You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: A Short Musing on Law: Is America a Voluntaryist Country?

in #informationwar6 years ago (edited)

if you loosely go about signing contracts that you subject yourself to the consequences should you choose to break said contracts

Not where the threat of violence exists as a means to coerce one into signing said contract (as is the case with pretty much every example you’ve provided).

This renders the contract invalid in view of Voluntaryism/natural law.

We get a driver’s license so as not to be caged/extorted when discovered driving without one. I do so under threat of violence.

You are wrong. A victim is not legally subject to a bullshit “contract” based on violence. Get it?

Sort:  

Worse, in Virginia at least, you have to sign up for the draft to get a driver's license. Isn't that cute?

Really? Gross.

Yep! The state is just shoving it in our face these days.

I think there is a hangup here. Thoughts-in-time is speaking about contracts and liability; you're speaking about cituational circumstance (both are valid aspects).

How you sign a document is relational to the liability of order or contract. In other comments it appears thoughts is trying to relate how one invokes jurisdiction as an US citizen as opposed to citizen of united states of america. While he is correct in stating the cause crucial aspects are omitted (unintentional).

Anything under threat is duress or coercion and therefore is not legally binding, of course. However, how is the decision maker(s) supposed to know what the cituation was like? Its why, signatures and liability is important.

Good talk guys

No. You’ve misunderstood my argument.

State contracts such as those mentioned by @thoughts-in-time are not valid in view of the individual self-ownership axiom.

Ah, yes i see. Thanks and apologies for misunderstanding.

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.21
TRX 0.20
JST 0.034
BTC 90504.92
ETH 3101.91
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.98