You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A Short Musing on Law: Is America a Voluntaryist Country?
There is a difference between 'rule by law' and 'rule of law'.
If a social construct grants itself authority to make law and enforce, by force, it is a 'rule by law' system.
Rule by force constructs are not voluntary, especially if no body can voluntarily defect out of the system, as and where, it occurs.
America has deployed all forms of government as rule by force since the Constitution.
Note the Bill of Rights, especially the first few amendments were not rule by force against the population, but a declaration of freedoms to impose against social constructs, such as government. Most everything else was rule by force documentation, as there was no ability to defect.
I would argue for sake of arguement...
Our country has long passed from using said instruments above. You know this as you have obviously used past tense verbiage.
What, I think is, the government is fully commercialized. This proves evident in CFR 72
When appearing in court, most are mistaken that they are article III courts. But they are just another means to commerce. This is evident in a plethora of supreme court cases.
Howevwr, in common law/natural law.. its stated that whomever converts a right to be licensed in this case a right to travel (as presented in constitution) can actively engage in that right with impunity. This does not save you from consequences though. As officers will harass you and more. @thoughts-in-time
I recently, wrote an article about signatures and liability. I think some of this came from that. Just being honest. Monopoly board symbolism is that of a tontine wagering scheme. However, I deeply wish we can return to constitutional standards of 1789. Peace, liberty and justice for all.
I agree, if you travel the public highways without a license you will almost certainly be harassed by the police. That doesn't necessarily make what they're doing right or lawful, nor does it make me wrong about the fact that applying for a license is to subject oneself to a contract. Just imagine if it were required that people had to read all the contracts they consent to before signing them? Do you think anyone would have a fakebook account?
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.