It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the relationship between the individual and the government a contract?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
I am asking this question because after thinking about it for a little while, I cannot explain how or why myself or anyone else is compelled to comply with any gov't demands. No individual can compel his neighbor or anyone else to do anything just by simply issuing a demand. Force, of some kind must be used in order to assure compliance. That is not to say that any individual might not do something for someone else out of kindness or to settle a debt, etc. but in the end if the person being told to do something isn't willing, only force will make it happen. As I understand it, the American gov't was not created as some super entity with unlimited rights and power to coerce. I've heard the term "social contract" used to describe this relationship before, but I'm really perplexed as to how its practically applicable. I have never been asked by the gov't to do anything and to my knowledge I've never willingly signed a conract with the gov't. However, I am compelled to do all sorts of things for it that I am totally unwilling to do.

It is my understanding that every April I unwillingly enter into a contract with the gov't to "volunteer" a certain portion of my private property (income), but even that seems blatantly oxy-moronic. If income taxes are "voluntary" why is a contract necessary and most importantly why can't I choose not to pay them?


But individual income taxes aren't the only issue at hand here. Many of the taxes and/or licensing fees associated with the gov't are perpetrated in the same manner, through force. It seems pretty obvious that forcing me to pay "property tax" on the ENTIRE amount of perceived value of my home annually to "fund" education in my local area ultimately just removes my ability to ever "own" my home and/or property. If I don't pay, certainly the gov't will come and take it from me and kick me and my family out, even though I may have payed off the entire amount of a contract in order to "own" it. I never agreed to this, nor did I sign any contract, yet I am compelled to do so. What if I have no children, or they do not go to public school or even worse, what if the public school will not allow them to go because they do not have the "proper vaccinations". When I bought my house I never saw anything in the contract stating that any current or future medical decisions were in any way related.

Obviously, similar arguments can be made for vehicle licensing and registration, I bought the car from an auto dealer, not the gov't, and signed no contract at any time to pay the gov't to drive or own it. But, that ultimately isn't the point. Ultimately, if our relationship is in fact a contract I'd like to know when and how I agreed and to what exactly. Was it when my parents unwittingly "volunteered" me for a social security number. If you go to SSA.gov here it clearly states that getting a child a SS# is voluntary. I have yet to volunteer my son, but as a result I'm denied the tax benefits because after all, you cannot claim a dependant without a SS#!

So where does it end? Where does it begin? I completely disagree with the gov't's official position and actions in cases of war, law, tax, etc. yet I have no recourse individually. If I had a contract, then at least I could review the terms of that contract and hold the gov't accountable for when it breached those terms. However, as it stands, only I am held accountable, for terms that I'm completely unaware of, that are subject to change at any time for any reason without my consent. In the end, this sounds a lot less like a contract, and a whole lot more like servitude. This post is somewhat of a rant, but I put it here to hopefully spark some real discussion. Thanks for reading.




posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Yep, it sure is. And make sure you read the fine print:

1. Drop your pants.
2. Bend over.
3. Smile and pretend you like it. (This is optional, but life is easier this way.)



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
You may be interested in reading about some of Socrates' trial/death. One of his students asked him why he did not escape (rather than face his certain death). One of the reasons that he gave involved the concept of an implied contract of sorts. Basically, you have the option to leave this country and live somewhere else, therefore, if you choose to stay, it is implied that you agree to follow the rules.

Obviously this point of view has many many flaws, but you might be interested in it none the less.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by hyperion.martin
You may be interested in reading about some of Socrates' trial/death. One of his students asked him why he did not escape (rather than face his certain death). One of the reasons that he gave involved the concept of an implied contract of sorts. Basically, you have the option to leave this country and live somewhere else, therefore, if you choose to stay, it is implied that you agree to follow the rules.

Obviously this point of view has many many flaws, but you might be interested in it none the less.


I understand this point of view, and as you say it is flawed. But, can I really leave? What if I'm on a no fly list? What if neighboring countries refuse me entry and/or ultimately citizenship? These are real issues are they not?

When politicians and police refer to themselves as "public servants", who are they serving? Am I the "public"? What contract holds the terms of this agreement, or describes the parties involved. This is a serious question.

Thanks for reading and taking the time to reply.
edit on 4/15/2011 by budaruskie because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Check out the freeman movement.
There is actually alot about it here on ATS
I find it interesting reading.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by budaruskie
 


Yeah that is one of the number one points, even in the time of Socrates. Some claimed that the State of Athens (where he lived) political system would not have allowed for a person to leave. In the same sense, one could argue that a person could not easily leave America because our international policy has aggravated so many nations....so who would take us


Aside from that, in America the laws are not really set in stone, so rather than leave one could just fight to make change. Still, I figured you would take some comfort in the fact that these issues are pretty old.



new topics

top topics
 
2

log in

join