"A social contract is one made between a people and their government."
That does not sound even remotely true to me, but I will read more to see if the words ring true later on.
"It is an agreement whereby the people surrender certain aspects of their independence for the guarantee of corporate security and the enjoyment of a general welfare."
That sounds even less true, and in contrast with my expectation of being taught something I don't understand, or know, and then finding that sentence I am very skeptical concerning the next sentence.
"In the case of most countries this is an unwritten and unconscious arrangement built upon tradition and precedent as in the case of England. However in the United States we have an actual contract, the Constitution."
Please, anyone, expose this lie, and help me please, please, please, while there is still time.
"That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves."
I don't have any beef with the author of this Thread. I have no interest whatsoever to find out if the author believes or does not believe the false words published.
There is no such thing as a Contract between a mystical entity known as The People and any smaller segment of The People of any kind.
That, my Friends of Liberty, is a bald faced lie (even if the author has been indoctrinated into such a false belief) and it may be a good idea to abandon such folly. The Legal Criminals most certainly understand the facts here, there is no such thing as a contract between The People and anyone, anywhere.
I can read on, to see if there are any other words worthy of note.
"This was ratified by the original states and the subsequent states were formed under it and admitted as full partners to it."
States can't "ratify". States can't think. States are not responsible. States cannot be held accountable for very serious crimes, such as legalized torture, and legalized mass murder, and that is exactly how the people who profit from such lies like it, so they can get away with their crimes, and blame their crimes on The State.
It is a confidence scheme.
Please consider the competitive option of walking away from such a false belief in such destructive misunderstanding.
A Democratic Federated Republic can be a voluntary agreement among all the people who pay into such as thing, as if the thing was an insurance policy; reserving the absolute right to opt out, and stopping paying into it, as soon as it grows into a method by which Legal Criminals use the power they steal to steal more power from their targeted victims.
"Nowhere in the Constitution is the central government given the power to wage unending undeclared war."
Finally! Words that can be measured as true by some accurate measure.
Who gains the power to do the official measuring?
So, what is learned?
If people read and listen to those who opposed the ratification of that abomination called The Constitution they would learn how it was know to be ambiguous by design: it can mean anything the person, or persons, having power over it want it to mean one minute, and then the opposite meaning can work for them the next minute.
"It depends upon what is is."
Back to the Topical words:
"Nowhere is the central government given the right to ignore the requirement to protect the states from invasion."
The Central Government was never meant to be a single entity above the people who employ it unless the people who meant to employ it meant to employ a workable fraud upon so many targeted victims over time.
There is no sudden creation of a responsible being knowable as The Central Government. The Central Government is understood to be a Legal Fiction, even by the people who understand it.
Victims are led to believe that The Government did it?
Victims are led to believe that The Gun did it?
The actual people who commit crimes can blame The Government or the Gun or anything, or anyone, so as to make sure that their crimes still pay well.
"Well-connected rabble rousers now say equality will not be achieved
until everything is equal in everybody’s house."
Can a person admit, or confess, authoring such a false statement, if so, where is this person?
Who, exactly, is saying that "equality will not be achieved until everything is equal in everybody's house."?
Where is that person. The only one I know who ever said such a thing is the actual author of those words, no one else.
"Leveling the playing field has finally thrown off its cloak of deceit and exposed itself as, “From each according to their ability to each according to their need.”"
In the history of mankind there were people who were labeled by derogatory names such as "levelers".
As the Legal Criminals, such as Alexander Hamilton for example, worked diligently to assassinate the character of the people who spoke against The Constitution, because the people who spoke against The Constitution had legitimate, and proven (over time), criticisms concerning that usurpation, they, the Legal Criminals, invented, produced, and then maintained false labels that they attached to their opponents. Their opponents, they said, were levelers, and Anti-Federalists.
That was well recording in many books, I can offer links, sources, and that was another lie, it is called a Man of Straw.
Those, at the time, who actually wanted a Democratic Federated Republican form of government (voluntary as possible at the time), were against The Constitution. Those that wanted a Consolidated, All Powerful, Central Government, or Monopoly Government (with a Monopoly Legal Money Power), used their power over mass media, at the time, to besmirch, libel, and otherwise discredit those who wanted a working Democratic Federated Republican form of government by calling them Anti-Federalists.
The actual Federalists, in spirit, were called by the actual Legal Criminals (who hid behind a false front of Federalism) Anti-Federalists.
Good guys are called bad names, and the victims are led to believe that lie.
Bad guys are called good names, and the victims are led to believe that lie too.
People are led to believe that The Government, or the Gun, did it, while the actual criminals, who give themselves badges, and licenses, keep stealing more, and making crime pay very well.
So, again, who actually says that, who actually believes that, and who actually has the power to enforce that, and by what process do those who have the power to enforce that reach that goal?
If there aren't names, dates, and a discovery process involved, leaving no doubt whatsoever, then what is the process occurring now, right here, right now?
Who now is owning up to this:
Who, exactly, without blaming anyone else other than the individual responsible for saying, or believing, or authorizing those words, and what actions, exactly, are done by who, to reach that goal, right now?
"The professional civil rights entrepreneurs who’ve extorted vast amounts of personal wealth with threats of boycotts and demonstrations have been unmasked as the true purveyors of prejudice seeking to keep race and gender differences alive for their own benefit."
Civil Rights Entrepreneurs?
How about a name?
Does anyone who has any association whatsoever having to do with Civil Rights volunteer to be in that same group of Civil Rights Entrepreneurs, or is one person obviously guilty of doing bad things, connected to Civil Rights, and another person not so bad, at all, also connected to Civil Rights?
What is the point of connecting the term Civil Rights to the concept of bad behavior?
They all look the same to me?
They are all guilty, every last one of them, because they are all Civil Rights Entrepreneurs?
That smells like a rat to me, smells like a version of collective punishment or "prejudice"; where the idea is to discredit many people because someone is threatened by some people.
Something along the lines of treating the symptoms of crime by killing all the victims. No more victims, no more crime.
How does that logic work out in your mind?
"Union bosses build political empires using the legally forced dues of members with more money spent on political activity than on member service."
A voluntary union is Liberty, by definition, as the volunteers volunteer, knowing full well what they are volunteering to do, unless they volunteer to start targeting and then injuring innocent people, and at that moment the "volunteers" become criminals defining the meaning of crime with each new victim.
Why blame the Union, if a crime is committed by a person upon an innocent person?
The Union didn't do it.
The State didn't do it.
The Gun didn't do it.
Consider options to such lies - please.
"Both parties are dedicated to more spending and bigger government."
No such thing is true, in fact that is demonstrably false. People controlling power use the power they control to target and then injure innocent people, and those thought, by those individuals, constitute crimes, as those actions result in those goals of injury upon those targeted victims.
Blaming a party accomplished what goal?
Who blames a party?
Raise your hand?
"When will enough be enough?"
I've had enough lies, how about you?
"When will citizens rise in their righteous anger and demand not a New Deal, not a Great Society, a New Frontier or a Fundamentally Transformed America but instead their original deal."
Please consider reading the link to Lysander Spooner's work titled No Treason. You may find those words worth reading.
You may be threatened by those words.
I don't know.
I do know that I have never made any "social contract" with a group. Groups are not responsible, people are, so who would I have talked to to make this contract with this nebulous group?
Is it assumed that I made a contract at birth?
Rats smell because each of them produce stink - it seems to me - but it will be one rat that stinks, and then two rats that double the stink, and then more, but there may still be a rat that does not stink, who knows?
"The one we wrested from the hands of the tyrant King George."
People, people, please: The Declaration of Independence was explicit, not ambiguous, and it was, in so many words, an observation of fact, that people have a duty to fight against criminal governments. That is the breaking up of a so called "Social Contract" not a supposed "deal" made between criminals and victims.
The Constitution followed The Articles of Confederation, as both followed The Declaration of Independence. In between The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution were actions by volunteers which resulted in the momentary Liberation from English Legal Criminals.
Alexander Hamilton was an outspoken supporter of English Rule, and it was his work in particular that thew out The Articles of Confederation, which worked very well as a Democratic Federated Republic, a competitive government, a voluntary government, and once that working Democratic Federated Republic was thrown out, by the Monarchists, The Nationalists, like Alexander Hamilton, who hid behind a false front of Federalism, once The Spirit of Liberty was killed off, The Constitution worked as a Nation State as it was designed to work, ambiguously, or constructively interpretable, or plausibly deniable, immediately.
It is not the tool that is to blame when the tool is used by criminals to injure innocent targeted victims, but the victims aught to know better - it seems to me.
Failing to know better may result in perpetual victimization: looking through the eyes of a duped victim.
The Legal Criminals know better, they are not merely born lucky - they work too.
"The one we’ve fought to establish and defend from Yorktown to Kandahar and the right of a people to be free to live as they desire, to work for their own benefit and choose their own destiny."
Some were working to gain freedom, and liberty, so disconnect from the oppressors; but others were working to take over the power of Legal Crime, which they did, and the victims may figure it out in time, rather than settling for more of the same: on into perpetuity.
"Free from the smothering governmental control which has been the lot of most people in most places since the beginning of time."
A. Voluntary Government (insurance is one example)
B. Involuntary Government (crime is one example)
Why is government ever the scape goat?
How about a competitive guess?
Government is as good as any other scape goat used by any criminal so long as it keeps working, making Legal Crime Pay so well.
The victims blame the baby for the bathwater, and that can be a case of throwing the baby out, and keeping the bathwater.
Such things work, for some, at the expense of the others.
This isn't news, by the way.
"When will the yoke of tyranny become too heavy to be borne? What will be the spark that lights the torches and brings the incensed villagers to the gate of the castle demanding, “Bring the monster out!” so that a stake can be driven through the heart of tyranny and freedom can return to the land?"
Legal Crime pays very well, stop paying into it, stop using the problem (crime) as the cure for the problem (crime).
The criminals, on the other hand, have no problem with crime, it pays very well, so long as it remains to be legally enforced.
"When that day comes what will we the people do?"
Each of us can invent a good plan, and we can borrow good plans from other people, such as, for example, Ron Paul.
How about starting out simple?
A simple 3 point plan:
End the Legally enforced crime of counterfeiting and do so voluntarily by volunteering to stop enforcing Legal Tender Laws, and that will bring down The Federal Reserve System of Legal Extortion (counterfeiting).
End the Legally enforced crime of extortion known as The Federal Income Tax, and again do this voluntarily. If people insist on paying more to people who then use that power to steal more, let them do so, but not on my dime. Don't pay anyone to enforce The Federal Income Tax Enforcement Fraud. Who can complain?
You want to keep paying, write a check, send it "to whom it may concern".
Bring the troops home.
How many of them volunteered to torture and mass murder innocent people so as to enforce a legal money monopoly power by enforcing the criminal theft of oil from those who had that power over that oil?
Stop the crime of using American Volunteers in the Military as those valuable, worthy, honest, productive people are consumed in those crimes.
I will repeat those inspirational words published in this Topic by the topic author:
Each one will compete.
Competition forces (voluntarily) quality up and cost down; which is the logical, reasonable, and effective tool, used by honest productive people, to increase the standard of living while lowering the cost of living at the same time.
Criminals do the opposite.
Criminals consume productivity in the work of stealing from those who can produce and then the stolen loot is used to steal more, and that tool, crime, works better when crime is made legal, involuntarily.
Criminals lie, or resort to deceit, so as to force people with those lies into a state of belief in the good of being a victim. That can be spun by criminals to be "volunteering" to pay taxes, for example, while it is, in fact, demonstrably false.
Stop enforcing the collection of those taxes and see who insists making that sound investment in that way.
Ron Paul is not leading this thing, he is on a parallel path, and he is gaining a lot of power, a lot of currency, but the force is competitive, not criminal.
He, that Ron Paul person, that individual, has been using the tool, competition, for some time, setting a good example, leading by example. Followers volunteer to emulate the example, pick up the tool, and use it too.
"Will we try to resurrect the government of old that ultimately brought us full circle or will we be bold enough to forge a new the social contract and design better ways to ensure that the beast of tyranny doesn’t once again break the chains of restraint."
Contracts are done between responsible individuals so as to record an accurate accounting of exactly what was voluntarily agreed upon by each of those signing the contract.
What is this "social contract" thing - exactly?
I don't think I'll be signing it at this point - it is ambiguous - as far as I can tell so far.