He believes in a state monopoly of roads. He may be less statist than, say, your average democrat, but he is indeed statist. He has stated his belief in "public", i.e., state-owned, "roads". Public roads means the state acquiring property, in order to "protect" the "freedom" of travelling on said state-owned property. Thus, "liberty" (of travel) "trumps property." Do you imagine to yourself that the road fairy comes at night and lays down pavement? If not, how did you imagine it was done? More to the point, how did you imagine it was paid for, and how did you imagine land is acquired for new roads?
Our Constitution is perfectly clear on the subject, and the author & I support it on that issue..
You, quite irrationally, - do not.
Describing the position that roads should be socialised as "statist" does not tell you whether I agree or disagree with that position.
Your rant above amply shows your position. You disagree with our Constitution.
Have you renounced your citizenship Izzy, and left?
You said that "we" formed the United States. Independence was declared 229 years ago, so neither you nor I were there. Yet you used the word "we", even though you clearly didn't mean "we". I called your attention to it with a question. You replied, as I expected you to, that "we" doesn't mean "we", it means "we the people."
In context, I meant 'we', as 'we the people'. You're simply being a juvenile nitpicker, playing the "yo' mamma" game.
The reason I called your attention to this is to address another significant fallacy you hold. You believe that there is an entity, called "society," which has special rights and needs superseding those of the individual.
More "yo' momma" bull. You're inventing that 'special rights' line.
For example, "society" needs roads, even if I were utterly convinced that roads are a bad idea.
America doesn't need roads? -- You're getting weird again. - We're nearly finished.
And "society" needs my garbage to be collected, which gives "society" the right to tax me for that service, even if I'd rather burn it, bury it, or dispose of it in some other way. In reality there is no such entity with rights of its own; only individual human beings have rights.
And your individual neighbor may have the right to object, Constitutionally, about how you burn or bury your garbage izzy. -- Think about it.
"Society" or "the state" is a term which gives a certain interpretation to the deeds of individuals. For example, if one man in jeans shoots someone, we say that he killed somebody. If another man, in a blue uniform, shoots someone, we say "the police" killed somebody. If yet another man lethally injects someone, after being so ordered by a man in a black robe, we say that "the state" killed the man. In every case, the killing was done by a specific person. We attribute some people's deeds to an imaginary individual, "the state", to express the interpretation that his actions represent the carrying out of law. The importance of this becomes clear why you use the term "we the people". "We the people" instituted a drinking age of 21, and until ten years ago or so, a speed limit of 55 mph. What does that mean? In reality, some men in suits declared these to be "laws." and other men in blue uniforms began imprisoning people who violated those laws. When you say "we the people" did it, you mean that "the government" did it, which in turn really means that certain individuals did it. This distinction is often unimportant, so we say "the cable company" put in our new cable, rather than naming the individual. But it's important to understand the implications of this figure of speech. When you say "the state" banned smoking in private homes in some town, you are saying two things: (1) certain individuals ordered this ban, and (2) you consider their doing so to be proper and lawful. When you say "we the people" did so, you are saying the same thing, but you are implying something more. Namely, you are implying that those individuals were not only acting properly and lawfully, but they were in fact acting on each of our behalves in particular. That is, Bush didn't just pass a humongous budget because he had the power to, but acting as the agent of Shalom Israel, his budget is in fact deemed to be my budget, as if I'd personally ordered him to submit it. The intent is to strengthen the implied legitimacy, as if to say, "If you didn't want Bush to spend so much money, you shouldn't have ordered him to." Your reasoning is fallacious. Some laws are utterly improper, but by your reasoning this is impossible, since "we the people" made them. Kelo v New London is the rightful law of the land, because "we the people", meaning the SC justices, made it so. The japanese internment was moral and just, because "we the people", meaning Roosevelt, said so. Likewise the Trail of Tears, slavery, Jim Crow, Dred Scott, Prohibition and many other examples. All proper because "we" did it, meaning you, tpaine. You are responsible for slavery and Jim Crow--
Good grief man, you've slipped a cog or two. -- My apologies if I've helped set you off, but calm down. - And get some help.
unless you've renounced your citizenship. Have you?
No, I took an oath to protect & defend the Constitution 51 years ago izzy, one I still honor. -- Obviously, you do not.
Izzy, - you're denying my right to carry a gun in my car trunk, - the car trunk is my property.
You can keep anything you want in your car. But you can't bring your car on my property without my permission, and I can set any conditions I wish. There is no conflict of rights whatsoever, because you have no right to bring your car on my land without my permission in the first place.
Employees all over america must use company parking, and some of them are being fired for having a gun in their trunk. Those are the facts izzy.
An "implied contract" izzy?
An "implied social contract" izzy?
Shot yourself in the foot izzy?
There is no resemblance between an "implied" contract and a "social" contract. You just don't know much about implied contracts. Most of our actions entail certain implicit guarantees. For example, if I invite you onto my property, implicit in that invitation is the promise that I won't rape, torture and murder you. If we have a literal contract for me to "paint your house," which says only that, then implicit in that contract is that I will do so in a workmanlike manner, according to customary practices of the time--so, for example, if I fling a bucket of paint against your house, grab the money and holler "Thanks, sucker!" you can sue me for breach of contract, and win. The defense that I most certainly "painted your house" will not hold up. Almost all contracts involve implicit obligations of that form, because spelling out absolutely every obligation in full is not possible. But that has nothing to do with "social contracts". In the cases I've mentioned, two people still reach an agreement voluntarily; the agreement is merely informal. Verbal contracts come under the same heading, because they leave many things unspecified, which are then deemed implicit in the terms of the verbal agreement.
I've been a building contractor for 45 years izzy. -- So find someone else to post your BS lectures to about contracts.. -- I'll even give you the last word. - But do think about getting some help.
Once again your mockery doesn't constitute an argument. If anyone's actually still reading the thread at this point, they can certainly see who's foolish and who isn't. My example precisely addressed the issue, and you have no logical reply--only the meaningless dismissal, "Rave on."
"Must"? You mean, something bad will happen to them if they get dropped off, or take the bus, or walk? They "must"? Who's forcing them? Whoever it is, he's violating those employees' rights.
and some of them are being fired for having a gun in their trunk. Those are the facts izzy.
That's perfectly within the property owner's rights. You don't have, and never did have, the right to bring a weapon onto my private property against my will. That you can't grasp this elementary fact is certainly troubling.
America doesn't need roads? -- You're getting weird again. - We're nearly finished.
"America" needs roads? You're anthropomorphizing again. "America" the piece of land has no needs, because it's inanimate. So what sentient being is doing this needing? You seem to think that America is itself an individual with needs. I deny the existence of this individual. People have needs. Many people will say they "need" roads--but not me: where I live, we travel by dogsled. Yet, amazingly, you are comfortable extorting money from me, who doesn't "need" any roads, and handing it over to other people, who want roads, and you justify it by claiming that "America" has a "need" for those roads.
Once again, you're confused.
And your individual neighbor may have the right to object, Constitutionally, about how you burn or bury your garbage izzy. -- Think about it.
He may, for example if my handling of garbage sends smoke or stink onto his private property. If I refrain from violating his private property rights with smoke, stink, etc., then he has no grounds to object. For example, he can object that I'm not being "environmentally friendly" all he wants, and it don't mean squat.
But you appear to be claiming that this statement of yours justifies forcing me to pay for garbage collection I don't want. This is the heart of the problem: you don't actually believe in private property. You believe that some cases justify your violating your neighbor's property rights, for example if you don't like his rules about guns on his land, or if you don't like his method of handling garbage.
No, I took an oath to protect & defend the Constitution 51 years ago izzy, one I still honor. -- Obviously, you do not.
Ignoring your ad hominem--what else is new--I repeat, then that "we the people" passed Jim Crow laws. That makes them okie-dokie to you. Unless you retract your ridiculous claim that a law must be legitimate whenever "we the people" pass that law.
I've been a building contractor for 45 years izzy. -- So find someone else to post your BS lectures to about contracts
Then you're either lying about your experience, or you're lying when you dispute what I say. Assuming you're an honest businesman, you know that you've done lots of things not specifically listed in the contract, because they were part of doing your job in a workmanlike manner.
If you're a dishonest contractor--there's certainly no shortage of those--then you have done the opposite: you've failed to clean up the site when you finished, because the contract didn't say you had to; you've painted without proper surface preparation, because the contract said you'd "paint", but didn't detail the surface preparation required; you nailed cleats to the roof, straight through the shingles, because it was easier and the contract didn't specify roof jacks... and if all of that is true, then I know your real name, because you recently "painted" my house.
Meanwhile, here's some reading to educate yourself on implied and oral contracts. You'll find it agrees with my summary, though my summary was clearer.