Post by eye2i2hear on Dec 1, 2006 14:16:00 GMT -5
Double D (DarrenDirt) quoted:
This is an arena that I've often been mentally pricked by.
As first, who defines the phrase "social contract"? Is it like most terms? Having a daffynition that often has little if anything to do with common lingo (aka common sense)? That's what I suspect, and as sadly, the common folk romp off on their "legal" definition of contract, for Them it matters not an iota. And so who established "the premise"? [this phrase even gets complicated, as just who has the common sense understanding vs who has the legal one?!]
Where regardless, then, of course the ultimate "vote" They (Statists) actually understand-- whether We The People do or not. Which is then: where one spends one's money, as time is money (and we "spend time"). One's 'ballot' is one's coin and folding money; currency* = paper ballot. Thus again, all this other premise biz is mere smoke and mirror distraction, centrally as indoctriNation ("in-doctoring-a-nation") via propaganda.
I offer that the facts State that the "social contract" is simply what any one, as then everyone, by their inaction-- as conversely then their action observed --supports. As its often said: Actions speak (louder than words). The Statists actually revel in our debating "the premises", I fear. *[do They call it "currency" because it in fact is known to be Their "energizer" as what "powers" Them up?]
Thus the commonly sensed "signing" of the "contract" social is less the formal "signature" and more the "sign" given in "mere" acquiescence. It is what is accepted as then, ultimately, what's paid for. It used to be, as I understand it, the premise that a mans hand shake was his sign(ature) after all. Put his money in that same hand and observe where he spends it and perhaps you get to the ultimate contract social (see "pass the buck)!? As the ole Travis Tritt/Bill Engvall song title humorously puts it: "Here's Yore Sign" (stupid).
In all this of course then, I agree with Stefan Molyneux; the battle is in addressing the immorality. Thus not the terms or the words defining, legal or common, nor the premise. Its all in where one "invests" their time, as time spent. The primary immoral act of course is the tax guy with the gun (motivating said investment). The secondary immoral act is the deceit via term-anology; followed closely by the cowardice that ignores such nonsense that allows it-- or that prevents addressing it "socially"?
me/ exits soapbox here X
...the modern state is premised on a "social contract" theory wherein men and women, being free to act individually to protect their lives and property from wrongdoers, may establish a political system to perform this function on their behalf. Individuals, in other words, are supposed to be the principals, and state officials their agents.
There is no evidence, of course, that any state system ever came into existence as a result of a contract unanimously entered into by a nation of people. Political systems have always been brought about by conquest, by naked coercion, by the same forces of victimization that it was the theoretical purpose of the state to prevent! When government officials interfere with the right of secession they are, in effect, announcing to us all the fraudulent nature of the so-called "social contract."
- Butler Shaffer, Wizards of Ozymandias ("XXVI -- If At First You Don't Secede")
There is no evidence, of course, that any state system ever came into existence as a result of a contract unanimously entered into by a nation of people. Political systems have always been brought about by conquest, by naked coercion, by the same forces of victimization that it was the theoretical purpose of the state to prevent! When government officials interfere with the right of secession they are, in effect, announcing to us all the fraudulent nature of the so-called "social contract."
- Butler Shaffer, Wizards of Ozymandias ("XXVI -- If At First You Don't Secede")
This is an arena that I've often been mentally pricked by.
As first, who defines the phrase "social contract"? Is it like most terms? Having a daffynition that often has little if anything to do with common lingo (aka common sense)? That's what I suspect, and as sadly, the common folk romp off on their "legal" definition of contract, for Them it matters not an iota. And so who established "the premise"? [this phrase even gets complicated, as just who has the common sense understanding vs who has the legal one?!]
Where regardless, then, of course the ultimate "vote" They (Statists) actually understand-- whether We The People do or not. Which is then: where one spends one's money, as time is money (and we "spend time"). One's 'ballot' is one's coin and folding money; currency* = paper ballot. Thus again, all this other premise biz is mere smoke and mirror distraction, centrally as indoctriNation ("in-doctoring-a-nation") via propaganda.
I offer that the facts State that the "social contract" is simply what any one, as then everyone, by their inaction-- as conversely then their action observed --supports. As its often said: Actions speak (louder than words). The Statists actually revel in our debating "the premises", I fear. *[do They call it "currency" because it in fact is known to be Their "energizer" as what "powers" Them up?]
Thus the commonly sensed "signing" of the "contract" social is less the formal "signature" and more the "sign" given in "mere" acquiescence. It is what is accepted as then, ultimately, what's paid for. It used to be, as I understand it, the premise that a mans hand shake was his sign(ature) after all. Put his money in that same hand and observe where he spends it and perhaps you get to the ultimate contract social (see "pass the buck)!? As the ole Travis Tritt/Bill Engvall song title humorously puts it: "Here's Yore Sign" (stupid).
In all this of course then, I agree with Stefan Molyneux; the battle is in addressing the immorality. Thus not the terms or the words defining, legal or common, nor the premise. Its all in where one "invests" their time, as time spent. The primary immoral act of course is the tax guy with the gun (motivating said investment). The secondary immoral act is the deceit via term-anology; followed closely by the cowardice that ignores such nonsense that allows it-- or that prevents addressing it "socially"?
me/ exits soapbox here X
"And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement. And that's what it is , the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come's around on the guitar." 
