There's nothing contractual about it, son. You're on my land. You have no right to be on my land (you may recall me mentioning that already). You received the privilege from me, but I've revoked it. You're now a trespasser. Per the original contract, if you comply with my demand to leave, I must give you enough time to get off my land, but that's the full extent of my obligation. If you refuse my demand, I have the right to eject you because you're on my land without permission.
You don't accept that (1) property rights are absolute, (2) only voluntary agreements can waive or alter property rights and (3) contracts entered under duress are invalid. If you accepted those facts fully, your thinking would not be so muddy in addressing examples like these.
By what I understand to be your standards, I don't see how you can disagree with that unless you try to prove I did sign up which I'm sure you'll try.
By coming on my land with my permission, we entered a contract. The terms bound me not to assault you, and to let you leave; the terms bound you to abide by the house rules--where, naturally, unusual rules need to be stipulated in advance. I can withdraw the privilege of being on my property more or less at will, but I must allow you to leave in that case. If you breach the contract, then you have lost the privilege of being on my land, and are now a trespasser.
You can't claim you made no agreement, since you actually walked onto my land. If you didn't wish to accept the contract, you refrain from walking onto my land.
Your muddy thinking is what confuses "entering my property" with "failing to flee the country". One is a voluntary action on your part; the other is an ultimatum on my part.
Kriskrinkle wrote: "I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement with those blanket terms,..."
In response to which Shalom Israel started with: "There's nothing contractual about it, son."
Then at various times throughout the post wrote:
"Per the original contract,..."
"contracts entered..."
"By coming on my land with my permission, we entered a contract."
"If you breach the contract,..."
"If you didn't wish to accept the contract,..."
Aw, come on.
You start out saying "There's nothing contractual about it, son" then bring in the contractual aspect five different times.
Your post lacks internal consistency big time.
Do you really think you made a worthy response?
Kriskrinkle wrote: I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement with those blanket terms, therefore I am not obligated to accept those blanket terms.
Begin what Shalom Israel wrote annotated with waht Kriskrinkle writes:
There's nothing contractual about it, son.
You're on my land. You have no right to be on my land (you may recall me mentioning that already). (Kriskrinkle writes: I recall your saying that but I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement that I have no right to be on your land if I am recovering personnel property you stole from me and I maintain the right to do so. By stating “you have NO right” you have once again made an overbroad statement that you must try to wriggle out of to justify a position you should have thought about more.) You received the privilege from me, but I've revoked it. You're now a trespasser. Per the original contract, (Kriskrinkle writes: 1. If Shalom Israel’s opening words “There's nothing contractual about it, son” are true then it is not possible for the words “Per the original contract” to be true plus those words are irrelevant. 2. If Shalom Israel’s opening words “There's nothing contractual about it, son” are false then it is possible for the words “Per the original contract” to be true but even so they are not true because I already denied “signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement with those blanket terms, therefore I am not obligated to accept those blanket terms” and if I did not sign the contract by some means there is no original contract.) .if you comply with my demand to leave, I must give you enough time to get off my land, (Kriskrinkle writes: You may be glad to know that I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement that you must give me enough time to get off your land.) but that's the full extent of my obligation. If you refuse my demand, I have the right to eject you because you're on my land without permission.
You don't accept that (1) property rights are absolute, (Kriskrinkle writes: I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement to that effect. You have no right to attribute that position to me.) (2) only voluntary agreements can waive or alter property rights and (3) contracts entered under duress are invalid. (Kriskrinkle writes: This statement is irrelevant in view of the opening comment “There's nothing contractual about it, son”) If you accepted those facts fully, your thinking would not be so muddy (Kriskrinkle writes: You keep making mutually exclusive statements and accuse me of muddy thinking? Show that the contradictory statements I’ve pointed out really aren’t contradictory) in addressing examples like these.
Kriskrinkle wrote: By what I understand to be your standards, I don't see how you can disagree with that unless you try to prove I did sign up which I'm sure you'll try.
By coming on my land with my permission, (Kriskrinkle writes: By the way, where did I say I was on your land with your permission? More on that later.) we entered a contract. (Kriskrinkle writes: 1. If Shalom Israel’s opening words “There's nothing contractual about it, son” are true then it is not possible for the words “By coming on my land with my permission, we entered a contract” to be true.” 2. I already denied “signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement with those blanket terms, therefore I am not obligated to accept those blanket terms” and there is no contract.
The terms bound me not to assault you, and to let you leave; the terms bound you to abide by the house rules--where, naturally, unusual rules need to be stipulated in advance. (Kriskrinkle writes: In regard to the entire previous sentence, I already denied “signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement with those blanket terms, therefore I am not obligated to accept those blanket terms” and there is no contract, there are no terms.) I can withdraw the privilege of being on my property more or less at will, but I must allow you to leave in that case. (Kriskrinkle writes: I deny “signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement in regard to whether or not you must allow me to leave.) If you breach the contract, (Kriskrinkle writes: 1. If Shalom Israel’s opening words “There's nothing contractual about it, son” are true then there is no contract. 2. I deny “signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement” and there is no contract.) then you have lost the privilege of being on my land, and are now a trespasser.
You can't claim you made no agreement, since you actually walked onto my land. (Kriskrinkle writes: I never claimed I walked on your land. More on that later.) If you didn't wish to accept the contract, (Kriskrinkle writes: 1. If Shalom Israel’s opening words “There's nothing contractual about it, son” are true then there is no contract. 2. I deny “signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement” and there is no contract.) you refrain from walking onto my land.
Your muddy thinking is what confuses "entering my property" with "failing to flee the country". One is a voluntary action on your part; the other is an ultimatum on my part.
End what Shalom Israel wrote annotated with waht Kriskrinkle writes
Note 1:
1. I wrote “I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement with those blanket terms, therefore I am not obligated to accept those blanket terms.”
2. You wrote “There's nothing contractual about it, son. “
3. In spite of the above, you keep referring to contracts and terms and agreements and so forth that we both agree (Note 1 and 2 above) aren’t in play and then you denigrate my thinking.
Note 2:
In regard to “By coming on my land with my permission” and “You can't claim you made no agreement, since you actually walked onto my land” where I said “More on that later,” this is later. Those are your assumptions. My assumption was that I was on your land through no fault of my own, that I was run off the road or a passenger in a plane that crashed or blown there by a tornado—anything like that such that I was not on your land by choice.
Note 3:
What makes you think you have any property rights? Didn’t you say you subscribe to the “Chain of theft”? By your standard wasn’t any property you claim to own (you are in Pennsylvania aren’t you) stolen at some point and therefore you have no right to it and you should return it to its rightful owners?
Note 4
Consider that if you don’t agree to the social contract and I haven’t agreed to all the petty little contracts you’ve tried to force on me we are not joined in society. That would mean our relationship is the same as it would have been if we’d shared the same forest 10000 years ago.
Note 5
There are probably editorial errors and so forth in the above but you haven’t shown the wit to follow all this so it's not worth the effort it would take to find and fix them.