There you go making assertions again. The fact is that only naturalized citizens and members of the military can truly be said to have "entered voluntarily" into the contract. At no point in my life have I sworn an oath or signed a contract. I am certainly not a signatory.
Your answer is, "then leave". That's what a "contract of adhesion" says: "by opening this package you agree to sacrifice your children to Moloch, serve as Bill Gates's cabaña boy, etc., etc..." You are saying that I accept the terms and conditions by remaining inside the country's borders. The reality is that no such contract exists. I already answered the case that it inheres upon birth, by pointing out that birth was not a choice.
You introduced a new definition: namely, that citizenship is a contract of adhesion that one enters upon turning 18. That's false too, but I haven't addressed it before. There are three arguments against this theory:
First, if such a contract of adhesion existed, there must exist an adhesing party. 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.
Second, the adhesing party must assert his/her/its rights per the contract. So if we say, for the sake of argument, that the government is a party, just to ensure that the contract actually has two parties, then we observe the government has not ever asserted its rights per the contract: namely, it has never deported anyone for breach of the social contract. The government has never attempted to enforce the terms, "abide by the contract, or else leave the country."
Third, constitutional rights are applied to minors as well as adults. Therefore, the privileges of alleged the "social contract" accrue to minors; but this is only possible if the obligations of the contract also accrue to minors. Therefore, it is not possible that the contract comes into force at age 18.
You admit social contracts exist in mammals. -- Thank you.
Very much the opposite, unless you're making the absurd claim that mongooses can make contracts. Mongooses have a complex social order, based on a mating pair, their offspring, and various old adults and batchelor hangers-on. You're claiming these mongooses have a "social contract," which utterly beggars the meaning of the word "contract."
Which is exactly my point. If you actually read Hobbes, he claims that man in his natural state is involved in perpetual conflict, and that certain smarter-than-average individuals discovered "civilization" when they made a contract, and then began enforcing it on the people around them. I prove him wrong by pointing out that long before man had language, or even sentience, he had a social structure. Centuries passed, and a human named "Hobbes" invented a completely ahistorical explanation for the development of that social structure. Among other things, the complete ahistoricity of Hobbes's theory utterly beggars the meaning of the term "natural state".
The fact is that only naturalized citizens and members of the military can truly be said to have "entered voluntarily" into the contract.
Read Article VI. All officials are also sworn. -- And all citizens are obligated to support the Constitution, as our oath of citizenship makes clear. You want to pretend it doesn't apply to you? Feel free to scoff.
At no point in my life have I sworn an oath or signed a contract. I am certainly not a signatory.
Would you refuse? Ever served on a jury? Voted? If so, you've exercised some of the duties of citizenship.
Your answer is, "then leave".
Yep, you don't like our Constitutional social contract? Feel free to leave and start a company where you can ban guns [maybe mexico?]
You are saying that I accept the terms and conditions by remaining inside the country's borders.
Exactly. Everyone in the USA is subject to our Constitutional contracts rule of law.
The reality is that no such contract exists.
Beg that fact.
I already answered the case that it inheres upon birth, by pointing out that birth was not a choice.
So what? You are a US citizen by birth, but you are free to renounce your citizenship when you are no longer a child. Until then "yo momma" tells you what to do.
You introduced a new definition: namely, that citizenship is a contract of adhesion that one enters upon turning 18.
Nope, -- citizenship is a contract that one can `renounce` upon turning 18. [or maybe earlier]
That's false too, but I haven't addressed it before. There are three arguments against this theory: First, if such a contract of adhesion existed, there must exist an adhesing party. 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.
Sigh. -- ALL the people of the USA are the parties to our Constitutional contract.
Second, the adhesing party must assert his/her/its rights per the contract. So if we say, for the sake of argument, that the government is a party, just to ensure that the contract actually has two parties, then we observe the government has not ever asserted its rights per the contract:
The government is a not party. -- It is our legislative, executive & judicial servant. It can deport.
namely, it has never deported anyone for breach of the social contract. The government has never attempted to enforce the terms, "abide by the contract, or else leave the country."
Bull. People are deported every day, for a multitude of reasons. - Among them are anti-social criminals.
Third, constitutional rights are applied to minors as well as adults. Therefore, the privileges of alleged the "social contract" accrue to minors; but this is only possible if the obligations of the contract also accrue to minors. Therefore, it is not possible that the contract comes into force at age 18.
Arguing the obvious. Yes -- constitutional rights are applied to minors as well as adults.
You admit social contracts exist in mammals. -- Thank you.
Very much the opposite, unless you're making the absurd claim that mongooses can make contracts.
That's an absurd sophomoric argument izzy. -- I'm arguing the humans are mammals that make social contracts.
Mongooses have a complex social order, based on a mating pair, their offspring, and various old adults and batchelor hangers-on. You're claiming these mongooses have a "social contract," which utterly beggars the meaning of the word "contract."
Amusing, but rave on
Which is exactly my point. If you actually read Hobbes, he claims that man in his natural state is involved in perpetual conflict, and that certain smarter-than-average individuals discovered "civilization" when they made a contract, and then began enforcing it on the people around them. I prove him wrong by pointing out that long before man had language, or even sentience, he had a social structure.
Yep, man has had social contracts for a long time. You shot your own foot again izzy.
Centuries passed, and a human named "Hobbes" invented a completely ahistorical explanation for the development of that social structure. Among other things, the complete ahistoricity of Hobbes's theory utterly beggars the meaning of the term "natural state".
I fail to see how your 'thing' about Hobbes disproves the fact of a Constitutional social contract izzy.
Shalom Israel wrote: “First, if such a contract of adhesion existed, there must exist an adhesing party. 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 believe I’m the one who denied the government is the “other party.”)
But that doesn’t leave “no adhesing party at all.” The other adhesing party or parties would be other citizens.
Shalom Israel wrote: “…the government has not ever asserted its rights per the contract: namely, it has never deported anyone for breach of the social contract. The government has never attempted to enforce the terms, "abide by the contract, or else leave the country."”
You can opt out of the contract by leaving the country per tpaine. I say you can opt out by leaving the country or become an outlaw. The government (more correctly the citizens using the government as a tool) regularly (but not always) attempts to enforce the terms of the contract. That’s why we have prisons in which we put some outlaws.
Shalom Israel wrote: “Third, constitutional rights are applied to minors as well as adults. Therefore, the privileges of alleged the "social contract" accrue to minors; but this is only possible if the obligations of the contract also accrue to minors. Therefore, it is not possible that the contract comes into force at age 18.”
I didn’t quite follow that. 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.