afraid of the protectors, tyranny is hot on its heels..

[-] 0 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

Life's not fair.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 2 years ago

Interesting. To be replaced by what?

[-] 0 points by whisper (212) 2 years ago

The idea of a contract presupposes that all parties implicated in it sign it freely and with no threat of penalty if they do not. 'Nuff said.

[-] 0 points by genanmer (822) 2 years ago

Also known in the medical community as informed consent.

Unfortunately, providing all relevant facts and data to the public in an objective manner is a threat to national security. And by national security, I mean big business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M69LvvIypWM

[-] 0 points by ProAntiState (43) 2 years ago

No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority ~ Lysander Spooner

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ7sOp6eA6w

[-] 0 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Seriously, you should read this entire thing: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html#contract

[-] 0 points by fandango (241) 2 years ago

If you feel that way, give up your citizenship. Go to another country or start your own.

[-] 2 points by Dionysuslives (170) 2 years ago

Your very ability to pose this ultimatum presumes the validity of the moral criteria that I am calling into question. I choose to "occupy" the patch of ground on which I stand neither because I have given "permission" to do so nor because I have agreed to a particular set of conditions. Just as I do not recognize the legitimacy of the state to exercise its ability to govern, I do not recognize its ability to tell me what patch of ground I can stand on and which I cannot. It's commonly known as defiance and I make no apologies for it.

[-] -2 points by fandango (241) 2 years ago

And if you're on my land I have the legal right to get you off of my private property. You have no "right" to occupy what I legally own.

[-] 4 points by Dionysuslives (170) 2 years ago

"Legality" is not its own justification. If law cannot justify itself on ethical grounds that I myself agree to, then I am not obligated to obey it.

[-] 1 points by RobPenn (116) 2 years ago

So, do you have a right to occupy what he ethically owns?

That is, if he worked hard to come up with the resources to buy or make a trade for the property, is that not enough to claim ownership of his land, and with ownership the ethical right to tell you to leave if he so chooses?

Yes, I realize that I'm probably not using the word "ethical" properly in its technical meaning, but you get the point. Regardless of legality, is it not enough that he toiled to earn the land?

[-] -1 points by fandango (241) 2 years ago

Then you will go to jail for trespassing.

[-] 1 points by Dionysuslives (170) 2 years ago

Thus proving the point that law is grounded in coercion and not in morality.

[-] 0 points by fandango (241) 2 years ago

What coercion? My house and land are private property. IF , you come on to my land and I ask you to leave and you don't , you are breaking the law and will be escorted off the property by the police. It has nothing to do with morality.

[-] 1 points by Dionysuslives (170) 2 years ago

I'm not talking about some absurd situation in which I squat your living room. I am speaking on an institutional level that, on the one hand, would like to elevate legality to the status of legislated morality and, on the other, would like to maintain the fiction that "Justice is blind." Whether the patch of ground on which I stand is "privately" owned or not, what keeps my feet planted firmly where I stand at any given moment is not some arbitrary social contract but my ability to think and act for myself.

[-] 0 points by fandango (241) 2 years ago

you lost that ability a long time ago

[-] 1 points by Dionysuslives (170) 2 years ago

Where as you, oh Voice of The Conservative Majority, have it all figured out. Funny how all you've done is spout platitudes thus far.

[-] -1 points by fandango (241) 2 years ago

I am party of the majority? how nice. Look up the meaning of "platitudes"