Posted on 02/20/2006 6:24:40 AM PST by Shalom Israel
It works no other way, my friend---as we've seen to our detriment.
Try something you've never tried before. Try saying what a contract is, what a "social" contract is, and how the Constitution is one. You'll find it eye opening.
-- you've never tried to define "social contract,"
Izzy not that long ago:
So far, you haven't actually said what a social contract is, so it's hard to attack your definition.
-- When you do, I'll smash your definition, sending you back to square one.
--- Here's a pretty good preamble to & definition of a social contract:
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Posted at #343.
You made no effort to attack my definition then. -- And I doubt you can now.
#357
Kris comments:
For tpaine: If he declines to "smash" for me because his post was to you, I respectfully request you cut and paste the above definitions and send them to him.
As we see Kris, - Izzy cannot "smash" our Constitution, so he chose to 'answer' your post with another of his rambling diatribes.. -- In which he simply denies that he is bound by Constitutional law.
He's a Lysander Spooner type anarchist.
In his essay 'The Constitution of No Authority' Spooner opens:
"The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation." - "It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago."
Spooner concludes:
"-- Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, ... it is unfit to exist. --"
Thanks for reminding me. I meant to reply to that, before I saw a flood from KrisKrinkle. To sum up your argument:
You want to prove: The Constitution is a social contract.
Your definition of social contract: The Constitution
Circular reasoning at its finest. Do you do bar mitzvahs?
It's preamble is a definition of that social contract.
You want to prove: The Constitution is not a social contract.
You claimed that :
"-- I'll smash your definition, sending you back to square one. --"
Smash away Izzy.
Our Constitution is a social contract. It's preamble is a definition of that social contract.
You claim it's a social contract. You want to prove it. You need to do more than repeat the claim over and over. If you say the constitution is a social contract, and then you say a social contract is the constitution, you are going around in a circle.
If you want to prove that the Constitution has legitimate force over me, then there's another thing you can't do. You can't point out that the Constitution says it does. The question is, where does it get the authority to go saying it's got that authority?
If you try to use that argument, I'll answer that the Bible has authority over you. I'll prove it by quoting the Bible verses that say so. Then I'll force you to adopt my religion. Salt to taste. Serve with red wine.
It's preamble is a definition of that social contract.
You want to prove: The Constitution is not a social contract.
You claimed that :
"-- I'll smash your definition, sending you back to square one. --"
Smash away Izzy.
You claim it's a social contract. You want to prove it. You need to do more than repeat the claim over and over.
You need to "smash" my definition. You haven't with that line.
If you say the constitution is a social contract, and then you say a social contract is the constitution, you are going around in a circle.
You need to "smash" my definition. You haven't with that line.
If you want to prove that the Constitution has legitimate force over me, then there's another thing you can't do.
You need to "smash" my definition. You haven't with that line.
You can't point out that the Constitution says it does.
You need to "smash" my definition. You haven't with that line.
The question is, where does it get the authority to go saying it's got that authority?
You need to "smash" my definition. You haven't with that question.
If you try to use that argument, I'll answer that the Bible has authority over you. I'll prove it by quoting the Bible verses that say so. Then I'll force you to adopt my religion. Salt to taste. Serve with red wine.
You need to "smash" my definition. You haven't with that comment.
Izzy, it's apparent you can't "smash" my definition. -- Instead you're attempting to divert attention from that fact.
Face it; you aren't very good at arguing libertarian & Constitutional logic. - I've called your bluff on "smashing".
The Constitutions preamble is a definition of the social contract embodied in that document. - You cannot refute that fact, [much less smash it] and you haven't even tried..
"Your definition begs the original question." Smashed. Next?
Sigh. Once again your invincible ignorance protects you from actually noticing when you're beaten. If you had even half a brain, you'd have realized that I answered you in my first reply. Then again, if you had half a brain, you wouldn't keep triumphantly flaunting your ciruclar reasoning.
i never tried to "refute the preamble"; indeed there's nothing to refute there. Rather, I did refute your circular definition of "social contract".
"It would depend on the circumstances. If the demographics are right, having 10-15% of a population die of old age in a 10-15 year period wouldn't be unusual. What do you think government would do about this, and why don't you answer the original question?"
These people didn't die of old age. They did from famine and disease following the collapse of the central government. So, do you think the prevention of the deaths of a million people from disease and famine is a legitimate function of government?
The original question? By that I presume you mean do I think any central government could have prevented this? Well, it happened after the central government collapsed, not before.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. I bet you didn't know it, but I put a voodoo curse on them, shortly before the government fell and all those people died. So now you know the real cause of all that suffering...
But can you prove that "after this" really means "because of this"? Are you sure that the government itself didn't create the circumstances that led to starvation? In other words, maybe the starvation came because the government didn't fall soon enough.
"-- I'll smash your definition, sending you back to square one. --"
The Constitutions preamble is a definition of the social contract embodied in that document. - You cannot refute that fact, [much less smash it] and you haven't even tried.
i never tried to "refute the preamble";
Is there an echo in here?
-- indeed there's nothing to refute there.
So your circular argument goes, -- because you can't refute the preamble as a definition.
Rather, I did refute your circular definition of "social contract".
Where? -- I made no such "circular definition". You're simply inventing your refutation to avoid trying to "smash" the one I did tender.
You can't prove the Constitution is a "social contract" by first defining "social contract" to mean "the Constitituion". The last 50 exchanges with you have been a waste of time; I'm finished.
"-- I'll smash your definition, sending you back to square one. --"
The Constitutions preamble is a definition of the social contract embodied in that document. - You cannot refute that fact, [much less smash it] and you haven't even tried.
I never tried to "refute the preamble"; indeed there's nothing to refute there.
So your circular argument goes, -- because you can't refute the preamble as a definition.
Rather, I did refute your circular definition of "social contract".
Where? -- I made no such "circular definition". You're simply inventing your refutation to avoid trying to "smash" the one I did tender.
You can't prove the Constitution is a "social contract" by first defining "social contract" to mean "the Constitituion". The last 50 exchanges with you have been a waste of time; I'm finished.
You never got started..
The preamble to the Constitution is a self evident definition of its intent to establish a social contract between "We the People".
"-- We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. --"
"But can you prove that "after this" really means "because of this"? Are you sure that the government itself didn't create the circumstances that led to starvation? In other words, maybe the starvation came because the government didn't fall soon enough."
Perfect libertarian logic as expressed by the Von Mises Institute. Government is the cause of all evil. If you read the article I posted the link to, you'll notice that VMI argued that the people of Somalia were better off without the central government even if one million deaths due to starvation and disease followed the fall of the government.
But that is beside the point. The question I have posed is this: "Would the prevention of a million deaths from disease and starvation a proper function of a government?"
The obvious ad hominem aside, can you in fact prove that the "collapse of government" caused "the death of millions"?
"Would the prevention of a million deaths from disease and starvation a proper function of a government?"
It would be the proper job for anyone, including the wizard of Oz. Asking that question puts the cart before the horse: the real question is, was lack of government directly responsible for those deaths?
“At the beginning, you aren't on his land.”
You have incorrectly assumed an implicit agreement on our part that “…you aren’t on his land” was a condition. I did not willingly enter into any such agreement.
All I said was “It looks like you’re saying that if he wants he can ban the life and liberty of others; that if they are on his property, the owner can kill someone at will or prevent someone from leaving.”
I said that because to me it looks like you’re saying that when you say “…he can ban anything he wants on his property…”
I put no conditions on “he can ban.” Without conditions it doesn’t matter if one is on his property in the beginning or not. Your assertion is that “he can ban” therefore absent anything else (and there was nothing else) he can do so at anytime, even if he extended an invitation. And if the property owner decides to ban someone’s life, for being a trespasser after he withdrew the invitation without allowing time to leave or anything else, the property owner would not have allow time to leave before effecting the ban.
The rest of the mess came from your attributing things to me (or to an implied agreement I didn’t willingly enter).
But I already understand that you regard your statement “…he can ban anything he wants on his property…” as a little too broad and all encompassing.
“If he allowed you on it, then by doing so he has made a contract not to shoot you (unless you attack him).”
Ok, I’ll stipulate that nobody ever allowed someone else on their property with the intent of shooting them, or if they did do so they were thwarted from their intent by remembering the implicit contract they made to not shoot them even though they had forgotten about this contract at the time they allowed the someone on their property (and thus did not enter it willingly) because the whole purpose of allowing them on the property was to shoot them.
“Doesn't work: you're saying that I entered into a contract, even though I didn't, with other citizens, who also didn't enter into any contract. To enter a contract, you must do something that creates the contract.”
No.
You wrote: “You (or someone in this thread) denied that the government is the "other party" to the "social contract," which leaves no adhesing party at all.”
I wrote: “But that doesn’t leave “no adhesing party at all.” The other adhesing party or parties would be other citizens.”
I meant to do no more than refute your assertion that there was only one possible adhesing party for you to deny entering a contract with.
“You didn't explain where that someone, whoever they're supposed to be, got the right to give me such an ultimatum.”
Perhaps they think they have a right to free association and they don’t want to allow you into their society except under their conditions.
Perhaps they think they have some property right in the society in which they have invested time and money and are unwilling to grant you an ownership right if you are unwilling to grant acceptance of the rules of their society in exchange.
Perhaps.
However, it seems to me that discussing all that is pointless (as is too much of this thread) without coming to some agreement on the concept of the Social Contract.
“So the only conclusion is that I entered into a contractual relationship the minute I was born.”
As I said: “In any case, some of the privileges of the social contract accrue to minors because we can allow that if we choose and we have so chosen. We have also chosen not to require all the obligations of the contract from minors till they have reached a stage of maturity and understanding at which we can reasonably expect them to fulfill those obligations, which we may have arbitrarily declared to be at the age of 18. To do otherwise would not be just. And we’d have to put too many of them in prison.”
“I do sign implied contracts. I do it by, for example, granting you permission to enter my land.”
I almost didn’t recognize that as a play on words—humor.
When tpaine used the word “sign” I infer he meant: The subscription of one's name; signature. To mark with characters or one's name. To sign a paper, note, deed, &c. is to write one's name at the foot, or underneath the declaration, promise, covenant, grant, &c., by which the person makes it his own act, To sign one's name, is to write or subscribe it on the paper. Like when you take pen in hand and write your name on a check.
When you used the word “sign” I infer you meant: To signify. To make known something, either by signs or words; to express or communicate to another any idea, thought, wish, by a nod, wink, gesture, signal or other sign. A man signifies his mind by his voice or by written characters; he may signify his mind by a nod or other motion, provided the person to whom he directs it, understands what is intend by it.
But what I wrote was “If our Constitutions contract doesn't need signing and therefore is not a contract for that reason, then neither an implied contract or an adhesive contract are contracts because they don't need signing.”
Responding to that by attributing one meaning of the word sign to the first part and another to the second part may be humorous but it is not truly responsive.
“Thank you; you stand corrected. “
Where do I stand corrected? Where did I say I agreed with each, any or all of these definitions? I merely offered them up for you to smash. I tried to scan them for relevance but not for agreement.
“Did you know when you posted them, that you were regurgitating multiple versions of the two definitions I'd already debunked? Or did you honestly think these were different in some way?”
Neither thing was a consideration. You offered to smash and I tried to give you an opportunity. But I might offer rebuttal to your attempts at another time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.