Post reply

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Attach:
(Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rtf, mp3, webp, odt, html
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 30000KB, maximum individual size 30000KB
Note that any files attached will not be displayed until approved by a moderator.
Verification:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: November 11, 2024, 06:31:27 AM »

Quote from: 11 November @ 07:29
➽ I do believe I could argue that the Constitution meets the four elements of a contract, but I honestly don't want to spend that much time on that much minutiae.

When the words "but" or "however" are used as a connective in a two part complex sentence, their purpose is to erase what preceded them. For example: I do believe you could argue that the Constitution meets the four elements of a contract, However you know that if your claims are deficient I will challenge your claim's logic, facts, and basis in reality.

Translating what you just wrote, You have just given an excuse for refusal to prove your claim.

In yet another Dishonest attempt to Distract, Deflect, Divert, Disrupt, and/or Derail having to actually prove your claim, you asked: ➽ Question: Under whose authority does your definition of the elements of a contract come from?

https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/the-essential-elements-of-a-contract/
https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/the-principles-of-contract-law/
https://www.contractscounsel.com/b/elements-of-a-contract
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/elements-of-a-contract
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract
https://www.contractsafe.com/blog/elements-of-a-contract
https://www.docjuris.com/post/the-elements-of-a-contract-six-essential-components

Whose authority are you using to deny the elements of a contract I have presented?

➽ In a world without laws, there is no authoritative body that determines what is, or is not, a contract.

You have failed to present the definition of "law" as you are using the term. I am sure my definition of the term "law" will not be the same as yours. I drill down on definitions to determine the specific traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of the definition. Likewise I drill down on definitions to determine the specific traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of the definition "law".

If you and I agree that you will pay me $20 for each time I mow your lawn, Are you going to argue that you and I don't have a contract?

➽ Answer: While it is not spelled out in a single sentence or paragraph that I am aware of, the Constitution.

I am forced to assume that without the typo and hazy referent you meant to post:
➽ Answer: While it [one paragraph or sentence of this alleged contract's terms] is not spelled out in a single sentence or paragraph that I am aware of[ in] the Constitution.

Are you going to argue that clauses (terms) in a contract do not have to be specific?

Repeating my very specific challenge to illuminate your reply:
Assuming arguendo that your opinion is a fact, please cite (copy-paste) just one paragraph or sentence of this alleged contract's terms that tell me or any other individual human what we are expected to give up in exchange for what this contract promises in return to us humans.

Your reply: ➽ The Preamble, Article VI, and the 14th Amendment, combined, can only be interpreted as requiring that we sacrifice certain of our natural rights to the system in exchange for what we receive.


The Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There is NOTHING in those words telling me what I am expected to give up in exchange for what this contract promises in return.

Article VI
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

There is NOTHING in those words telling me what I am expected to give up in exchange for what this contract promises in return.

Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

There is NOTHING in those words telling me what I am expected to give up in exchange for what this contract promises in return.

Quoting just one piece of the appropriate legislation: "42 USC 1981(a): All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens."

I'm not an emancipated black slave. Amendment 14 does not apply to me.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: November 10, 2024, 06:20:46 AM »

Quote from: 9 November @ 11:07
Dale Eastman Listen. It's Saturday and I just woke up. I will answer your 'challenge' later today. But if you're going to be a persistent piss-ant and keep badgering me after the fact with repeated posts like you have been, it will be the last response I give to you and I'll just block you. I will get to you if and when I feel it is important. You're not important to me and I don't owe you any of my time. Because I said I will probably respond to your message, I will do so. But it will be when I feel like it and I shouldn't be harassed over it. If you're like this with everything, I have to imagine that you don't have very many friends.
Quote from: 10 November @ 02:27
I thought you had written a longer question than this. Is this all there was? If so, here is my answer:

Before I get to my answer, I think it is imperative to have a firm understanding of what a social contract is and why it comes into existence. It was my desire to explain this in more detail that caused me to delay responding entirely because it's not something that can be easily put to words. Admittedly, I am also a bit rusty on the details. Much of the works involved are things that I have not read since college. So I wanted to go back and familiarize myself with the details. And frankly, I didn't know if I wanted to spend that much time trying to educate somebody that I don't really know, especially when I work as much as I do.

This is not to be a comprehensive treatise on the social contract theory. That would take far too long. The short version should probably begin with Thomas Hobbes. I read his book, The Leviathan, many years ago. And while I initially balked at some of his concepts, they eventually made a great deal of sense to me. I certainly do not agree with everything that he said. For instance, he believes that, in most cases, a sovereign entity should have basically unlimited authority. He believes that a monarchy is the best form of government. Because not every king can be Plato’s ‘Philosopher King’, I don't agree with that. But one thing that I do believe in is his view of the world without government. Life is short and brutish. That is the way the natural world is. In his world, natural rights can only be described as unlimited freedom to do anything that is within your power. This includes the freedom that I might have to steal from others or to kill them.

This has been the way of the world for much of human history. However, a social contract can form when people come together as a group and sacrifice certain of their rights to the new sovereign that they create. John Locke did not believe that the sovereign should have unlimited power. Rather, he believed that the power of the sovereign should be more limited. For instance, it should have the right to engage in taxation in order to fulfill its duties. It should also, most importantly, have a monopoly on force, or what many would consider to be violence. By participating in a social contract, we are individually sacrificing our rights to avoid taxation and to engage in violence so that we can know that we are being protected by the sovereign.

When it comes to our founding documents, the Constitution, in Article VI, specifies that everything within the Constitution, as well as any laws and treatises made by the US, are the ‘supreme law of the land’. The Preamble of the Constitution specifies that, ‘We the people of the United States… establish this Constitution for the United States of America’. And the 14th Amendment specifies that pretty much anybody born or naturalized to the United States of America is a U.S. citizen. So by that extension, everybody who is a citizen of the country has been considered as granting authority to the government that we have created. And we agree to abide by the laws set forth by it. The consideration that we are giving up is that we are sacrificing any of those natural rights that the laws prohibit (like murdering or stealing). If you have any doubt that we are ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the US, then the Supreme Court case, Wong Kim Ark, provides immense clarity in that regard. When it comes to consenting to the contract, the view that John Locke had was that you always have the ability to withdraw that consent. But it necessitates you leaving this system entirely. The reason why I bring up John Locke is because he was incredibly influential to the thinking of the founding fathers that ultimately resulted in the creation of the Constitution.
Quote from: 10 November @ 13:56
I appreciate the time you spent composing a reply.
The problem I have with that reply is you did NOT answer my challenge.
I will chalk that up to a communication error.
You and I do NOT see the same definitions for certain words being used.

There are some who believe the 'government' gets its alleged authority from a Social Contract. This alleged contract does not exist because it does not have the minimum elements required to be a valid contract. There are four basic elements required in order for a contract to exist. These elements are: an offer; a consideration; an acceptance; and a mutual agreement (a meeting of minds).

An offer is a conditional promise. What did the 'government' offer (promise) you?

A consideration is a thing (of value) given in exchange for the offer. What did the 'government' ask of you in return (consideration) of what the 'government' promised you?

An acceptance of an offer is an expression of assent to its terms. Can you express assent to the terms of an offer when no terms have been presented to you? When did you assent to the terms of this alleged Social Contract?

A mutual agreement or meeting of minds exists when both parties understand and agree to the terms of the contract. Can you understand and agree to the terms of a contract when no such terms have been presented to you?

In reality, the Social Contract is merely a Theory. This theory alleges that humans gave authority to the 'government' in return for the 'government's' protection.

Even if the Social Contract was an actual contract, The 'government' has voided the contract by failing to perform its reciprocal duties. On the previous page, under the heading of The Truth of Government, you will find cited examples where 'government' has actually done the damage the myth of government alleges 'government' exists to protect us from.

This Social Contract Theory as set out by John Locke, and Thomas Hobbes before him, was in essence, an attempt to make it appear that those under the Ruler's Rules (the king's edicts) at that point in time consented to both the Ruler and the Rules.

Locke's Social Contract Theory is the basis for the Consent Of The Governed phrase found in the Declaration of Independence. The Consent Of The Governed is just another artifice that attempts to make it appear that those under the Ruler's Rules consented to both the Ruler and the Rules.

I was VERY SPECIFIC in my challenge:
Assuming arguendo that your opinion is a fact, please cite (copy-paste) just one paragraph or sentence of this alleged contract's terms that tell me or any other individual human what we are expected to give up in exchange for what this contract promises in return to us humans.
Quote from: 10 November @ 14:23
I do believe I could argue that the Constitution meets the four elements of a contract, but I honestly don't want to spend that much time on that much minutiae. Instead, I will ask you a question and then I will answer, again, your question.

Question: Under whose authority does your definition of the elements of a contract come from? In a world without laws, there is no authoritative body that determines what is, or is not, a contract. If you're looking at it from a philosophical viewpoint, there are different views of how many different elements of a contract exist. I have found up to 7 when searching for it and as few as 4. At the end of the day, it is subjective what constitutes a valid contract if there is no law determining what is, or is not, a contract. Yeah, I could coerce you into a contract and most people would argue that it's not valid. But if there is nothing set in stone and enforced, it is subjective whether it is valid or not.

Answer: While it is not spelled out in a single sentence or paragraph that I am aware of, the Constitution. But anybody that has dealt with contracts a ton (and I have) knows that things aren't often spelled out so easily. The Preamble, Article VI, and the 14th Amendment, combined, can only be interpreted as requiring that we sacrifice certain of our natural rights to the system in exchange for what we receive. I would also reject the notion that our government has rendered the social contract void.
Posted by: Dale Eastman
« on: November 09, 2024, 07:37:08 AM »

Quote from: 8 November @ 12:51
Daniel Jones Is it the weekend where you will "try" to respond to my posts?
Quote from: 8 November @ 12:52
Dale Eastman Nope. That begins tomorrow.
Quote from: 8 November @ 12:58
Daniel Jones Then I'll wait as a courtesy.
Quote from: 9 November @ 09:40
On November 4, 2024 @ 15:19, Daniel Jones wrote: ➽
Dale Eastman Oh, I'm not a coward and I have never lied in my posts to other people. I'm just busy. Like I said, if I have time this weekend, I may try to respond.

Mr. Jones, you have failed to understand what I wrote. To wit: "I must call your words "lines of bullshit" because if you were lied to, you are not deliberately lying to me when you regurgitate the lies you were taught as truth."

I do not know if your failure to understand was willful or not. Either way, the failure to accurately communicate my intent was mine. I will now correct my error.

Let us assume... That is... Let us pretend that someone taught you that the moon is made of green cheese. You decide to inform me that "The moon is made of green cheese." In such a case you have unwittingly and without awareness, Lied to me. Not deliberately but a lie nevertheless.

Of course your failure to critically think about the claim you accepted as truth is on you. If you refuse to critically think about the false claim you accepted as truth, then yes, you are a coward. Likewise, when you refuse to answer my very specific challenges to you about the public claims you make, You are a coward.

On November 1, 2024 @ 11:40 you claimed: ➽ "As I mentioned, the contract is the Constitution " [...]
On November 2, 2024 @ 07:24 I responded: Your opinion is not a fact.
Assuming arguendo that your opinion is a fact, please cite (copy-paste) just one paragraph or sentence of this alleged contract's terms that tell me or any other individual human what we are expected to give up in exchange for what this contract promises in return to us humans.

If you can't produce the requested proof of the CONstitution (sic) being a social contract I expect you to post your admission that the CONstitution (sic) is not a social contract.