276 replies to this topic

[TakeAStepBack]

Ive made my case.

The elected officials of this country, a democratic republic, ushered in taxation.  When you take a job, or rather earn income in this country, it is a known fact that you pay taxes on that income.  The tax money may be used in ways you don't like, but that is not the question.  The tax itself was agreed upon by the people of the United States.  In our society, majority rules.  That is the way it works when you don't want chaos. 

 

Secondly your entire concept of your property, that is your money/earnings are made possible by a government that backs that money.  

 

I think that you are saying that YOU, the individual YOU has not consented to have taxes taken from you.  The problem with that line of thinking is that our country is not based on individual rule, but rather majority rule.  With some exceptions that SCOTUS rules on.  Since you choose to live/work in a country that is based on the concept of a democratic republic, then you abide by the rules put in place by the majority, or you work to change those rules, or you choose to live where the rules are different.

 

The people of the US have elected officials that imposed taxation.  Your beef is with the majority of the American People, not the tax collector.

 

OK, we can rest on it then. You've made your case. But your case still does not provide a convincing argument that compulsory taxation is not theft. You say majority ruiles! Rent! Country club dues! Move somewhere else! Abide by the rules! All fine and good in justifying the theft. Still, it's theft by the use of force and violence.

[Depends]

• "The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to F. von Humboldt, 1817.

It is not theft if the people willed it.  They have.   You don't agree with the majority?  That is your issue.  In short, sucks to be you. and yes, if 51% of the people want X, and 49% of the people don't want X, then yes, it is tough shit for the 49%.

If you have a problem with a consensual democracy, that is one thing.  But your displeasure with consent does not make taxation theft.

 

/thread

[china cat]

Ive made my case.

The elected officials of this country, a democratic republic, ushered in taxation.  When you take a job, or rather earn income in this country, it is a known fact that you pay taxes on that income.  The tax money may be used in ways you don't like, but that is not the question.  The tax itself was agreed upon by the people of the United States.  In our society, majority rules.  That is the way it works when you don't want chaos. 

 

Secondly your entire concept of your property, that is your money/earnings are made possible by a government that backs that money.  

 

I think that you are saying that YOU, the individual YOU has not consented to have taxes taken from you.  The problem with that line of thinking is that our country is not based on individual rule, but rather majority rule.  With some exceptions that SCOTUS rules on.  Since you choose to live/work in a country that is based on the concept of a democratic republic, then you abide by the rules put in place by the majority, or you work to change those rules, or you choose to live where the rules are different.

 

The people of the US have elected officials that imposed taxation.  Your beef is with the majority of the American People, not the tax collector.

 

are reps democratically elected, or, corporately elected? I think it's important to investigate the process of delivering our candidates if we're really going to talk about choice, democracy, and the will of the people.

 

if your "choice" is between 2 candidates, both of whom agree with compulsory taxation, then how can it be considered consent?

I think the word choice is being used in this thread rather idealistically (rather than realistically).

[Depends]

OK, we can rest on it then. You've made your case. But your case still does not provide a convincing argument that compulsory taxation is not theft. You say majority ruiles! Rent! Country club dues! Move somewhere else! Abide by the rules! All fine and good in justifying the theft. Still, it's theft by the use of force and violence.

What part of majority rules don't you get?

 

Am I off my rocker?  Is it NOT the law of the land?

It is NOT theft if the people consented to it.  End of story.  Your question is taxation theft.  Not in a consensual democracy.  It is not.

If you have questions about democracy, that is another issue.   The voice of the people was heard on taxation.  You don't agree with that voice, that is fine.  duly noted.  But your displeasure does not make it theft.

[Depends]

are reps democratically elected, or, corporately elected? I think it's important to investigate the process of delivering our candidates if we're really going to talk about choice, democracy, and the will of the people.

 

if your "choice" is between 2 candidates, both of whom agree with compulsory taxation, then how can it be considered consent?

I think the word choice is being used in this thread rather idealistically (rather than realistically).

a totally different question.  

Put it in a different context.

In the 60's many in our government supported the war in Vietnam.  The will of the people elected officials who were opposed to the war.  

 

If you have a Hobson's Choice, then gather enough people to change it.  

[china cat]

• "The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to F. von Humboldt, 1817.

It is not theft if the people willed it.  They have.   You don't agree with the majority?  That is your issue.  In short, sucks to be you. and yes, if 51% of the people want X, and 49% of the people don't want X, then yes, it is tough shit for the 49%.

If you have a problem with a consensual democracy, that is one thing.  But your displeasure with consent does not make taxation theft.

 

/thread

 

Do you think that if the people of this nation were given a direct vote to end the federal income tax and the IRS the majority would vote for the tax?

 

doubt it. seriously doubt it.

[Tim the Beek]

I don't agree with everyone's weak interpretation of the 2nd amendment which seemingly gives them the right to arm themselves to the teeth when they have no association with a "well-regulated militia" but I deal with it.

 

Not germane to the topic at hand, and nothin' personal, but since you brought this up here, logic, history and etymology suggest that yours is the weak interpretation.

[concert andy]

OK, we can rest on it then. You've made your case. But your case still does not provide a convincing argument that compulsory taxation is not theft. You say majority ruiles! Rent! Country club dues! Move somewhere else! Abide by the rules! All fine and good in justifying the theft. Still, it's theft by the use of force and violence.

 

By what violence?

[TEO]

Do you think that if the people of this nation were given a direct vote to end the federal income tax and the IRS the majority would vote for the tax?

 

doubt it. seriously doubt it.

 

 

I think the majority would.  Many people fear change and are swayed by propaganda, in addition to those believing a system of taxation to be the best method to raise and disburse funds.

[TEO]

I think part of what may be at issue here is that a couple/few of us lean more heavily on the idea of individual sovereignty/freedom than others do.

 

I understand what folks on the other side are saying, and where they're coming from. From a personal standpoint, though, taking people's labor by force is morally wrong. There are plenty of other things we do by societal compact which I also find to be morally wrong as well. You can argue that that's the price we pay for having some semblance of order, etc., but that only means (to me) that we're choosing the lesser of two evils, not that what's happening is right or good.

 

 

I like this view.

[TakeAStepBack]

I think part of what may be at issue here is that a couple/few of us lean more heavily on the idea of individual sovereignty/freedom than others do.

 

I understand what folks on the other side are saying, and where they're coming from. From a personal standpoint, though, taking people's labor by force is morally wrong. There are plenty of other things we do by societal compact which I also find to be morally wrong as well. You can argue that that's the price we pay for having some semblance of order, etc., but that only means (to me) that we're choosing the lesser of two evils, not that what's happening is right or good.

 

Well, it is an individual issue. The government doesn't tax groups of people, it taxes individuals. The entire point of this thread was not for people to tell me how the government works in the US. The point was to convince me that compusory taxation is not theft. Whether you live in Iceland, Iran or the US. I dont care about location. Because even in a society such as this one, where as stated, majority rules, not every individual is represented. If 70% agree and 30% disagree, and the "representatives" go ahead and exact compulsory taxation upon them, that is theft. They did not consent to having their productivity robbed./ Just because the majority said "we want that!" doesn't mean that it is no longer a violation of the individuals right to property. Theft is the action of stealing, and stealing by definition of taking from someone without their consent. In this case by force.

 

Therefore compulsory taxation is theft. Ther eis no hidden consent from an individual for being born into a system, or because their neighbor cast a vote to extract money from them (for whatever reason they have to justify the theft) or because the "government" has determined that such a theft is legal, and therefore, not theft.

[TEO]

Minimal:

 

 

Penalty for Underpayment

What happens if you don’t pay enough, or don’t pay soon enough.

If you don’t pay enough estimated tax, or don’t pay on time, you’ll have to pay a penalty. It’s best to avoid this penalty, of course but you don’t have to lose sleep over it. The penalty is equivalent to nondeductible interest on the amount you underpaid, for the period of the underpayment. If you underpay only a small amount, or you correct the underpayment quickly, the penalty will be small.

 

 

What finally put Al Capone in jail?

[Tim the Beek]

What finally put Al Capone in jail?

 

Geraldo Rivera?

 

Oh, wait...

[Tim the Beek]

I like this view.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What part of majority rules don't you get?

 

Am I off my rocker?  Is it NOT the law of the land?

It is NOT theft if the people consented to it.  End of story.  Your question is taxation theft.  Not in a consensual democracy.  It is not.

If you have questions about democracy, that is another issue.   The voice of the people was heard on taxation.  You don't agree with that voice, that is fine.  duly noted.  But your displeasure does not make it theft.

 

What part of majority rule still violates the individual don't you get?

If the majority determined that anyone named Malcolm will be hung from th tallest tree, and people begin hunting for Malcolms of the nation and stringing them up by their necks into the trees, are the Malcolms being murdered? Or is it something else because the majority, and in turn the government decided this policy is acceptable and made it law?

 

The answer seems simple enough. The Malcolms are being murdered by the majority, It is legally sanctioned, but it is still murder.

[Tim the Beek]

• "The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to F. von Humboldt, 1817.

It is not theft if the people willed it.  They have.   You don't agree with the majority?  That is your issue.  In short, sucks to be you. and yes, if 51% of the people want X, and 49% of the people don't want X, then yes, it is tough shit for the 49%.

If you have a problem with a consensual democracy, that is one thing.  But your displeasure with consent does not make taxation theft.

 

/thread

I stated earlier that for semantic reasons, I accept the idea that income taxation isn't theft.
 

It is, however, the taking, by force or threat of force, of someone's labor.

[Tim the Beek]

The Malcolms are being murdered by the majority, It is legally sanctioned, but it is still murder.

 

It's homicide. And grossly immoral. Wouldn't be murder though.

[Depends]

Well, it is an individual issue. The government doesn't tax groups of people, it taxes individuals. The entire point of this thread was not for people to tell me how the government works in the US. The point was to convince me that compusory taxation is not theft. Whether you live in Iceland, Iran or the US. I dont care about location. Because even in a society such as this one, where as stated, majority rules, not every individual is represented. If 70% agree and 30% disagree, and the "representatives" go ahead and exact compulsory taxation upon them, that is theft. They did not consent to having their productivity robbed./ Just because the majority said "we want that!" doesn't mean that it is no longer a violation of the individuals right to property. Theft is the action of stealing, and stealing by definition of taking from someone without their consent. In this case by force.

 

Therefore compulsory taxation is theft. Ther eis no hidden consent from an individual for being born into a system, or because their neighbor cast a vote to extract money from them (for whatever reason they have to justify the theft) or because the "government" has determined that such a theft is legal, and therefore, not theft.

I disagree 100% with your concept that they did not agree. Go back to the constitution.  

You want it both ways.  How is taxation not theft you ask.  The answer is because the majority of the people agreed to it.  End of story.  There is no ifs ands, or buts.  

Now you say that you don't agree with majority rule.  But you also say I don't wanna hear about how government works.

 

So, be clear.  Which do you want?   If your question is why is it not theft, your answer is the people voted for it.  If your question is why does majority rule, then ask that question.

 

Or continue to cover your ears, and stomp and say but but but I didn't agree.   

[Depends]

What part of majority rule still violates the individual don't you get?

If the majority determined that anyone named Malcolm will be hung from th tallest tree, and people begin hunting for Malcolms of the nation and stringing them up by their necks into the trees, are the Malcolms being murdered? Or is it something else because the majority, and in turn the government decided this policy is acceptable and made it law?

 

The answer seems simple enough. The Malcolms are being murdered by the majority, It is legally sanctioned, but it is still murder.

That is what SCOTUS is for, correct?  to protect the minority from the majority.  

 i

[TakeAStepBack]

It's homicide. And grossly immoral. Wouldn't be murder though.

 

OK, semantically, you can choose homicide since it does not by definition involve legality. Murder is one of homicides synonyms.

[Depends]

I stated earlier that for semantic reasons, I accept the idea that income taxation isn't theft.
 

It is, however, the taking, by force or threat of force, of someone's labor.

not unlike any other debt.

[Depends]

What part of majority rule still violates the individual don't you get?

If the majority determined that anyone named Malcolm will be hung from th tallest tree, and people begin hunting for Malcolms of the nation and stringing them up by their necks into the trees, are the Malcolms being murdered? Or is it something else because the majority, and in turn the government decided this policy is acceptable and made it law?

 

The answer seems simple enough. The Malcolms are being murdered by the majority, It is legally sanctioned, but it is still murder.

If you don't agree with what the majority has ruled, you do have 2 options. Get the rules changed.  Or go somewhere where the rules are different.

 

(and I have met enough people that would think it would not only be OK to murder Malcolms, but might be doing society as a whole a big benefit)

[Tim the Beek]

not unlike any other debt.

 

Can't think of any other debt which is involuntarily incurred solely by virtue of one's geographical location. So no, not unlike, IMO.

[Tim the Beek]

That is what SCOTUS is for, correct?  to protect the minority from the majority.  

 i

 

History often says otherwise.

[TakeAStepBack]

I disagree 100% with your concept that they did not agree. Go back to the constitution.  

You want it both ways.  How is taxation not theft you ask.  The answer is because the majority of the people agreed to it.  End of story.  There is no ifs ands, or buts.  

Now you say that you don't agree with majority rule.  But you also say I don't wanna hear about how government works.

 

So, be clear.  Which do you want?   If your question is why is it not theft, your answer is the people voted for it.  If your question is why does majority rule, then ask that question.

 

Or continue to cover your ears, and stomp and say but but but I didn't agree.   

 

So, it's not theft because you say so.

 

Alrighty, man. I think weve ran in enough circles on it.

[Depends]

Can't think of any other debt which is involuntarily incurred solely by virtue of one's geographical location. So no, not unlike, IMO.

There ya go changing the concepts.  It is NOT involuntary incurred.  

[Depends]

History often says otherwise.

often, or at times?

[concert andy]

What finally put Al Capone in jail?

 

He was worth 30 Million dollars in 1929, and never filed a tax return.

 

 

http://law2.umkc.edu...oneaccount.html

Capone in 1929 might have been worth about $30 million, but no income tax return had ever been filed in his name.

[Depends]

So, it's not theft because you say so.

 

Alrighty, man. I think weve ran in enough circles on it.

No, it is not theft because a majority of the people said so.

 

AND, it is not simply theft because YOU say so.

[JBetty]

AND, it is not simply theft because YOU say so.

 

Awww, c'mon Depends.

Can't it be theft because he says so - just for today?

I mean, it IS his birthday n shit.  

[TakeAStepBack]

No, it is not theft because a majority of the people said so.

 

AND, it is not simply theft because YOU say so.

 

That's right. I dont have to rely on my say so. We all know that taking from someone without their consent is theft. YOu're trying to justify the theft by saying that a majority of people agreed to it. That an individual who does not can not claim that it is theft because the group around them said it isnt' because THEY agreed to it.

 

 

Here's a close interpretive example: I'm on 8th ave and 40th st in NYC. I come up to you and point a gun at you and say that I want the money in your wallet. I have 1,000 people with me that says that you have to give me the money. Majority rule Mofo! It's not theft,  1,001 of us voted for it. Give me the money.

[Depends]

That's right. I dont have to rely on my say so. We all know that taking from someone without their consent is theft. YOu're trying to justify the theft by saying that a majority of people agreed to it. That an individual who does not can not claim that it is theft because the group around them said it isnt' because THEY agreed to it.

 

 

Here's a close interpretive example: I'm on 8th ave and 40th st in NYC. I come up to you and point a gun at you and say that I want the money in your wallet. I have 1,000 people with me that says that you have to give me the money. Majority rule Mofo! It's not theft,  1,001 of us voted for it. Give me the money.

Does you only sell apples and oranges?

[concert andy]

I say by living in a country that has compusarly taxation, the individual enters a social contract with that country.

 

 

 

 One justification of taxation is contained in the theory of a social contract.

 

http://en.wikipedia....Social_contract

 

In political philosophy the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.^[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remainingrights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory.

 

Although the antecedents of social contract theory are found in antiquity, in Greek and Stoic philosophy and Roman and Canon Law, as well as in the Biblical idea of the covenant, the heyday of the social contract was the mid-seventeenth to early nineteenth centuries, when it emerged as the leading doctrine of political legitimacy. The starting point for most social contract theories is a heuristic examination of the human condition absent from any political order that Thomas Hobbes termed the “state of nature”.^[2] In this condition, individuals' actions are bound only by their personal power and conscience. From this shared starting point social contract theorists seek to demonstrate, in different ways, why a rational individual would voluntarily consent to give up his or her natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order.

Hugo Grotius (1625), Thomas Hobbes (1651), Samuel Pufendorf (1673), John Locke (1689), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) are among the most prominent of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century theorists of social contract and natural rights. Each solved the problem of political authority in a different way. Grotius posited that individual human beings hadnatural rights; Hobbes asserted that men consent to abdicate their rights in favor of the absolute authority of government (whether monarchial or parliamentary); Pufendorf disputed Hobbes's equation of a state of nature with war.^[3]

 

Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and that the rule of God therefore superseded government authority; and Rousseau believed that democracy (self-rule) was the best way of ensuring the general welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law. The Lockean concept of the social contract was invoked in the United States Declaration of Independence. Social contract theories were eclipsed in the nineteenth century in favor of utilitarianism, Hegelianism, and Marxism, and were revived in the twentieth, notably in the form of a thought experiment by John Rawls.^[4]

 

 

Please note Speaker of the house agrees with TASB:

 

 

 

US Republicans such as Grover Norquist have in recent history been strongly anti-tax, with Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner directly expressing the "taxation is theft" idea by saying "how much more money do we want to steal from the American people to fund more government".[10]

[Tim the Beek]

There ya go changing the concepts.  It is NOT involuntary incurred.  

vol·un·tary

1: proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent

And I'm fairly sure your response is going to be that by staying in US, people give their consent. If that's the case, I strongly disagree.

And I'm not sure how I'm changing concepts when my position all along has been that at least some people are paying taxes involuntarily.

[TakeAStepBack]

Does you only sell apples and oranges?

 

The examples are the same. The  only thing that changes is your perception that you have a voice amongst the majority. And even in the example I cited, you have a voice. You can say "no". At which point several of the crowd can restrain you while I or someone else removes the money from your wallet. It's the same thing with the state. In fact, it's actually worse, because at least I have the honesty to come straight to you witht he 1,000 person crowd I formed and demand your money. Where as the majority goes to a ballot box and secretly and nameslessy votes in favor of the same types of action described above. The only thing that changes from 1,001 of us doing it, or 300 million is the middleman. Nothing more. it's still theft.

[Tim the Beek]

often, or at times?

 

Semantics, really. But I think often.

 

There's a substantial list of cases in which the USSC has grossly failed the minority, and in some pretty spectacular ways.

[Tim the Beek]

And, with that, I think I've said what I have to say on the subject.

 

Or probably not.

[Depends]

The examples are the same. The  only thing that changes is your perception that you have a voice amongst the majority. And even in the example I cited, you have a voice. You can say "no". At which point several of the crowd can restrain you while I or someone else removes the money from your wallet. It's the same thing with the state. In fact, it's actually worse, because at least I have the honesty to come straight to you witht he 1,000 person crowd I formed and demand your money. Where as the majority goes to a ballot box and secretly and nameslessy votes in favor of the same types of action described above. The only thing that changes from 1,001 of us doing it, or 300 million is the middleman. Nothing more. it's still theft.

How are the examples the same?  the rules against theft are in place, done so by 300 million.  the voice of 1001 does not make that a majority.

 

Try pineapples.  They have vitamin C like an orange, but the name has apple in it...

[Depends]

vol·un·tary

1: proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent

And I'm fairly sure your response is going to be that by staying in US, people give their consent. If that's the case, I strongly disagree.

And I'm not sure how I'm changing concepts when my position all along has been that at least some people are paying taxes involuntarily.

Then you disagree with consensual democracy.  The majority agreed to the taxes levied. 

 

What if I disagree with the law that I drive on the right side of the road?  Nobody asked me.  I didn't agree to it.

[TEO]

He was worth 30 Million dollars in 1929, and never filed a tax return.

 

 

http://law2.umkc.edu...oneaccount.html

 

 

I see, so what are the potential consequences for not paying income taxes here in America?

[Depends]

Semantics, really. But I think often.

 

There's a substantial list of cases in which the USSC has grossly failed the minority, and in some pretty spectacular ways.

There is a substantial list of cases where the SC has NOT failed the minority.  I don't know for sure, but my bet is that more cases helped, rather than hurt. 

[TakeAStepBack]

How are the examples the same?  the rules against theft are in place, done so by 300 million.  the voice of 1001 does not make that a majority.

 

Try pineapples.  They have vitamin C like an orange, but the name has apple in it...

 

1,001 vs. 1 is a majority.

 

No, the rules were not done by 300 million. Only a majority of those made the rules and everyone else is compelled (through force/violence) to comply. A majority who turned out to secretly cast their voice favorably doesn't even include those who did not. How many people voted in the last election to seat Obama?

 

It looks like around 119 million. Less than half of the total population. You didn't have a majority for that either. It looks like the majority rule argument is crumbling... 

[concert andy]

I see, so what are the potential consequences for not paying income taxes here in America?

 

Well 20 Million translates into 269 Million with adjustments.

 

See:

http://www.coinnews....ion-calculator/

 

 

Who was stealing from who?  Was Capone stealing from the government (and many others), or was the trial asking for his share of his tax evasion, trying to steal from him?

 

TASB, Who is the bigger theif in this situation?

[Tim the Beek]

There is a substantial list of cases where the SC has NOT failed the minority.  I don't know for sure, but my bet is that more cases helped, rather than hurt. 

 

Could be. It's even probable. But if you think it's a given ("That is what SCOTUS is for, correct?  to protect the minority from the majority.") that it will, I think you're mistaken.

[TakeAStepBack]

Well 20 Million translates into 269 Million with adjustments.

 

See:

http://www.coinnews....ion-calculator/

 

 

Who was stealing from who?  Was Capone stealing from the government (and many others), or was the trial asking for his share of his tax evasion, trying to steal from him?

 

TASB, Who is the bigger theif in this situation?

 

There is no "bigger" theif. We have theives stealing from theives here.

[Tim the Beek]

What if I disagree with the law that I drive on the right side of the road?  Nobody asked me.  I didn't agree to it.

 

You can abide by that law, or not. That's up to you. If you abide by it because you're afraid of receiving a ticket, then you're abiding by it because of coercion, and not voluntarily, IMO.

If you don't abide by it, knowing that the convention here is driving on the right side, if your negligence causes injury or death to someone, be prepared to lose everything you own though.

[concert andy]

By living in a country that has compusarly taxation, the individual enters a social contract with that country.

 

 

 

 One justification of taxation is contained in the theory of a social contract.

 

http://en.wikipedia....Social_contract

 

Quote

In political philosophy the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.^[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remainingrights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory.

 

Although the antecedents of social contract theory are found in antiquity, in Greek and Stoic philosophy and Roman and Canon Law, as well as in the Biblical idea of the covenant, the heyday of the social contract was the mid-seventeenth to early nineteenth centuries, when it emerged as the leading doctrine of political legitimacy. The starting point for most social contract theories is a heuristic examination of the human condition absent from any political order that Thomas Hobbes termed the “state of nature”.^[2] In this condition, individuals' actions are bound only by their personal power and conscience. From this shared starting point social contract theorists seek to demonstrate, in different ways, why a rational individual would voluntarily consent to give up his or her natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order.

Hugo Grotius (1625), Thomas Hobbes (1651), Samuel Pufendorf (1673), John Locke (1689), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) are among the most prominent of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century theorists of social contract and natural rights. Each solved the problem of political authority in a different way. Grotius posited that individual human beings hadnatural rights; Hobbes asserted that men consent to abdicate their rights in favor of the absolute authority of government (whether monarchial or parliamentary); Pufendorf disputed Hobbes's equation of a state of nature with war.^[3]

 

Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and that the rule of God therefore superseded government authority; and Rousseau believed that democracy (self-rule) was the best way of ensuring the general welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law. The Lockean concept of the social contract was invoked in the United States Declaration of Independence. Social contract theories were eclipsed in the nineteenth century in favor of utilitarianism, Hegelianism, and Marxism, and were revived in the twentieth, notably in the form of a thought experiment by John Rawls.^[4]

 

 

What about this fact, and the social contract an individual enters by becoming part of a country.  

 

 

I am applying this broadly and not just the US?

 

 

Is this BS?  This was the only counter to the CT I could find.

[TakeAStepBack]

An illusion created by people to force others into compliance. Could you please pull up a copy of the social contract I signed and send it over?

 

Thanks.

 

So the argument in favor of the so called social contract is signed either explicitly or tacitly. In other words, doing nothing but minded your own business is consent. That's like saying that I'm justified in stealing from your house because you left it there. You were tacit.

 

tac·it  (tst)

adj.

1. Not spoken: indicated tacit approval by smiling and winking.

2.

a. Implied by or inferred from actions or statements: Management has given its tacit approval to the plan.

b. Law Arising by operation of the law rather than through direct expression.

3. Archaic Not speaking; silent.

 

 

You left the house there. You inferred the contents were up for grabs.

[Tim the Beek]

By living in a country that has compusarly taxation, the individual enters a social contract with that country.

 

 

 

 One justification of taxation is contained in the theory of a social contract.

 

http://en.wikipedia....Social_contract

 

Quote

 

What about this fact, and the social contract an individual enters by becoming part of a country.  

 

 

I am applying this broadly and not just the US?

 

 

Is this BS?  This was the only counter to the CT I could find.

 

 

It's not a fact, it's a philosophical construct.

And, I think, an interesting explanation for the ways in which societies/governments work.

It in no way means that everyone enters into it willingly, or that compliance with the rules which emerge from it are voluntary, or that those rules are "right."

[TakeAStepBack]

And yes, the argument I just made is suppose to be ridiculous.