LogFAQs > #891415226

Giant_Aspirin posted...

but, anyway, the flawed premise is because there is no social contract about allowing a robber to enter your home to steal things to clean up the highway, but taxation in exchange for services is part of a social contract.

the social contract is the key and why your premise was flawed.

If social contract is the key to your argument, then is a failed argument.

You do not sign a contract MAGICALLY by becoming an adult. That is an adolescent understanding of the contract.

Here is how it works:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory. The term takes its name from The Social Contract (Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique), a 1762 book by Jean-Jacques Rousseau that discussed this concept.

By turning an age, you do not explicitly or tacitly agree to anything. These are done through actions.

Now, here is the big problem with this model:

According to the will theory of contract, a contract is not presumed valid unless all parties voluntarily agree to it, either tacitly or explicitly, without coercion. Lysander Spooner, a 19th-century lawyer and staunch supporter of a right of contract between individuals, argued in his essay No Treason that a supposed social contract cannot be used to justify governmental actions such as taxation because government will initiate force against anyone who does not wish to enter into such a contract. As a result, he maintains that such an agreement is not voluntary and therefore cannot be considered a legitimate contract at all.

A forced contract is not a real contract. If I make you sign a contract giving up your house to me and tell you if you don't I will kill or imprison you, lawfully that contract is not worth anything.

This is the social contract you claim is the key. The one that if not tacitly agreed to means you are going to die or be imprisoned.

As such I could easily modify the scenario to say I pull a gun on you and tell you to go home. Because you go home and decide it isn't worth continuing to protest the robber YOU TACITLY AGREED.

Cookie Bag posted...

He's like 13 years old, don't even bother.

The battle cry of people who cannot articulate logical counter-points.

FYI Cookie Bag hates me because I could prove SMN in FFXIV isn't trash at aoe after the rework.

Dude got so rekt he will try to flame me whenever he rarely logs on and sees me post. Smh
---

chill02 to me: you are beautiful