RE: A Short Musing on Law: Is America a Voluntaryist Country?
Imagine someone has a baby in an American hospital. What's the first thing they do? They name the child and register him with the State, similar to how property is registered. A birth certificate is acquired. Now the child identifies as a U.S. CITIZEN. Let the games begin! Later in life the child gets a letter, it says all U.S. CITIZENS must register with selective services. When the child voluntarily signs this form, it makes him eligible for the draft should government choose to conscript (or enslave) him at a later date.
Later on the child becomes a man and wants to drive. He doesn't know the legal meaning of the word drive or that it is a commercial activity. All he knows is he needs government permission in order to do it. So of his own free will he gets a drivers license. It goes on and on, but I think you get the point. My point is, outside of the game called government is voluntaryism. Something that is immediately lost when we contract with it, do commerce with it, and identify with legal words that are it's intellectual property.
Right now if I wanted I could identify as a private in the military. I could sneak onto a base and pretend I am military. Maybe if I run into a recruiter on the base who sees what i'm doing but instead of getting butthurt about stolen valor he says: "Private so-and-so we seemed to have lost your registration, I'm going to need you to fill out this form so that I can resubmit it."
Now, I'm officially in the military in this hypothetical scenario. A pawn on their court and playing their game, and I did it all voluntarily. Do you see what I mean? Now I have even less rights than I did before and I did it all via contract law by signing my rights away.
Natural law self-ownership does not change because you “contract” with the state by getting a driver’s license or anything else. That’s kind of the whole point. You’re not an AnCap or Voluntaryist if you believe that.
Honestly wondering if you are intentionally spreading disinformation here. Maybe you’re just confused.
Either way. You’re wrong by definition, and the rest of us would appreciate if you’d stop calling this “free man” constitutionalist BS “Voluntaryism.”
When you sign a drivers license application you have to certify that you've read, understand and agree with the contents of the form, including the certifications on the back of the form, all of this under penalty of perjury. When you understand or agree to something, it means that you are contracting. Sure behind the contract natural law still exists, but there are penalties for violating contracts.
I am not trying to conflate "free man" ideology with voluntaryism. I'm merely suggesting as a free man if you loosely go about signing contracts that you subject yourself to the consequences should you choose to break said contracts. Whenever you install an app to your phone you are making a contract. So when the app says it needs permission to access your camera or microphone and you give it that permission you are contracting away your right to privacy. Data will be collected, and data will be sold, thems the consequences.
I repeat, I am not calling "free man" ideology voluntaryism. I am merely expressing the fact that contracts have consequences and although you may understand your contracts that doesn't necessarily mean that you comprehend the ramifications of them. When you sign contracts without comprehending them consequences abound. If you don't believe me, join the military you'll learn that shit real quick like.
Obviously, that last part was in jest. I do not recommend joining the military or doing anything that would put you in a situation where you might be compelled to perpetrate violence against a man, woman, or child.
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?
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.