tpaine wrote: Our Constiututions contract doesn't need signing.
Shalom Israel wrote: Then it isn't a contract. Thanks for admitting it
kriskrinkle writes: 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.
I meant to ping you on posts 360 and 362 and I screwed up my post 363.
It's too late and I'm getting tired and some of this is hard to wade through.
I beg your pardon.
I do sign implied contracts. I do it by, for example, granting you permission to enter my land. Contracts of adhesion are invalid, and even US law (almost) agrees--for now. A contract of adhesion is a kind of trap: when I open the package, it grabs my ankle and won't let go. The intent behind them is to create the illusion of consent, as if I said to you, "By using the toilet anytime in March, you consent that I'm your rightful overlord." Use the toilet--I dare you! It only proves that you consent...
"Social" contracts are even less valid: someone imposes them on me even though I didn't open any package. They get the authority to do that from the "social contract". Which, of course, is binding, because I'm under this social contract. I came to be under it because someone imposed it on me. And he had the authority to impose it, because the social contract gives him that authority...