Fist 666 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 1. i chose explicit (not implicit) for a reason. i said "if you're going to reap any benefits that are given to you from the government (read public services) then you have explicitly accepted the contract." participating in the system which the contract covers whilst admitting an understanding of both the presence of the contract and the system covered by the contract you have admitted, without a doubt, your willingness and acceptance to function within the contract. regardless of verbalizing otherwise, as that just boils down to hypocrisy. were you to have no knowledge of the contract, your participation could be seen as implied acceptance. 2. i said nothing of 'our society can't function without taxes.' (you all are sure in a hurry to put arguments in to our mouths). i said its the basis of our society, specifically our modern society with a functioning infrastructure, the US (i'm not going to argue australia for you) would not have the roads, water, electricity, etc without the taxes that have already been paid. (could it have been reached with another means--perhaps tariffs, sure, but it wasn't). 3. you've accused a few people of legal positivism in the past few pages, and it hasn't fit with my understanding of legal positivism: by your use is it possible for one to use the terms legal and illegal outside of legal positivism? and also "the law is the law and the law is just" doesn't fit, as 'the law is just' is not part of it... 4. i assume you're frankotronic? 5. i think the basis of my disagreement with all things libertarian, or whatever kind of anarchist you are, is the social contract issue. it seems to be the baseline of all of your arguments and stances and i simply don't accept it as a legitimate complaint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.