From: bolden@beta.math.unc.edu (Jeffrey Bolden)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: [misc.activism.progressive] Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 9 Jan 93 05:35:37 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina

In article <1993Jan9.023822.16008@midway.uchicago.edu> sals@random.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes:
>In article <1ila77INN7q4@armory.centerline.com> mrh@centerline.com (Mike  
>Huben) writes:
>> In article <93008.44842.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>  
>J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>> >In <1ikjvuINN7b0@armory.centerline.com>, Mike Huben writes:
>> >>If you were born here, then your parents freely made the choice for  
>you.
>> >>At any time, you can select another nation to live in.  There is no  
>secret
>> >>about the fact that if you choose to live here you must abide by the  
>laws:
>> >>every immigrant explicitly agrees to that.  Those laws are created by  
>the
>> >>process of mutual agreement called representative democracy.
>> >
>> >In other words, *I* still haven't chosen *anything*, so it's not  
>mutual.
>> 
>> You have chosen to remain here.
>
>Much of this discussion ignores the question: How does being in a place  
>entitle a government or any group of people to arbitrary (or nonarbitrary)  
>dominon over oneself? You, Mike, posit the fiction of a social contract.  
>But I never agreed to a social contract nor did most if not all the people  
>in the US. Even if other people did then so what? How does the presence of  
>a social contract among other people give them any power over me?  
>(including the power to force me to leave) This is like a group of thieves  
>gathering together and saying that we will steal (or tax) money from  
>anyone passing through this door. Of course these theives engineer their  
>agreement so that they gain more than they lose. This analogy is a loose  
>analog, but it address the crucial point of whether or not a social  
>contract among other can bind me in any why. I also must wonder how does  
>the social contract bind anybody? I will assume that by the social  
>contract you mean the US constitution, if you don't please enlighten me.  
>Nobody alive has signed the constitution or done anything to assert that  
>they have consented to be legally bound by the constitution. This alone  
>destroys the constitution's validity as a contract, but let's examine this  
>further. Somebody is bound to argue that because the founding fathers  
>created the constitution and it was ratified by the states it is valid.  
>However, this arguement ignores the fact that you cannot bind yur children  
>to a contract when they are adults. The people of revolutionary era  
>America could have bound their children by their property,. but they did  
>not do so in any manner, neither the founding fathers or the states could  
>have done so because they did not own all the proporty in America then and  
>they definitly did not own all what was to become property in America. The  
>people alive when the constitution was ratified did not even legally bind  
>themselves to the constitution. For a contract to be valid it must be  
>signed and delivered by and to all parties in the contract. Nobody signed  
>the constitution (the modern reproductions have had the signatures added  
>the original consitution has no signatures) the constitution was never  
>delievered to anybody and most importantly everybody did not consent to  
>the consitution.The constitution has no common law basis for validity.
>
> To posit that one is bound by the federal government because one is able  
>to leave the country is to assume that other people have the right to  
>dominion over you and your property in the absence of any valid contract.  
>To say that the government does in fact have this power is to admit that  
>the US government is a criminal organization because the government has no  
>contractual basis and is enforced soley through the use of force.

	I'm sorry but I couldn't let this one slip by.  Take a look at who
is forming this contract, the constitution:
	
		WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, in Order to FORM a
perfect UNION, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for
the common defense, 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.

	At the bottom it signed by the representatives of the people and
later ratified by the states.  If this were a corporate contract wouldn't
you consider it binding?

--JMB
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism