To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 19761
19760  |  19762
Subject: 
Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:57:33 GMT
Viewed: 
1026 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:

I would rather that people have the ability to trick me losing my money than
to take it from me at gunpoint.  Isn't that how everyone would answer?

I presume you're talking about the government in the latter case, but can
you rephrase that without the "at gunpoint" phrase?  There's no initiation
of force involved; it's simple enforcement of social contract.  You may
disagree with the contract, but until you exit from it, you are subject to it.

False.  Contracts are things agreed to by both parties.  I was never given a
choice to reject taxes and the attendant benefits.  I am no more _morally_
bound by this "social contract" than were the Africans enslaved in the south
through their "social contract."  Do you fault them for railing at their lot?

This ia always an interesting quandry.  The contract has always been viewed
as new-generation-enforcable, but is that correct?  Are you bound by your
parent's contract (or as far back as necessary to either the original
constitution or your relatives entered into the country post-constitution)?
Morally, you may be correct, but practically, it is better to proceed under
the generational contract as long as the new generation has the means to
modify it.  Thus, modify it to your liking or vote with your feet (or accept
the contract).  In the case of the Africans, they were brought here by
force, and never entered into a contract, either individually or by previous
generations.

-->Bruce<--



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
 
(...) And I pay my taxes and vote my concience. I just think it's messed up to call it a contract. It's a dodge. I'd be happier if we just enunciated the fact that we are partially or sort-of owned by the state. As long as they control our right to (...) (22 years ago, 24-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
 
(...) False. Contracts are things agreed to by both parties. I was never given a choice to reject taxes and the attendant benefits. I am no more _morally_ bound by this "social contract" than were the Africans enslaved in the south through their (...) (22 years ago, 24-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

164 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR