• emperorreagan

    Well, to be fair it’s not just a piece of paper. It’s never just a piece of paper or just an edict. It’s a group of thugs who will happily use force. And it’s basically every state, ever.

  • Posthuman

    Its also important to note we opt into the system with hidden contracts via vital tools like bank accounts and drivers licenses.

    • emperorreagan

      It’s not hidden. The notion of the social contract is talked about in public schools in the US.

      And it’s not really a contract. It’s a justification that political theorist use and really probably not any more reasonable than the divine right of kings. A “contract” that’s based on implied consent with no means to opt-out (short of leaving the territory and making yourself subject to some other “contract”) and a coercive force ready to hit you over the head if you voice dissent is hardly a contract.

      • Posthuman

        “It’s not hidden. The notion of the social contract is talked about in public schools in the US.” Fact of the matter is, they werent covered in my education. And most people dont know about them.

        • Jin The Ninja

          that’s not a fact- that is your experience, but many people DO know about the ‘social contract’ sometimes referred to as ‘citizenship.’

          • emperorreagan

            To add to what Jin said:

            Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau all make the cut into most American civics/government text books, into most high school curricula, and are covered on the AP exam (looked that up to make sure I’m not crazy).

            How much time individual teachers spend on the topic may vary and how much individuals will recall once removed from taking the course will vary as well.

            Most people may recall nothing at all about the topic – most people probably can’t recall the quadratic equation either. Doesn’t make any of it hidden.

          • Posthuman

            Dont you have anything better to do than try and debate whether these contracts are hidden or not? Thats not even the point…

            Regardless of how widely known they are, we’re forced into accepting them if we wish to drive a car, have a bank account, etc. Things that are not easily gone without.

          • emperorreagan

            That was the point of the second part of my comment.

            Implied consent derived from participation is nothing more than a construct to justify government.

            In practice, your consent doesn’t matter because the state will use force as it deems necessary to bring you in line with its laws, as it proves time and again with tax resistors and other dissidents.

          • Posthuman

            Was not covered in MY education. That is impossible for you to dispute.

          • Jin The Ninja

            i didn’t.

            to quote: ‘your experience.’

            furthermore, while you may not have learned civics while at school, the notion is still prevalent and frequently mentioned in the greater discourse- in david cameron’s ‘big society’ speech he mentions the idea 3 or 4 times. no one is disagreeing with you that it is an implied factor in everyday life, but it is not hidden- and ignorance is not a legal argument . the ‘rights’ or ‘obligations’ of citizenship are often used to justify the social contract- as being a mutually beneficial one, i don’t agree with it, but that it is how it is framed by political theorists.

          • Posthuman

            Fact: A thing that is indisputably the case.
            Ie; Social contracts were not covered in my education.
            Fact.

            The rest is your opinion and we all know what they say about those…

          • Jin The Ninja

            ‘my education’ connotes singular experience, not the true pedagogical relationship of teacher and students (plural) of public education. it is verifiable FACT that AP Civics and AP American History both include locke, hobes, and rosseau.

            i didn’t dispute that a) you may not correctly recall civics b) in fact your teachers (plural) entirely forgot to mention that portion of american history in your 4 years of high school.

            nice try though.

            and again NO one is disputing the overarching value that the social contract is subtle AND coercive, so what is your real point? you’re not studious? you don’t read or watch news?

          • Posthuman

            It must get exhausting being a troll…

          • Calypso_1

            You must be exhausted to need a bromide at such an early occasion.

          • Posthuman

            Whatever you say, broham.

          • Jin The Ninja

            if you’re going to subvert language a la wordplay/smithery- at least make it clever.

          • Calypso_1

            Accepted.

          • Jin The Ninja

            interesting to note that you have no downvotes on this thread.

            my 4800+ comments vs your 30 comments
            and i’m a troll? try again.

            the only dispute i have with you is that the ‘social contract’ is a real, extant, idea within political theory, it is well-known even if you are not familiar with it- it doesn’t make it legitimate or acceptable or even desireable.

            but the social contract is a substantive part of ‘natural law’- which is cited to be a basis for the constitution.

            so what exactly ARE you disputing?

          • sonicbphuct

            not to brow-beat it, but you can’t disqualify his experience as “not a fact” anymore than you could disqualify the experience of a rape victim as not a fact. One may not be able to prove their experience as fact, however, that does not negate the experience and with appropriate investigation, it may be proved. Of course, someone on LSD has experiences that likely can not be proved as fact…. so, maybe I lose on this one.

            it seems to me this is simply a misunderstanding and not an argument as all three of you are basically saying the same thing from slightly different perspectives (those being different educational levels).

            I went to HS in 2 states, CA & WA, and I was not in any AP classes. I can assure you, in my classes, Locke, Hobbes & Rousseau were not covered. I had to find out about them [as well as Kropotkin, Bakunin, Ema Goldman, Spooner, etc.] after speaking with people who had better educations than I had (in my 20’s).

          • Jin The Ninja

            firstly, i recognise you’re not ill-intentioned so please don’t interpret my response as harshly-toned.

            i never ‘disqualified the OP’s experience ‘as not fact'”
            but, if you can copy/paste where i said that- i’d be much obliged.

            i find rape analogies extremely distasteful, and find that is minimises sexual violence far more to constrain logic and rhetoric within an analogy that is neither relevant nor particularly useful. that is obviously my opinion.

            neither did i once asked the OP
            ‘to prove his experience’ simply that i can verify outside my own experiences that AP courses do in fact teach basic ideas of american civics. it doesn’t really matter whether s/he did or did not take them- their contention seems to be that the idea of the ‘the social contract’ was and is a hidden concept- sort of a conspiracy against citizens of western democracies. which i have a contention with, as natural law and the social contract are intrinsically linked- and as i mentioned natural law is an oft-cited basis for the constitution.

            i do recognise that not everyone reads seneca the younger (de iras literally changed my life- and i have the tattoo to prove it) at 14, or that not everyone has the ‘privilege’ of private school, AP courses, and university. but i must note that neither was i introduced to kropotkin, bakunin, or spooner (although i did ‘hear of’ emma goldman in the context of the haymarket riots, women’s history and canadian history)- until i was studying in university and intro’d by way of daoism to the late great george woodcock and rothbard, and literary theory to foucault.

            i do agree that the argument here is misplaced, but i reiterated several times that same idea.

            or i could be totally wrong, over-exacting, overly speculative, obnoxiously smart-assed, priggish etc etc.

          • Calypso_1

            It is in your wording. But that was in response to a statement presented as fact (which could not in whole be supported by subjective experience) followed by statement of personal experience (factual). You addressed this as “that’s not a fact- that is your experience”
            I did not take it to be denying that experience itself is a fact but that the initial claim was not.
            There is some potential for confusion I suppose.

          • sonicbphuct

            Point on the rape analogy taken – bad taste, bad form, bad hyperbole.

            I am, most assuredly (at least most likely) guilty of the description in your last paragraph [and I like the word priggish]:
            “i could be totally wrong, over-exacting, overly speculative, obnoxiously smart-assed, priggish etc etc.”

  • Elenchus

    That ‘little bit of ink’ was part of a greater work called the US Constitution. I can almost guarantee he would call other ‘little bits of ink’ in the constitution holy sacrament if someone tried to change them… which would certainly happen if the we didn’t have the resources protect them. It’s just silly taking exception to one part of the constitution and trying to frame it as somehow an immoral robbing without an argument that addresses the reason it was included; That’s just whining, “I don’t want to pay taxes because I don’t like it.”.

    • moremisinformation

      “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much
      is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have
      had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit
      to exist.” -Lysander Spooner

      Larken Rose is not a Constitutionalist so the notion that, you “can almost guarantee he would call other ‘little bits of ink’ in the constitution holy sacrament if someone tried to change them”, you would be wrong on your ‘almost guarantee’.

      Rose has put forth ample, detailed arguments addressing the rest of your post and addressing disagreements with him that are far more thorough and less hyperbolic.

      • Elenchus

        It makes little difference what I ‘almost guarantee’ since it doesn’t amount to anything one way or another. My experience with Larken amounts to this video and in regards to it I found it to strike me in a similar fashion as the prevalent hyperbolic rhetoric used these days that is meant to stir up fear and emotions, but little else. Repeatedly downplaying the words in the constitution by calling them ‘little bits of ink’ adds nothing to the argument that the ideas and concepts they represent is invalid. And overall I didn’t find any of his arguments in the video to be convincing. That’s not to say I’m a constitutionalist either. The reason I watched the whole thing is because I would like to understand what Larken’s (or is it Spoone’rs?) full position is.

        • moremisinformation

          You don’t find it convincing that a group of people taking money from others (‘taxes’) is theft? I’d be curious to hear why you believe it is acceptable for some people to extract property from others.

          I’m also curious to hear how voluntaryist ideas are ‘meant to stir up fear and emotion’?

          The best way to understand Larken’s positions would be to consume his media – videos, books, etc.

          • Elenchus

            Let me address first that I didn’t say the ideas (voluntaryism) are meant to stir up fear and emotion. I said the hyperbolic rhetoric he repeatedly uses in his argument struck me as the same tactics used to stir up fear and emotion that is prevalent (in politics & media,etc.). It ads no legitimacy to the overall argument. Secondly, I’m not originating a pro taxation argument. However, Larken IS making an argument that taxation is theft and his video did not address what I would consider the real important issues of removing the federal income tax; why it is unnecessary, and what would take its place (so that the people that have nothing don’t pay for everything while others own everything pay for nothing – taken from the stance that we’re all born on to the same planet and have an equal right to be here). Lastly, I have to point out that this isn’t as you’ve framed it, a group of people stealing from others for their own pocket, but this is The People taking money from The People to provide a working model that is suppose to benefit The People. If the model isn’t working, you have to address what about he model isn’t working and why (imo: usually it’s the human element) and then build a better model.

          • moremisinformation

            “Lastly, I have to point out that this isn’t as you’ve framed it, a
            group of people stealing from others for their own pocket, but this is
            The People taking money from The People to provide a working model that
            is suppose to benefit The People. If the model isn’t working, you have
            to address what about he model isn’t working and why (imo: usually it’s
            the human element) and then build a better model.”

            I’ll go with this last point. Anyone taking from anyone, is taking, ie. stealing. Regardless if it’s part of the ‘social contract’ or the ‘greater good’, or whatever other euphemism one’s collectivist ideology takes on.

            What about the model isn’t working? It’s based in force, fraud and coercion. A better model begins with voluntaryism.

  • InfvoCuernos

    Biggest gang in the land always takes its share. I doubt this will ever change. The second there is a land that doesn’t pay a standing army, a new gang will take their place and they will take their share.

  • ManwithnoCountry

    Eh. The ruling tribe is collecting its tribute. What else is new?

  • Calypso_1

    The fundamental issue (which he states numerous times but only hints at) is not what is written or that which people comply with but rather the whole idea of “Moral Right”.

  • Anthony Neilsen

    Stupid, stupid video. Imbecile speaking. The constant repeating of “rob you” is a mind control technique to fool people. Watch out for that, for starters.

    Taxation is NOT robbery. It is a payment for all the public services provided for by government. Hospitals, schools, public transport, libraries, roads, and other infrastructure, police, fire brigade, and many other vital things without which a society could not properly function.

    The fool who made this video obviously has some kind of an agenda, He could not be that stupid, could he? Is he trying to stir up unrest? Who knows.

    Anyway, the fact that the IRS is utterly corrupt and personal income tax goes to paying off the bogus Fed Debt is another matter altogether.

    Taxation is not Robbery.

21
More in anarchims, Constitution, Federal Reserve, gov't, I'm allowed to rob you, IRS, Larken rose, Taxation, thieves, unratified 16th amendment
Obama’s Willing Executioners of the Fourth Amendment

It’s now painfully clear that the president has put out a contract on the Fourth Amendment. And at the Capitol, the hierarchies of both parties are stuffing it into the...

Close