You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A Short Musing on Law: Is America a Voluntaryist Country?
There are a lot of attempts to leverage/obfuscate different schemes, commercial is just one attempt. I think the pivotal point is whether it is a rule by force social construct.
Let me also ask, as there appears to be a grasping at social contract theory. Is there ever coherence in social objectivity of what a social contract 'should do' and what it 'should be'?
The problem with justice in the terms of social constructs, is there is no coherent social objectivity. Perfect justice or even primal/natural justice is a individual construct and varies from person to person.
This is why justice systems in a 'social democracy' (representative or direct) will always end up as a convoluted construct. It can't deliver justice close to the populations divided subjective values of justice.
You know @joesal giving you a follow.
There is much to discover. Is this a social construct? Yes. Is this a rule by force social construct? By design, perhaps otherwise practically no. The reason is for it to be social everyone must understand basic premise of it. Social security is a good example, everyone understands the terms and conditions of that; yet they do not understand that the lose individual rights that where protected at a state level. Etc. Much of the social contracts are not readily understood because namely it is expected for individual to know about it.
One can leverage bonds if they have the purse for it and know how to do it. Admiralty is the game more or less.
-"There is much to discover. Is this a social construct? Yes. Is this a rule by force social construct? By design, perhaps otherwise practically no."
There may be some problems in clarity here. We are agreed that it is a social construct. The laws are created and enforced without considerations of individual sovereignty, therefore it is a rule by force social construct. If individual sovereignty was above the authority of the social construct, then one could ignore the workings of the social construct as it would be subordinate (including the enforcement).
-"Social security is a good example, everyone understands the terms and conditions of that; yet they do not understand that the lose individual rights that where protected at a state level. Etc."
That sentences is a little choppy at this part: 'understand that the lose individual rights'
I would like to respond to that, as I think it is interesting, but want to have it more clearly stated.
Much of the social contracts were written by factions of social people with a social agenda, and those people have little to no interest in whether individuals understand them or not. Constructing social constructs with that inherent flaw, makes a strong case against social contract theory(besides the huge glaring errors in assumptions of social objectivity).
What I'm stating is, that by accepting federal benefit(s) through social security or paying the tax therein constitutes as acceptance or participation in the program. (Flemming v Nestor)
The type of contracts which are social in nature, yes are built around a flaw. They can be inhibited.
There remains a point that needs clarity. Can a person defect out of a federal benefit(and taxation) of social security on grounds of individual sovereignty?
(Or defect out of any and all fed/social constructs)
I'll have to make that arguement another time. Interesting chat today though
No worries, another time and thanks for the discussion.