Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: KrisKrinkle
Of course not. Mutual understanding allows the undertaking of obligation. I’d say it’s a prerequisite to a contract of any sort.

Yes, exactly. That's why cultural assumptions aren't "contractual" in nature.

You’ve been told several times you can opt out one way or another.

The only way I can opt out is by submitting to a violation of my property rights. I own land. It's mine. If I want to "opt out" of this contract I never opted into in the first place, then I must allow my land to be stolen from me.

409 posted on 02/25/2006 5:33:34 AM PST by Shalom Israel (Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies ]


To: Shalom Israel
“I own land. It's mine. If I want to "opt out" of this contract I never opted into in the first place, then I must allow my land to be stolen from me.”

"It is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all... It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813.

"A right of property in moveable things is admitted before the establishment of government. A separate property in lands, not till after that establishment. The right to moveables is acknowledged by all the hordes of Indians surrounding us. Yet by no one of them has a separate property in lands been yielded to individuals. He who plants a field keeps possession till he has gathered the produce, after which one has as good a right as another to occupy it. Government must be established and laws provided, before lands can be separately appropriated, and their owner protected in his possession. Till then, the property is in the body of the nation, and they, or their chief as trustee, must grant them to individuals, and determine the conditions of the grant." --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812.

Others might say: Your ownership of land is dependant on a Social contract. You “signed” your agreement with it by buying land under its terms. (Those terms are implicit but as someone over the age of 18 you’re expected to know what they are.) If you opt out of the contract it is not stealing if your land is forfeit (if it even is, you said it not me), the forfeiture is a penalty for breaking the contract.

Aside from all that, who besides you said the only way you can opt out is by submitting to a violation of your property rights?

Who besides you said you must allow your land to be stolen from you?

I didn’t say that and you posted to me.

437 posted on 02/25/2006 5:29:21 PM PST by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson