or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney for President
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mitt Romney for President - Page 10

post #361 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And you didn't choose your parents either. A murderer disn't agree not to murder people. Steve Ballmer never committed legally that he would give to charity and he probably doesn't do so willingly. But if he didn't, he would be crucified.

What's your point?

What do my parents, a murderer, and Steve Ballmer have to do with the fact that the "Social Contract" is not a contract at all?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #362 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Can you get past the word? You know very well that the word 'contract' in the phrase 'social contract' is metaphorical.

So you're clinging to a metaphorical concept of an abstract and vague idea as the anchor for coercing others to do what you think they should do.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #363 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Can you get past the word? You know very well that the word 'contract' in the phrase 'social contract' is metaphorical.

If it is "metaphorical" why do you constantly tout it as if it is binding like a...well...contract?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #364 of 693
Yes, we have been through this a million times. If you refuse to abide by the laws of the nation, state and municipality where you live, GTFO. Seriously. Go. You're living in the United States and you benefit from services where you live. You say it's really hard to revoke your citizenship. It should be. You grew up under the benefits of the nation's government. You can't give back what you've received. If you really want, there are a number of nations that don't have an extradition treaty for tax law.
post #365 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes, we have been through this a million times. If you refuse to abide by the laws of the nation, state and municipality where you live, GTFO. Seriously. Go. You're living in the United States and you benefit from services where you live. You say it's really hard to revoke your citizenship. It should be. You grew up under the benefits of the nation's government. You can't give back what you've received. If you really want, there are a number of nations that don't have an extradition treaty for tax law.

Would you have said this to blacks during the civil rights movement?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #366 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes, we have been through this a million times. If you refuse to abide by the laws of the nation, state and municipality where you live, GTFO. Seriously. Go. You're living in the United States and you benefit from services where you live. You say it's really hard to revoke your citizenship. It should be. You grew up under the benefits of the nation's government. You can't give back what you've received. If you really want, there are a number of nations that don't have an extradition treaty for tax law.

It's always fascinating when liberals go all authoritarian.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #367 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

If it is "metaphorical" why do you constantly tout it as if it is binding like a...well...contract?

Because we live in a society. How is the validity of the social contract any different from the validity of the right to life, liberty and property?
post #368 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Because we live in a society.

So? Is that some kind of argument? Like we must have some vague, abstract, ill-defined concept of a "social contract" in order to have a society? At least some contract beyond the basic respect for each individual's life, liberty and property?

What does this so-called "social contract" call for? Specifically.
What does this so-called "social contract" obligate people to do? Specifically.
What does this so-called "social contract" obligate people to not do? Specifically.
Who is or is not bound by this so-called "social contract?"

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #369 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Would you have said this to blacks during the civil rights movement?

My God. Seriously. Seriously?
post #370 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

It's always fascinating when liberals go all authoritarian.

I don't go 'all authoritarian'. I respect our representative democracy and I value my citizenship and my vote.
post #371 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

My God. Seriously. Seriously?

That's actually a reasonable question.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #372 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I don't go 'all authoritarian'. I respect our representative democracy and I value my citizenship and my vote.

Actually, we (the U.S.) are also a constitutional federal republic.

This implies a few things...a) our governments are meant to be bound and constrained by a written constitution, and b) that that states have rights equal to or greater than the federal government.

Do you respect that also?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #373 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

What does this so-called "social contract" call for? Specifically.

For citizens to abide by federal, local and state law, even when that don't agree with the law.
Quote:
What does this so-called "social contract" obligate people to do? Specifically.

To abide by federal, local and state law, even when that don't agree with the law.
Quote:
What does this so-called "social contract" obligate people to not do? Specifically.

To opt out of abiding by federal, local and state law, even when that don't agree with the law.
Quote:
Who is or is not bound by this so-called "social contract?"

Citizens.

See, wasn't that easy?
post #374 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

That's actually a reasonable question.

Of course the answer is no. Comparing the plight of people who don't want to pay their taxes (oh, poor you!) to the people who are systematically oppressed and prejudiced against is sickening.
post #375 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Actually, we (the U.S.) are also a constitutional federal republic.

This implies a few things...a) our governments are meant to be bound and constrained by a written constitution, and b) that that states have rights equal to or greater than the federal government.

Do you respect that also?

Absolutely, however there is and must be some federal laws that supersede state law.

And in my opinion, as well as in the opinion of the USSC, there is nothing in Federal law that is unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, I've got to ask... why are things that are 'implied' suddenly acceptable to you?
post #376 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

For citizens to abide by federal, local and state law, even when that don't agree with the law.
To abide by federal, local and state law, even when that don't agree with the law.
To opt out of abiding by federal, local and state law, even when that don't agree with the law.
Citizens.

See, wasn't that easy?

What if the laws are immoral? What if the laws violate the foundational governing "social contract" of the land? What if the creators of the laws regularly violate this foundational "social contract?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #377 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Absolutely

OK. So we've established that you respect that the U.S. is a federal constitutional republic in which the federal government is specifically limited in its powers, that the states have rights within the boundaries of the constitution.

Great!

Good progress.

Then I presume you'd support the repeal and/or nullification of every federal law that exceeds the boundaries of the specific enumerated powers of the federal government.

Correct?


Now...

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

however there is and must be some federal laws that supersede state law.

Like what?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #378 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And in my opinion, as well as in the opinion of the USSC, there is nothing in Federal law that is unconstitutional.



Isn't that convenient.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #379 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Because we live in a society. How is the validity of the social contract any different from the validity of the right to life, liberty and property?

Because the so-called "social contract" is an invention of man. Life, liberty, and property existed before man made laws.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #380 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

What if the laws are immoral? What if the laws violate the foundational governing "social contract" of the land? What if the creators of the laws regularly violate this foundational "social contract?

Then surely the laws will be changed by our system. It seems you're not exactly clear on how your vote works. Were you home schooled for fourth grade?
post #381 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post



Isn't that convenient.


Convenient or not, that is exactly how our triumvirate is meant to work.
post #382 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

My God. Seriously. Seriously?

Yes, seriously. Segregation was the law of the land. It was bad law, but it was the law of the land.

I am not advocating lawlessness. I am advocating the civil disobedience of bad laws.

A bad law is any law that infringes upon the natural, inalienable rights of peaceful individuals to life, liberty, and property.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #383 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Because the so-called "social contract" is an invention of man. Life, liberty, and property existed before man made laws.

There has never been a society where a social contract doesn't exist. Ever. Even before man made laws.
post #384 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

There has never been a society where a social contract doesn't exist. Ever. Even before man made laws.

The "social contract" existed before men made laws? Really?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #385 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Because we live in a society. How is the validity of the social contract any different from the validity of the right to life, liberty and property?

"Society" is merely a group of individuals.

How many individuals constitute a society? 2? 10? 1,000,000?

And why does that group of individuals have the right to deprive you of your life, liberty, or property if there is a majority among them who votes to do so?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #386 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Were you home schooled for fourth grade?

How nice.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #387 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I am advocating the civil disobedience of bad laws.

But tonton doesn't believe in civil disobedience.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #388 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

There has never been a society where a social contract doesn't exist. Ever. Even before man made laws.

Since "social contract" is so vague and ambiguous, I'd say there's no way to answer this question.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #389 of 693
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Since "social contract" is so vague and ambiguous, I'd say there's no way to answer this question.

Let's make this easy: "Social contract" is whatever liberals like tonton say it is. It is the standard of living ("what you get") to which they think all are entitled. Their ability to define this non-existent social contract comes from...you guessed it...their inherent moral superiority. You see, all people deserve healthcare because all people deserve healthcare. Their position on that and a host of other issues is right because their position is right. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because....
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #390 of 693
No, people deserve healthcare because it's the fucking humane thing to do--when we have the resources to heal the sick and we choose not to...that's evil.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #391 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

No, people deserve healthcare because it's the [expletive] humane thing to do--when we have the resources to heal the sick and we choose not to...that's evil.

You cannot force people to be "humane".

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #392 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

No, people deserve healthcare because it's the fucking humane thing to do--when we have the resources to heal the sick and we choose not to...that's evil.

Wait a second...are you proposing to force your morality onto others?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #393 of 693
You only get one shot at life on this planet. Your deification of money does not trump a starving, cold, or sick human.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #394 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You only get one shot at life on this planet. Your deification of money does not trump a starving, cold, or sick human.

Wait a second...are you proposing to force your morality onto others?

P.S. Again you're projecting your caricatures of me ("Your deification of money") onto me.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #395 of 693
I am proposing that as social animals we take care of each other and stop the FUCKING SELFISH BITCHING AND WHINING.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #396 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I am proposing that as social animals we take care of each other and stop the FUCKING SELFISH BITCHING AND WHINING.

And I agree that we should. We simply disagree on the most effective methods.

See...that's not so bad, is it?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #397 of 693
You have no safety net. People will fall and die. Your method is shit. Your method isn't a method at all. It's fend for yourselves and maybe someone might be nice and help. Except it's not happening.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #398 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

The "social contract" existed before men made laws? Really?

Absolutely. Even in the most primitive societies today, where there is no government, there are social expectations. Go watch 'the gods must be crazy'. Those bushmen had no laws but each member of the tribe had responsibilities to the rest of the tribe. If they don't fulfill their responsibilities they would be outcast. This is their social contract.
post #399 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You have no safety net. People will fall and die. Your method is shit. Your method isn't a method at all. It's fend for yourselves and maybe someone might be nice and help. Except it's not happening.

Well, so much for polite disagreement. I tried.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #400 of 693
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

But tonton doesn't believe in civil disobedience.

Sure I do, when there is no way to express your view effectively under existing laws. When a specific
Group of people, for instance, are being underrepresented, they need a means to speak out with a louder voice. Are tax objectionists underrepresented?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Mitt Romney for President