Private Social Media Platform

➽ 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.

So you think you could fight off the government if they come for you? HAHA Try it out and let me know how that goes.

So you're a Statist that wants government to enslave humans. You must of missed this one because you did NOT comment... Do I need to explain it to you?

Tell me how many guns it would take to fight off the US government.

This is what YOU are supporting:
https://synapticsparks.info/gove.../ExaminingGovernment.html

Answer the question. I want to know. How will you fight off the government? Once you start shooting people, will they just give up and go away? How does that work?

Daniel Jones Is it the weekend where you will "try" to respond to my posts?

Dale Eastman Nope. That begins tomorrow.

Daniel Jones Then I'll wait as a courtesy.

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.

JAB, you are naive. Do you really think there could be a society without either a government or an autocratic ruler? That has never existed in the history of humanity. The real question is - what kind of rule doe we want to have? Galt's Gulch is a fantasy. If we don't a government built upon democratic principles, there will always be someone who takes control and makes the rules for himself. In that case, you can forget about freedom, equality, and fair play. All that anti-government ranting ignores the realities of human society. It is childish to say "we don't need no stinkin' gubmint!" What we need is good government.

In my opinion, the first pillar of good government is democracy, and the idea that all people should have an equal voice.

The second pillar is having a constitution that sets out how the government should function, and is inviolable by any office or person in the government, no matter what position they hold.

The third pillar is a system of checks and balances - the separate and co-equal branches of government that keep the others from going out of control.

Fourth is the idea that nobody should be able to benefit personally from their position in government.

Fifth is the idea that nobody is above the law.

Now, I don't claim that we meet those ideals. But some come far closer than others. Some want to strengthen and uphold them, and strive for better government. Trump doesn't abide by any of those things, and he has openly declared his contempt for democracy (he wants to be a dictator) and the constitution (which he says he wants to abolish).

As for egalitarianism in Spain, I assume you are aware that Franco became dictator in 1936, and he maintained peace in the country by aligning himself with fascist Germany and Italy. There may have been some groups in Spain trying to evade Franco's rule, but they didn't win.

"do you see us ever being able to meet those pillars? And if so, how"
I don't know if we can ever achieve it, but at least we can work toward improvement of our government. The key is those final two pillars that I mentioned. This is where we fall short, and it is the reason we have people like you who are against government. We have congressmen passing legislation that favors certain factions, and profiting from it. We have judges taking bribes to make rulings that serve their benefactors. We have presidents using force to coerce the course of events. Isn't this precisely why you hate government? But government itself isn't the problem. We need to have strict rules on what people in government can do, and enforce them. Then our government will work for the benefit of the people, as it should.

You have a jaded view of humanity. You can't believe that government can be beneficial. You believe the people in government are always out for themselves. But it all depends on who we put in charge. Some governments are better than others. In general, the modern European governments are better than ours in America. Why? Because they are more oriented toward the needs of the people. They believe that people can work together for the common benefit. In America, we revere individualism and strength. 'Social' is a dirty word. We tend to elect people who project personal strength and work for the benefit themselves and their friends, at the cost of compassion and concern for the well-being of those who are most in need of support. The American psychology produces the government we have.

You are extremely jaded. You advocate Ayn Rand's all-for-myself society, where everyone is left to their own devices, and nobody tells you what to do. But that is a recipe for conflict, hardship and chaos. Galt's Gulch is a fantasy.

So are you one of those "sovereign citizens"? Entrenched in a compound with your guns, ready to kill anyone who crosses your path? With no regard for civil society or its laws?

I was simply asking the question - because you seem to have the same opinions that those guys have.

That doesn't really answer the question. I assume you know what I mean by the term sovereign citizen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement
Is that what you are?
I don't claim any right to rule you. I do claim, as Thomas Jefferson did, that the rights and freedoms we have don't extend to trampling on the rights of others. And that the duly elected government has the authority to pass legislation, to provide for the general welfare, to protect our rights, and to enforce the law.

So you are being deliberately obtuse, or you didn't bother to look at the description of the modern sovereign citizen movement.

"I asked you to admit or deny that you and I are equals in that neither of us have a Right-to-Rule the other."
- You don't listen very well. I already talked about that. I agreed.

"I am NOT interested in listening to you or the Federal government call me a terrorist."
- So that's the answer to my question. I would suggest that you go back to your anpropaganda site and commiserate with your fellow sov-cits.

"I find it interesting that stating my lack of interest in being called a terrorist somehow provided you with a reason to assume I am a terrorist."
- You said that article was calling you a terrorist. It is therefore reasonable to assume that you think it refers to you. Otherwise, you would have no reason to think that you were being called a terrorist. Anyone with half a brain would draw the same conclusion. By the way, it says that only some of them are. That's true.

"you don't want to deal with the actual meaning of the word "sovereign"."
- I know how to use a dictionary.

"Claim #𝟠 No human has an innate Right-to-Rule any other human."
- What is this? Your manifesto? In a democracy, governmental authorities exist by the consent of the people, regardless of how you want to spin it.

"Please admit or deny this claim."
- I'm not here to help you give voice to your twisted anti-government propaganda.

You're not the first right-wing extremist who thinks he's smarter than the rest of the world that I've dealt with. In a democracy, we grant governmental authority by the consent of the people. Your convoluted logic doesn't change the reality. It's a selfish, juvenile, and anti-social attitude that says "You're not the boss of me, and I refuse to live by any rules imposed by your gubmint." If you don't want to live in a democracy, then get out.

How childish can you be? I live in a country that has a constitution, and I respect it because that's what allows people to live and cooperate together in a functional society. I understand that without it, there would be either a despot calling the shots for everyone, or utter chaos. It's not perfect. I recognize the shortcomings we have, but I'd rather work within our constitutional framework to try to make it better, than to just allow a bunch of selfish anti-social nuts to have their way. I don't want any part of your fantasy society because I know enough about human behavior and history to realize that it wouldn't work the way you think, and it wouldn't make life pleasant for most of us.

You think you haven't been brainwashed by all that anti-gov propaganda? It has never worked. It isn't going to work just because you swallow it.

It is a lie that government must be bad.

History shows that there has always been either a government or an autocratic ruler. Take your choice.

There are plenty of ignorant people who believe all kinds of things. Like all this anti-government propaganda. It appears that you have been suckered in. I don't buy it. I know people who would be dead if that didn't have support from our government. There are millions of Americans who rely on the government for various things. We have police protection. We have public education. We have national defense. We have social security, transportation systems, healthcare, food and drug safety, consumer protections, and plenty of other things that are provided either wholly or partially by our government. I really don't care if a band of ignorant jack-asses don't like it. They are welcome to find another place where they can live without all those things. But don't try to take it away from me.

I'm stopping with this now.