Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Social Contracts

DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2013 9:55:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A Social Contract is an implied-in-fact informal contract, that establishes an agency for the protection and preservation of natural rights. Societies form for the mutual protection of natural rights, and Governments are formed to manage those societies. Just as Corporate Management serves as Agents of the Shareholders, Governments serve as the agent of the people, who are in effect the principals of the agency.

Citizens accept government services designed to protect and preserve their natural rights to life, liberty and property. In order to preserve and protect their rights the citizens/principals must surrender up some of their rights (such as property via taxation) to the state/agent, and without receiving the equivalent in services the surrender is void. Furthermore, the state cannot legitimately force their authority onto the people, because the loyalty of the subjugated people would itself be illegitimate.
I believe Einstein said it best when he said, "The led must not be compelled, they must be able to choose their own leader"; likewise, Eisenhower said "Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it." Every citizen has a right to renounce their citizenship, thereby resolving the agency, and the state has a right to dissolve itself. If enough citizens renounce their citizenship at once, they can establish a new agency, to serve as the safeguards of their rights.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
thett3
Posts: 14,341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2013 10:04:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 9:25:19 PM, DanT wrote:
Any thoughts?

I think you summed up the social contract theory pretty well. A question I've been struggling with that your opinion will probably help me out, should we view "implied consent" as acceptable in terms of governance under a social contract just out of pragmatism or do you think there's a moral case to be made as well? If so, what would you say it is?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 4:18:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."
-- John Locke (Second Treatise)

"For no government can have a right to obedience from a people who have not freely consented to it; which they can never be supposed to do, till either they are put in a full state of liberty to choose their government and governors, or at least till they have such standing laws, to which they have by themselves or their representatives given their free consent; and also till they are allowed their due property, which is so to be proprietors of what they have, that nobody can take away any part of it without their own consent, without which, men under any government are not in the state of freemen, but are direct slaves under the force of war."
-- John Locke (Second Treatise)
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 8:36:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 10:04:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 9:25:19 PM, DanT wrote:
Any thoughts?

I think you summed up the social contract theory pretty well. A question I've been struggling with that your opinion will probably help me out, should we view "implied consent" as acceptable in terms of governance under a social contract just out of pragmatism or do you think there's a moral case to be made as well? If so, what would you say it is?

Implied consent HAS to be necessary, otherwise it's nigh impossible to justify governments as being constructs of the people. I know that is a really bad reason, but I think that's what it boils down to.

I think a better point might be that approval of the government as an institution is sufficient to legitimate its existence under the Social Contract. People may dislike the U.S. governments actions, but they approve of its existence, for example.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2013 10:11:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/23/2013 10:04:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 9:25:19 PM, DanT wrote:
Any thoughts?

I think you summed up the social contract theory pretty well. A question I've been struggling with that your opinion will probably help me out, should we view "implied consent" as acceptable in terms of governance under a social contract just out of pragmatism or do you think there's a moral case to be made as well? If so, what would you say it is?

An express contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the words of both parties. An implied in fact contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the conduct of both parties, rather than their words. An implied in fact contract is not a one way contract; it requires two willing parties.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 5:54:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 10:11:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:04:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 9:25:19 PM, DanT wrote:
Any thoughts?

I think you summed up the social contract theory pretty well. A question I've been struggling with that your opinion will probably help me out, should we view "implied consent" as acceptable in terms of governance under a social contract just out of pragmatism or do you think there's a moral case to be made as well? If so, what would you say it is?

An express contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the words of both parties. An implied in fact contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the conduct of both parties, rather than their words. An implied in fact contract is not a one way contract; it requires two willing parties.

So your contract only exists figuratively; it is a heuristic device to explain a deal between two or more parties?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 8:42:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/24/2013 8:36:56 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:04:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 9:25:19 PM, DanT wrote:
Any thoughts?

I think you summed up the social contract theory pretty well. A question I've been struggling with that your opinion will probably help me out, should we view "implied consent" as acceptable in terms of governance under a social contract just out of pragmatism or do you think there's a moral case to be made as well? If so, what would you say it is?

Implied consent HAS to be necessary, otherwise it's nigh impossible to justify governments as being constructs of the people. I know that is a really bad reason, but I think that's what it boils down to.

I agree. It is a really bad reason.

I think a better point might be that approval of the government as an institution is sufficient to legitimate its existence under the Social Contract. People may dislike the U.S. governments actions, but they approve of its existence, for example.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 12:13:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 5:54:43 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:11:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:04:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 9:25:19 PM, DanT wrote:
Any thoughts?

I think you summed up the social contract theory pretty well. A question I've been struggling with that your opinion will probably help me out, should we view "implied consent" as acceptable in terms of governance under a social contract just out of pragmatism or do you think there's a moral case to be made as well? If so, what would you say it is?

An express contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the words of both parties. An implied in fact contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the conduct of both parties, rather than their words. An implied in fact contract is not a one way contract; it requires two willing parties.

So your contract only exists figuratively; it is a heuristic device to explain a deal between two or more parties?

No, implied-in-fact contracts are legally binding contracts. When you use a taxi cab you form an implied contract, whereby the taxi driver becomes your agent. Even though there were no verbal negotiations a contract was formed. The agency is automatically terminated when the driver reaches your destination and you compensate him for his services. Likewise, the driver has an implied authority to do what ever is reasonably necessary to fulfill him contractual obligations, and you are obliged to compensate him for it. So if the road was blocked, and he took the long way, you would be obliged to compensate him for those extra miles, despite the original route being shorter.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 3:26:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 12:13:10 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/25/2013 5:54:43 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:11:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:04:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 9:25:19 PM, DanT wrote:
Any thoughts?

I think you summed up the social contract theory pretty well. A question I've been struggling with that your opinion will probably help me out, should we view "implied consent" as acceptable in terms of governance under a social contract just out of pragmatism or do you think there's a moral case to be made as well? If so, what would you say it is?

An express contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the words of both parties. An implied in fact contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the conduct of both parties, rather than their words. An implied in fact contract is not a one way contract; it requires two willing parties.

So your contract only exists figuratively; it is a heuristic device to explain a deal between two or more parties?

No, implied-in-fact contracts are legally binding contracts. When you use a taxi cab you form an implied contract, whereby the taxi driver becomes your agent. Even though there were no verbal negotiations a contract was formed. The agency is automatically terminated when the driver reaches your destination and you compensate him for his services. Likewise, the driver has an implied authority to do what ever is reasonably necessary to fulfill him contractual obligations, and you are obliged to compensate him for it. So if the road was blocked, and he took the long way, you would be obliged to compensate him for those extra miles, despite the original route being shorter.

I'm just seeing examples where the metaphor of a social contract is used to explain an engagement between two people where one uses their advantage to extort wealth from someone else (and I'm phrasing it in as anathema a way as possible to force you to defend your view of social interaction). Individuals negotiate using their talents to force as much wealth as they can from another based on the need of the other person of their services, and use that leverage to extort wealth.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2013 4:07:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 3:26:53 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/25/2013 12:13:10 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/25/2013 5:54:43 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:11:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:04:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 9:25:19 PM, DanT wrote:
Any thoughts?

I think you summed up the social contract theory pretty well. A question I've been struggling with that your opinion will probably help me out, should we view "implied consent" as acceptable in terms of governance under a social contract just out of pragmatism or do you think there's a moral case to be made as well? If so, what would you say it is?

An express contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the words of both parties. An implied in fact contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the conduct of both parties, rather than their words. An implied in fact contract is not a one way contract; it requires two willing parties.

So your contract only exists figuratively; it is a heuristic device to explain a deal between two or more parties?

No, implied-in-fact contracts are legally binding contracts. When you use a taxi cab you form an implied contract, whereby the taxi driver becomes your agent. Even though there were no verbal negotiations a contract was formed. The agency is automatically terminated when the driver reaches your destination and you compensate him for his services. Likewise, the driver has an implied authority to do what ever is reasonably necessary to fulfill him contractual obligations, and you are obliged to compensate him for it. So if the road was blocked, and he took the long way, you would be obliged to compensate him for those extra miles, despite the original route being shorter.

I'm just seeing examples where the metaphor of a social contract is used to explain an engagement between two people where one uses their advantage to extort wealth from someone else (and I'm phrasing it in as anathema a way as possible to force you to defend your view of social interaction).
How exactly did one party extort wealth from the other? A good or service was exchange for a good or service; money is a form of trade credit that acts as medium of exchange.
Individuals negotiate using their talents to force as much wealth as they can from another based on the need of the other person of their services, and use that leverage to extort wealth.

That contradicts the notion of a contract. A contract requires mutual consideration, so if one party benefits at the expense of the other the contract is void. Legitimate Contracts require a quid pro quo relationship between the two parties, where neither party benefits at the expense of the other.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
slo1
Posts: 4,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 11:29:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Societies form for the mutual protection of natural rights, and Governments are formed to manage those societies

Highly speculative. The diversity of societies and governments that have been formed in the past 10,000 years would suggest that there are other drivers more critical than the desire to protect natural rights.

Citizens accept government services designed to protect and preserve their natural rights to life, liberty and property.

"accept" is a verb which walks a fine line. It works, but there needs to be some sort of word which demonstrates that acceptance is not always in agreement. There is a different if I accept the gov services because I am in agreement versus I accept but disagree, although I suppose it is a mute point if I still live with in the terms of the agreement whether it is forced or not.

Furthermore, the state cannot legitimately force their authority onto the people, because the loyalty of the subjugated people would itself be illegitimate.

"legitimate" is a word that depends upon one's viewpoint. The Union legitimately forced their authority on the confederacy or did the Union illegitimately force their authority on the Confederacy?

You did a good job with what you wrote. I'm nitpicking to really dive deep here.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 8:13:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 11:29:19 AM, slo1 wrote:
Societies form for the mutual protection of natural rights, and Governments are formed to manage those societies

Highly speculative. The diversity of societies and governments that have been formed in the past 10,000 years would suggest that there are other drivers more critical than the desire to protect natural rights.

Pack animals evolved in order to protect one another. Prey form packs in order to protect themselves from predators , and predators form packs in order to increase the spoils of their hunt in times of limited game, and to protect their hunting territory from competition. Our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees, often go to war with other chimpanzee societies over territory.
The reason African Lions are pack animals while American lions, Tigers, Jaguars, and other big cats are not, is because African Lions evolved a pack mentality in order to cope with the scarce resources available to them, while competing for food with other predatory animals; such as hyenas, and other prides of lions .
People have 3 fundamental survival instincts;
1.) an instinct to to preserve our life; we inherently try to maximize our lifespan.
2.) an instinct to be free from; we inherently don't like to be confined or constrained
3.) an instinct to acquire and obtain property; we are inherently materialistic
The later 2 instincts are a consequence of the 1st. When ever any of these 3 instincts are threatened, our fight or flight instincts kick in.

Early human societies took the form of clans or tribes, in an attempt to maximize survival. Their goals was to protect the lives of the individuals within the community from external and internal threats, to maximize the liberty of the individuals within the community, and to protect the property of individuals within the community.

After the agricultural revolution societies went from small nomadic tribes to fixed city states. The chieftons of the tribes evolved into monarchies, with the role of the monarch serving a duel purpose. The monarch was both the head of state and the head of the religion. The early monarchs, such as the Sumerian Kings or the Egyptian Pharaohs, were seen as divine or semi-divine figures; this was the basis of their roles as head of their community's religious order.

The monarchs were also tasked with protecting the community; they lead the military into battle in times of war, and were responsible for ensuring the community's welbeing. Due to the duel nature of the early kings as both religious and political figures, when a nation was in peril the monarch was often blamed for the suffering of the people, and it was believed that the monarch angered the gods in some manner. For example, King Lycaon angered Zeus resulting in the Deucalion Deluge. In Egypt, if the Pharaoh's Ka and Ba was not reunited in the afterlife it would mean the sun would not rise. Many times Egyptians attributed periods of prosperity to their deceased Pharaoh's. Even today people expect their politicians to ensure the nation's prosperity, regardless of whether or not they have the power to do so. When things go wrong the government is blamed, regardless of their involvement. Natural disasters are even blamed on the government.

Citizens accept government services designed to protect and preserve their natural rights to life, liberty and property.

"accept" is a verb which walks a fine line. It works, but there needs to be some sort of word which demonstrates that acceptance is not always in agreement. There is a different if I accept the gov services because I am in agreement versus I accept but disagree, although I suppose it is a mute point if I still live with in the terms of the agreement whether it is forced or not.

The fact you call the police, or fire department means you accept their services. We pay taxes and allow laws to be made, so that the police and fire department can be there when you need them. Pacifists are anti-war, until an invading army is at their door pointing a gun at their families. Regardless of whether or not you agree with an existing war, you will accept the military if it means ensuring the protection of your family.

Furthermore, the state cannot legitimately force their authority onto the people, because the loyalty of the subjugated people would itself be illegitimate.

"legitimate" is a word that depends upon one's viewpoint. The Union legitimately forced their authority on the confederacy or did the Union illegitimately force their authority on the Confederacy?

They illegitimately forced their authority onto the confederacy. That is not to say the Confederacy was inherently good, or inherently justified in seceding, only that the Federal Government did not have the authority to ensure they did not secede. The south renounced their citizenship, and therefore the North had no authority to force them to remain in the union. If you notice, the event that sparked the war was that the south was laying claim to territory belonging to the Federal Government, such as military forts. While Lincoln did not recognize the south as seceded, others in the government did; it was not until the south laid claim to the forts that Lincoln had a justification for pulling them back in by force.

The Mayor of New York City, Fernando Wood, made an address to the City Council in 1861, stating, "When disunion has become a fixed and certain act, why may not New York disrupt the bands which bind her to a venal and corrupt master.... Amid the gloom which the present and prospective condition of things must cast over the country, New York, as a free city, may shed only light and hope of a future reconstruction of our once blessed confederacy. "

You did a good job with what you wrote. I'm nitpicking to really dive deep here.

TY
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 9:38:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/25/2013 4:07:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/25/2013 3:26:53 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/25/2013 12:13:10 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/25/2013 5:54:43 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:11:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:04:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 9:25:19 PM, DanT wrote:
Any thoughts?

I think you summed up the social contract theory pretty well. A question I've been struggling with that your opinion will probably help me out, should we view "implied consent" as acceptable in terms of governance under a social contract just out of pragmatism or do you think there's a moral case to be made as well? If so, what would you say it is?

An express contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the words of both parties. An implied in fact contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the conduct of both parties, rather than their words. An implied in fact contract is not a one way contract; it requires two willing parties.

So your contract only exists figuratively; it is a heuristic device to explain a deal between two or more parties?

No, implied-in-fact contracts are legally binding contracts. When you use a taxi cab you form an implied contract, whereby the taxi driver becomes your agent. Even though there were no verbal negotiations a contract was formed. The agency is automatically terminated when the driver reaches your destination and you compensate him for his services. Likewise, the driver has an implied authority to do what ever is reasonably necessary to fulfill him contractual obligations, and you are obliged to compensate him for it. So if the road was blocked, and he took the long way, you would be obliged to compensate him for those extra miles, despite the original route being shorter.

I'm just seeing examples where the metaphor of a social contract is used to explain an engagement between two people where one uses their advantage to extort wealth from someone else (and I'm phrasing it in as anathema a way as possible to force you to defend your view of social interaction).
How exactly did one party extort wealth from the other? A good or service was exchange for a good or service; money is a form of trade credit that acts as medium of exchange.
Individuals negotiate using their talents to force as much wealth as they can from another based on the need of the other person of their services, and use that leverage to extort wealth.

That contradicts the notion of a contract. A contract requires mutual consideration, so if one party benefits at the expense of the other the contract is void. Legitimate Contracts require a quid pro quo relationship between the two parties, where neither party benefits at the expense of the other.

This is interesting, but I am wary of joining the discussion. Instead I will simply remark on what I've underlined, and ask why is it an assumption that both parties must benefit, if, say, the taxi service ended up costing the passenger so much he didn't have enough for room and board? This would clearly not be beneficial for the customer, yet the customer still has his/her contractual obligation.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 12:14:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
When you use a taxi cab you form an implied contract,
I have a choice to not use a taxi cab. He doesn't just build a taxi cab around where I stand and then hold me at gunpoint. I have to actually actively walk into a taxi cab to agree to any fare.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 12:15:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
A taxi cab that he built mind you (unlike unimproved dirt, which is what the government claims).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 8:14:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 9:38:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/25/2013 4:07:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/25/2013 3:26:53 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/25/2013 12:13:10 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/25/2013 5:54:43 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:11:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:04:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 9:25:19 PM, DanT wrote:
Any thoughts?

I think you summed up the social contract theory pretty well. A question I've been struggling with that your opinion will probably help me out, should we view "implied consent" as acceptable in terms of governance under a social contract just out of pragmatism or do you think there's a moral case to be made as well? If so, what would you say it is?

An express contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the words of both parties. An implied in fact contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the conduct of both parties, rather than their words. An implied in fact contract is not a one way contract; it requires two willing parties.

So your contract only exists figuratively; it is a heuristic device to explain a deal between two or more parties?

No, implied-in-fact contracts are legally binding contracts. When you use a taxi cab you form an implied contract, whereby the taxi driver becomes your agent. Even though there were no verbal negotiations a contract was formed. The agency is automatically terminated when the driver reaches your destination and you compensate him for his services. Likewise, the driver has an implied authority to do what ever is reasonably necessary to fulfill him contractual obligations, and you are obliged to compensate him for it. So if the road was blocked, and he took the long way, you would be obliged to compensate him for those extra miles, despite the original route being shorter.

I'm just seeing examples where the metaphor of a social contract is used to explain an engagement between two people where one uses their advantage to extort wealth from someone else (and I'm phrasing it in as anathema a way as possible to force you to defend your view of social interaction).
How exactly did one party extort wealth from the other? A good or service was exchange for a good or service; money is a form of trade credit that acts as medium of exchange.
Individuals negotiate using their talents to force as much wealth as they can from another based on the need of the other person of their services, and use that leverage to extort wealth.

That contradicts the notion of a contract. A contract requires mutual consideration, so if one party benefits at the expense of the other the contract is void. Legitimate Contracts require a quid pro quo relationship between the two parties, where neither party benefits at the expense of the other.

This is interesting, but I am wary of joining the discussion. Instead I will simply remark on what I've underlined, and ask why is it an assumption that both parties must benefit, if, say, the taxi service ended up costing the passenger so much he didn't have enough for room and board? This would clearly not be beneficial for the customer, yet the customer still has his/her contractual obligation.

The other expenses of the principal has no impact on the fairness of the consideration.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 8:15:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 8:14:37 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/27/2013 9:38:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/25/2013 4:07:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/25/2013 3:26:53 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/25/2013 12:13:10 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/25/2013 5:54:43 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:11:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:04:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 9:25:19 PM, DanT wrote:
Any thoughts?

I think you summed up the social contract theory pretty well. A question I've been struggling with that your opinion will probably help me out, should we view "implied consent" as acceptable in terms of governance under a social contract just out of pragmatism or do you think there's a moral case to be made as well? If so, what would you say it is?

An express contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the words of both parties. An implied in fact contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the conduct of both parties, rather than their words. An implied in fact contract is not a one way contract; it requires two willing parties.

So your contract only exists figuratively; it is a heuristic device to explain a deal between two or more parties?

No, implied-in-fact contracts are legally binding contracts. When you use a taxi cab you form an implied contract, whereby the taxi driver becomes your agent. Even though there were no verbal negotiations a contract was formed. The agency is automatically terminated when the driver reaches your destination and you compensate him for his services. Likewise, the driver has an implied authority to do what ever is reasonably necessary to fulfill him contractual obligations, and you are obliged to compensate him for it. So if the road was blocked, and he took the long way, you would be obliged to compensate him for those extra miles, despite the original route being shorter.

I'm just seeing examples where the metaphor of a social contract is used to explain an engagement between two people where one uses their advantage to extort wealth from someone else (and I'm phrasing it in as anathema a way as possible to force you to defend your view of social interaction).
How exactly did one party extort wealth from the other? A good or service was exchange for a good or service; money is a form of trade credit that acts as medium of exchange.
Individuals negotiate using their talents to force as much wealth as they can from another based on the need of the other person of their services, and use that leverage to extort wealth.

That contradicts the notion of a contract. A contract requires mutual consideration, so if one party benefits at the expense of the other the contract is void. Legitimate Contracts require a quid pro quo relationship between the two parties, where neither party benefits at the expense of the other.

This is interesting, but I am wary of joining the discussion. Instead I will simply remark on what I've underlined, and ask why is it an assumption that both parties must benefit, if, say, the taxi service ended up costing the passenger so much he didn't have enough for room and board? This would clearly not be beneficial for the customer, yet the customer still has his/her contractual obligation.

The other expenses of the principal has no impact on the fairness of the consideration.

The point was to demonstrate that the customer's contractual obligation did not result in a benefit for the customer.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 8:25:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 12:15:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/27/2013 12:14:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
When you use a taxi cab you form an implied contract,
I have a choice to not use a taxi cab. He doesn't just build a taxi cab around where I stand and then hold me at gunpoint. I have to actually actively walk into a taxi cab to agree to any fare.
As a minor you cannot consent to a contract, because you are not competent, your parents must consent for you. After you reach adulthood, you can choose to renounce your citizenship.
http://www.expatinfodesk.com...
A taxi cab that he built mind you (unlike unimproved dirt, which is what the government claims).
>.< The agent is hired by the principal, the Taxi cab has nothing to do with the scenario, other than being a tool of the taxi driver.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 8:29:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 8:15:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/27/2013 8:14:37 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/27/2013 9:38:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/25/2013 4:07:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/25/2013 3:26:53 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/25/2013 12:13:10 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/25/2013 5:54:43 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:11:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:04:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 9:25:19 PM, DanT wrote:
Any thoughts?

I think you summed up the social contract theory pretty well. A question I've been struggling with that your opinion will probably help me out, should we view "implied consent" as acceptable in terms of governance under a social contract just out of pragmatism or do you think there's a moral case to be made as well? If so, what would you say it is?

An express contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the words of both parties. An implied in fact contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the conduct of both parties, rather than their words. An implied in fact contract is not a one way contract; it requires two willing parties.

So your contract only exists figuratively; it is a heuristic device to explain a deal between two or more parties?

No, implied-in-fact contracts are legally binding contracts. When you use a taxi cab you form an implied contract, whereby the taxi driver becomes your agent. Even though there were no verbal negotiations a contract was formed. The agency is automatically terminated when the driver reaches your destination and you compensate him for his services. Likewise, the driver has an implied authority to do what ever is reasonably necessary to fulfill him contractual obligations, and you are obliged to compensate him for it. So if the road was blocked, and he took the long way, you would be obliged to compensate him for those extra miles, despite the original route being shorter.

I'm just seeing examples where the metaphor of a social contract is used to explain an engagement between two people where one uses their advantage to extort wealth from someone else (and I'm phrasing it in as anathema a way as possible to force you to defend your view of social interaction).
How exactly did one party extort wealth from the other? A good or service was exchange for a good or service; money is a form of trade credit that acts as medium of exchange.
Individuals negotiate using their talents to force as much wealth as they can from another based on the need of the other person of their services, and use that leverage to extort wealth.

That contradicts the notion of a contract. A contract requires mutual consideration, so if one party benefits at the expense of the other the contract is void. Legitimate Contracts require a quid pro quo relationship between the two parties, where neither party benefits at the expense of the other.

This is interesting, but I am wary of joining the discussion. Instead I will simply remark on what I've underlined, and ask why is it an assumption that both parties must benefit, if, say, the taxi service ended up costing the passenger so much he didn't have enough for room and board? This would clearly not be beneficial for the customer, yet the customer still has his/her contractual obligation.

The other expenses of the principal has no impact on the fairness of the consideration.

The point was to demonstrate that the customer's contractual obligation did not result in a benefit for the customer.

But the point was irreverent. Just because the customer has other expenses does not mean the taxi driver's services was overpriced. The price of housing is irrelevant to price of transportation. If you have no income, you cannot form a contract whereby you gain something for nothing. When forming contracts there must be mutual consideration.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 8:37:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 8:29:48 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/27/2013 8:15:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/27/2013 8:14:37 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/27/2013 9:38:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/25/2013 4:07:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/25/2013 3:26:53 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/25/2013 12:13:10 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/25/2013 5:54:43 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:11:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:04:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 9:25:19 PM, DanT wrote:
Any thoughts?

I think you summed up the social contract theory pretty well. A question I've been struggling with that your opinion will probably help me out, should we view "implied consent" as acceptable in terms of governance under a social contract just out of pragmatism or do you think there's a moral case to be made as well? If so, what would you say it is?

An express contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the words of both parties. An implied in fact contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the conduct of both parties, rather than their words. An implied in fact contract is not a one way contract; it requires two willing parties.

So your contract only exists figuratively; it is a heuristic device to explain a deal between two or more parties?

No, implied-in-fact contracts are legally binding contracts. When you use a taxi cab you form an implied contract, whereby the taxi driver becomes your agent. Even though there were no verbal negotiations a contract was formed. The agency is automatically terminated when the driver reaches your destination and you compensate him for his services. Likewise, the driver has an implied authority to do what ever is reasonably necessary to fulfill him contractual obligations, and you are obliged to compensate him for it. So if the road was blocked, and he took the long way, you would be obliged to compensate him for those extra miles, despite the original route being shorter.

I'm just seeing examples where the metaphor of a social contract is used to explain an engagement between two people where one uses their advantage to extort wealth from someone else (and I'm phrasing it in as anathema a way as possible to force you to defend your view of social interaction).
How exactly did one party extort wealth from the other? A good or service was exchange for a good or service; money is a form of trade credit that acts as medium of exchange.
Individuals negotiate using their talents to force as much wealth as they can from another based on the need of the other person of their services, and use that leverage to extort wealth.

That contradicts the notion of a contract. A contract requires mutual consideration, so if one party benefits at the expense of the other the contract is void. Legitimate Contracts require a quid pro quo relationship between the two parties, where neither party benefits at the expense of the other.

This is interesting, but I am wary of joining the discussion. Instead I will simply remark on what I've underlined, and ask why is it an assumption that both parties must benefit, if, say, the taxi service ended up costing the passenger so much he didn't have enough for room and board? This would clearly not be beneficial for the customer, yet the customer still has his/her contractual obligation.

The other expenses of the principal has no impact on the fairness of the consideration.

The point was to demonstrate that the customer's contractual obligation did not result in a benefit for the customer.

But the point was irreverent. Just because the customer has other expenses does not mean the taxi driver's services was overpriced. The price of housing is irrelevant to price of transportation. If you have no income, you cannot form a contract whereby you gain something for nothing. When forming contracts there must be mutual consideration.

I didn't say anything about it being overpriced. My point was specific to the lack of customer benefit due to extenuating circumstances that still created a contractual obligation for the customer. This point directly refutes your underlined statements above.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 8:44:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 8:37:06 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/27/2013 8:29:48 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/27/2013 8:15:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/27/2013 8:14:37 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/27/2013 9:38:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/25/2013 4:07:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/25/2013 3:26:53 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/25/2013 12:13:10 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/25/2013 5:54:43 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:11:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:04:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 9:25:19 PM, DanT wrote:
Any thoughts?

I think you summed up the social contract theory pretty well. A question I've been struggling with that your opinion will probably help me out, should we view "implied consent" as acceptable in terms of governance under a social contract just out of pragmatism or do you think there's a moral case to be made as well? If so, what would you say it is?

An express contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the words of both parties. An implied in fact contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the conduct of both parties, rather than their words. An implied in fact contract is not a one way contract; it requires two willing parties.

So your contract only exists figuratively; it is a heuristic device to explain a deal between two or more parties?

No, implied-in-fact contracts are legally binding contracts. When you use a taxi cab you form an implied contract, whereby the taxi driver becomes your agent. Even though there were no verbal negotiations a contract was formed. The agency is automatically terminated when the driver reaches your destination and you compensate him for his services. Likewise, the driver has an implied authority to do what ever is reasonably necessary to fulfill him contractual obligations, and you are obliged to compensate him for it. So if the road was blocked, and he took the long way, you would be obliged to compensate him for those extra miles, despite the original route being shorter.

I'm just seeing examples where the metaphor of a social contract is used to explain an engagement between two people where one uses their advantage to extort wealth from someone else (and I'm phrasing it in as anathema a way as possible to force you to defend your view of social interaction).
How exactly did one party extort wealth from the other? A good or service was exchange for a good or service; money is a form of trade credit that acts as medium of exchange.
Individuals negotiate using their talents to force as much wealth as they can from another based on the need of the other person of their services, and use that leverage to extort wealth.

That contradicts the notion of a contract. A contract requires mutual consideration, so if one party benefits at the expense of the other the contract is void. Legitimate Contracts require a quid pro quo relationship between the two parties, where neither party benefits at the expense of the other.

This is interesting, but I am wary of joining the discussion. Instead I will simply remark on what I've underlined, and ask why is it an assumption that both parties must benefit, if, say, the taxi service ended up costing the passenger so much he didn't have enough for room and board? This would clearly not be beneficial for the customer, yet the customer still has his/her contractual obligation.

The other expenses of the principal has no impact on the fairness of the consideration.

The point was to demonstrate that the customer's contractual obligation did not result in a benefit for the customer.

But the point was irreverent. Just because the customer has other expenses does not mean the taxi driver's services was overpriced. The price of housing is irrelevant to price of transportation. If you have no income, you cannot form a contract whereby you gain something for nothing. When forming contracts there must be mutual consideration.

I didn't say anything about it being overpriced. My point was specific to the lack of customer benefit due to extenuating circumstances that still created a contractual obligation for the customer. This point directly refutes your underlined statements above.

No it doesn't. Mutual Consideration has nothing to do with the principal's obligations to unrelated parties.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 8:45:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 8:44:31 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/27/2013 8:37:06 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/27/2013 8:29:48 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/27/2013 8:15:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/27/2013 8:14:37 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/27/2013 9:38:39 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/25/2013 4:07:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/25/2013 3:26:53 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/25/2013 12:13:10 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/25/2013 5:54:43 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/24/2013 10:11:03 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/23/2013 10:04:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 11/23/2013 9:25:19 PM, DanT wrote:
Any thoughts?

I think you summed up the social contract theory pretty well. A question I've been struggling with that your opinion will probably help me out, should we view "implied consent" as acceptable in terms of governance under a social contract just out of pragmatism or do you think there's a moral case to be made as well? If so, what would you say it is?

An express contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the words of both parties. An implied in fact contract is a contract where the terms are created and defined by the conduct of both parties, rather than their words. An implied in fact contract is not a one way contract; it requires two willing parties.

So your contract only exists figuratively; it is a heuristic device to explain a deal between two or more parties?

No, implied-in-fact contracts are legally binding contracts. When you use a taxi cab you form an implied contract, whereby the taxi driver becomes your agent. Even though there were no verbal negotiations a contract was formed. The agency is automatically terminated when the driver reaches your destination and you compensate him for his services. Likewise, the driver has an implied authority to do what ever is reasonably necessary to fulfill him contractual obligations, and you are obliged to compensate him for it. So if the road was blocked, and he took the long way, you would be obliged to compensate him for those extra miles, despite the original route being shorter.

I'm just seeing examples where the metaphor of a social contract is used to explain an engagement between two people where one uses their advantage to extort wealth from someone else (and I'm phrasing it in as anathema a way as possible to force you to defend your view of social interaction).
How exactly did one party extort wealth from the other? A good or service was exchange for a good or service; money is a form of trade credit that acts as medium of exchange.
Individuals negotiate using their talents to force as much wealth as they can from another based on the need of the other person of their services, and use that leverage to extort wealth.

That contradicts the notion of a contract. A contract requires mutual consideration, so if one party benefits at the expense of the other the contract is void. Legitimate Contracts require a quid pro quo relationship between the two parties, where neither party benefits at the expense of the other.

This is interesting, but I am wary of joining the discussion. Instead I will simply remark on what I've underlined, and ask why is it an assumption that both parties must benefit, if, say, the taxi service ended up costing the passenger so much he didn't have enough for room and board? This would clearly not be beneficial for the customer, yet the customer still has his/her contractual obligation.

The other expenses of the principal has no impact on the fairness of the consideration.

The point was to demonstrate that the customer's contractual obligation did not result in a benefit for the customer.

But the point was irreverent. Just because the customer has other expenses does not mean the taxi driver's services was overpriced. The price of housing is irrelevant to price of transportation. If you have no income, you cannot form a contract whereby you gain something for nothing. When forming contracts there must be mutual consideration.

I didn't say anything about it being overpriced. My point was specific to the lack of customer benefit due to extenuating circumstances that still created a contractual obligation for the customer. This point directly refutes your underlined statements above.

No it doesn't. Mutual Consideration has nothing to do with the principal's obligations to unrelated parties.


At this point I will stop the conversation. Thanks for the mental exercise.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 3:21:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 8:25:35 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/27/2013 12:15:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/27/2013 12:14:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
When you use a taxi cab you form an implied contract,
I have a choice to not use a taxi cab. He doesn't just build a taxi cab around where I stand and then hold me at gunpoint. I have to actually actively walk into a taxi cab to agree to any fare.
As a minor you cannot consent to a contract, because you are not competent, your parents must consent for you. After you reach adulthood, you can choose to renounce your citizenship.

-There is nowhere to go.
-The government's claims still vastly exceed anything that might justify it having any claims
-I disagree with the claim of extreme minor incompetence (which is equivalent to minor nonhumanity per definition of human: Rational animal)
-If you don't disagree, that does not render the concept of "consent for" someone who has not given you voluntary power of attorney any more coherent.

http://www.expatinfodesk.com...

>.< The agent is hired by the principal, the Taxi cab has nothing to do with the scenario, other than being a tool of the taxi driver.
The entire notion that by not leaving the country I consent to the government I assumes that the government has a rightful claim of the entire country as its, as you put it, "tool."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 3:22:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Second "I" in last sentence is typo.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2013 6:45:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 3:21:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/27/2013 8:25:35 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/27/2013 12:15:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/27/2013 12:14:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
When you use a taxi cab you form an implied contract,
I have a choice to not use a taxi cab. He doesn't just build a taxi cab around where I stand and then hold me at gunpoint. I have to actually actively walk into a taxi cab to agree to any fare.
As a minor you cannot consent to a contract, because you are not competent, your parents must consent for you. After you reach adulthood, you can choose to renounce your citizenship.

-There is nowhere to go.
-The government's claims still vastly exceed anything that might justify it having any claims
-I disagree with the claim of extreme minor incompetence (which is equivalent to minor nonhumanity per definition of human: Rational animal)
-If you don't disagree, that does not render the concept of "consent for" someone who has not given you voluntary power of attorney any more coherent.

http://www.expatinfodesk.com...


>.< The agent is hired by the principal, the Taxi cab has nothing to do with the scenario, other than being a tool of the taxi driver.
The entire notion that by not leaving the country I consent to the government I assumes that the government has a rightful claim of the entire country as its, as you put it, "tool."

1.) You are working under the assumption that a non-citizen cannot be a resident.
2.) A single citizen is not the only principal, just like the holder of a single share is not the only principal of a corporation. The acts of corporate management is considered acts of the corporation, unless it conflicts with the interests of the shareholders. Likewise, the acts of Government is considered the acts of the nation, unless it conflicts with the interests of the nation. A single citizen a nation does not make. If a majority of the nation disproves of the current form of government, that government is rendered invalid, but if those who disapprove is in the minority the government is not invalid, but those people have a right to renounce their ties to the government.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 10:30:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/29/2013 6:45:56 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/29/2013 3:21:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/27/2013 8:25:35 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/27/2013 12:15:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/27/2013 12:14:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
When you use a taxi cab you form an implied contract,
I have a choice to not use a taxi cab. He doesn't just build a taxi cab around where I stand and then hold me at gunpoint. I have to actually actively walk into a taxi cab to agree to any fare.
As a minor you cannot consent to a contract, because you are not competent, your parents must consent for you. After you reach adulthood, you can choose to renounce your citizenship.

-There is nowhere to go.
-The government's claims still vastly exceed anything that might justify it having any claims
-I disagree with the claim of extreme minor incompetence (which is equivalent to minor nonhumanity per definition of human: Rational animal)
-If you don't disagree, that does not render the concept of "consent for" someone who has not given you voluntary power of attorney any more coherent.

http://www.expatinfodesk.com...


>.< The agent is hired by the principal, the Taxi cab has nothing to do with the scenario, other than being a tool of the taxi driver.
The entire notion that by not leaving the country I consent to the government I assumes that the government has a rightful claim of the entire country as its, as you put it, "tool."

1.) You are working under the assumption that a non-citizen cannot be a resident.

I thought you were. I'm entirely in favor of residents within a jurisdiction being able to choose to sever all relations of purchasing protection, etc, with the government, so long as they do not aggress.

2.) A single citizen is not the only principal, just like the holder of a single share is not the only principal of a corporation.
The only parties to a corporation are individual persons who CHOSE to buy shares.

Likewise, the acts of Government is considered the acts of the nation, unless it conflicts with the interests of the nation.
A nation isn't a thing with interests.

A single citizen a nation does not make. If a majority of the nation disproves of the current form of government, that government is rendered invalid, but if those who disapprove is in the minority the government is not invalid
Aggression is aggression. Majorities make aggression harder to deal with, but not morally superior.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2013 6:52:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 10:30:41 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/29/2013 6:45:56 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/29/2013 3:21:54 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/27/2013 8:25:35 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/27/2013 12:15:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/27/2013 12:14:43 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
When you use a taxi cab you form an implied contract,
I have a choice to not use a taxi cab. He doesn't just build a taxi cab around where I stand and then hold me at gunpoint. I have to actually actively walk into a taxi cab to agree to any fare.
As a minor you cannot consent to a contract, because you are not competent, your parents must consent for you. After you reach adulthood, you can choose to renounce your citizenship.

-There is nowhere to go.
-The government's claims still vastly exceed anything that might justify it having any claims
-I disagree with the claim of extreme minor incompetence (which is equivalent to minor nonhumanity per definition of human: Rational animal)
-If you don't disagree, that does not render the concept of "consent for" someone who has not given you voluntary power of attorney any more coherent.

http://www.expatinfodesk.com...


>.< The agent is hired by the principal, the Taxi cab has nothing to do with the scenario, other than being a tool of the taxi driver.
The entire notion that by not leaving the country I consent to the government I assumes that the government has a rightful claim of the entire country as its, as you put it, "tool."

1.) You are working under the assumption that a non-citizen cannot be a resident.

I thought you were. I'm entirely in favor of residents within a jurisdiction being able to choose to sever all relations of purchasing protection, etc, with the government, so long as they do not aggress.

2.) A single citizen is not the only principal, just like the holder of a single share is not the only principal of a corporation.
The only parties to a corporation are individual persons who CHOSE to buy shares.

Not always true. Municipalities are corporations. Also the people who held the shares originally sell the shares to the buyers. It is more logical to say that shareholders can always sell their shares.
Likewise, the acts of Government is considered the acts of the nation, unless it conflicts with the interests of the nation.
A nation isn't a thing with interests.

That is like saying a corporation isn't a thing with interests. The government must serve the general welfare of the nation, otherwise the government is rendered illegitimate.
A single citizen a nation does not make. If a majority of the nation disproves of the current form of government, that government is rendered invalid, but if those who disapprove is in the minority the government is not invalid
Aggression is aggression. Majorities make aggression harder to deal with, but not morally superior.
Never said anything about moral superiority. The most logical option is not always the most moral option. If everyone in a group of 3 people wanted to go to pizza hut, but 1 guy preferred Chinese, the most logical option would be to go to pizza hut, and if that one guy preferred he could leave the group and go to a Chinese restaurant. That is the most logical conclusion. The most moral conclusion would be to reduce the satisfaction everyone in the group gains from their meal, by finding a place everyone equally likes; this option may result in everyone going to their 3rd, 4th, or 5th favorite restaurant, thereby reducing everyone's overall satisfaction.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 5:51:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2013 6:52:43 AM, DanT wrote:
Not always true. Municipalities are corporations.
Equivocating hard man.

Also the people who held the shares originally sell the shares to the buyers.
Who, by buying, consent.

It is more logical to say that shareholders can always sell their shares.
That would miss the logical and MOST IMPORTANT part-- that shareholders bought in in the first goddamn place.

Likewise, the acts of Government is considered the acts of the nation, unless it conflicts with the interests of the nation.
A nation isn't a thing with interests.

That is like saying a corporation isn't a thing with interests.
It's not as such but it can be effectively spoken of in that manner due to that subset of interests which is universally acceded among those who bought into the corporation (traditionally outlined in a charter). Governments have no similarly unanimous analogue.

The government must serve the general welfare of the nation
There is no such thing.

otherwise the government is rendered illegitimate.
Gee, it's almost like I've been calling the government illegitimate the whole time.

Never said anything about moral superiority. The most logical option is not always the most moral option.
Morality proceeds logically from a choice of values.

If everyone in a group of 3 people wanted to go to pizza hut, but 1 guy preferred Chinese, the most logical option would be to go to pizza hut, and if that one guy preferred he could leave the group and go to a Chinese restaurant. That is the most logical conclusion. The most moral conclusion would be to reduce the satisfaction everyone in the group gains from their meal, by finding a place everyone equally likes; this option may result in everyone going to their 3rd, 4th, or 5th favorite restaurant, thereby reducing everyone's overall satisfaction.
I don't know what the hell you consider morality to be but I don't like it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 8:57:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2013 5:51:20 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/1/2013 6:52:43 AM, DanT wrote:
Not always true. Municipalities are corporations.
Equivocating hard man.

I'm not equivocating. Municipalities are public corporations, as is the US postal service, the Boy Scouts, the Federal Reserve, and so on.
Also the people who held the shares originally sell the shares to the buyers.
Who, by buying, consent.

>.< way to dodge the point.
It is more logical to say that shareholders can always sell their shares.
That would miss the logical and MOST IMPORTANT part-- that shareholders bought in in the first goddamn place.

We have a chicken and egg scenario; what came first the buyer or seller. Of course we know the answer is obviously the seller. The founders of the corporation didn't buy in.

Likewise, the acts of Government is considered the acts of the nation, unless it conflicts with the interests of the nation.
A nation isn't a thing with interests.

That is like saying a corporation isn't a thing with interests.
It's not as such but it can be effectively spoken of in that manner due to that subset of interests which is universally acceded among those who bought into the corporation (traditionally outlined in a charter). Governments have no similarly unanimous analogue.

Not necessarily those who bought in. A corporation's interests are the interests of it's owners aka shareholders.
The government must serve the general welfare of the nation
There is no such thing.

Yes there is.
otherwise the government is rendered illegitimate.
Gee, it's almost like I've been calling the government illegitimate the whole time.

I know you've been calling the government illegitimate. You cut my sentence in half. I said a government is illigitimate when it does not represent the interests of the people.

Never said anything about moral superiority. The most logical option is not always the most moral option.
Morality proceeds logically from a choice of values.

In your view. It is morally right to give all your possessions, other than the bare necessities, to charity; it is also highly illogical. It is morally correct to give hitchhikers a ride; it is also highly illogical. It is morally correct to martyr yourself, it is also highly illogical.

If everyone in a group of 3 people wanted to go to pizza hut, but 1 guy preferred Chinese, the most logical option would be to go to pizza hut, and if that one guy preferred he could leave the group and go to a Chinese restaurant. That is the most logical conclusion. The most moral conclusion would be to reduce the satisfaction everyone in the group gains from their meal, by finding a place everyone equally likes; this option may result in everyone going to their 3rd, 4th, or 5th favorite restaurant, thereby reducing everyone's overall satisfaction.
I don't know what the hell you consider morality to be but I don't like it.
Morality is good conduct and immorality is bad conduct; it deals with right vs wrong, good vs evil.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle