I never agreed to the social contract, which is a myth

Government has granted me zero of my rights, all came from God, otherwise they would be privileges, not rights. If you believe government is the final determiner of our rights, my condolences. I'm sorry you live in such dark and depressing delusions without faith in the God who grants us liberty, and I hope you will soon escape them.

▲▲Reply to this Agree Disagree React Context •••Tell me more Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

Expand

10 Replies

@9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…2yrs2Y

The social contract is part of the citizenship, and part of our governmental system, right here, right now already.

▲▲ 1 Reply Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…2yrs2Y

Then why has the contract you speak of never been handed to me to sign? I never recall agreeing to allow the government to steal my money without permission. Show me this document.

▲▲ 1 Reply Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

@9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…2yrs2Y

That’s the rules of the land, the social contract isn’t tangible, just as a nation or national borders aren’t. As you are a citizen in this land, you pay taxes, that’s the law, and was agreed upon by the people as a whole. If a vast majority agrees on no taxes ever, then it’ll probably happen, and, thankfully, it hasn’t. Though the constitution itself id not a contract, it does establish the rules of the law of the land, and as stated in article 1, section 8, clause 1,

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excise… Read mores, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; . . .”

▲▲ 1 Reply Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…2yrs2Y

Notice the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, etc, ONLY to pay off debts, and ONLY if such benefits the General Welfare of the United States as a whole, and ONLY if they are UNIFORM throughout the United States... let me then ask, is progressive income taxation, that charges higher rates for higher income, in ANY WAY uniform? No, it's the opposite of uniform. So regardless of the 16th Amendment, that has not been changed. The 16th Amendment authorises only a FLAT INCOME TAX, where all brackets pay the same right. IF you support progressive taxation, not only is that not listed in the Constitution, it's EXPLICITLY FORBIDDEN by the Constitution. It's not just un-constitutional, it's anti-constitutional, and subversive of every principle of liberty and free markets.

▲▲Reply Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

@9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…2yrs2Y

Once again, not everyone believes in god, and as such, things need to be made universal on a human-borne scale, and if one’s entire basis for the rights of ALL HUMANITY is the belief in what a god SUPPOSEDLY said, then how is that to be proved or confirmed in any way,

▲▲ 1 Reply Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…2yrs2Y

Ironically the same is true for you – not everyone believes there ISN'T a god, and if one's basis for the rights of ALL HUMANITY is the belief that there is no law higher than a government's law, then how is THAT to be proved or confirmed in any way? We both have beliefs, why are you assuming yours is inherently superior to mine when that has not been established yet by logic? Your begging the question, subtly, I'll admit, but begging it nonetheless.

▲▲ 1 Reply Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

@9CJ6CB6 from Virginia commented…2yrs2Y

Well then, which god definitely doesn’t help your case. There’s thousands of gods and thousands of religions, and thousands of afterlife’s inside them. All believe resolutely that their god is right, and if you’re wrong, you’re likely screwed when you die. A secular perspective ignores these thousands of conflicting beliefs and focuses on what is empirical, tangible, and practical when deciding the basic rights of humans. The only logical assumption with thousands of conflicting religions, showing no public spectacle from those gods to prove their existence in… Read more the first place, is to focus on what benefits humanity as a whole, and what creates the highest degree of freedom and happiness for all regardless of things such as race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or sex. The most overall fairness and accountability is done by biasing no religion as a systemic measure for what is and isn’t okay for human rights. This is true today, even in religions. Most religious sects, especially in Christianity, skirt by certain written rules of the Bible, or add new beliefs, because they believe they’ve been ordained by god to do so, thereby creating controversy on who is right, yet never once does god himself or any miracle prove definitively that their god supports them. Every moment in humanity, every day of religious conquest and conflict was all done in the name that their religious beliefs and their deity they worship is right. Yet never once did supposedly all-powerful religious deities ever show up personally to confirm. It was always humans telling humans that they’ve been spoken to, yet no one has shown proof of that either. This leaves our morals up to our interpretation, and the ideal that we should pay a certain percentage of money is a common and often positively viewed one. Though we believe taxes shouldn’t be too high or too often, most believe it and most have seen success in the implementation of that belief in comparison to the very few societies with no taxation. The rules we, as the people, have set is that when one is a citizen, one is liable to taxes. John Locke was right about a lot of good philosophies, but we mustn’t hug the philosophies of the past and copy them word-for-word because we believe that’s 100% without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt right.

▲▲ 1 Reply Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…2yrs2Y

This Is Why I Believe What I Believe: (Part 1)

Actually, my belief in Christianity is based on the logical Law of Non-Contradiction, LNC, which states that two truths can't be contradictory to one another. You cannot have “p” and “not-p” at the same time. The sky can’t be both red and blue at once, information can’t be both true and false at once. Rocket science, this ain’t.

If you’re willing to sacrifice a few minutes of time to research major religions, it’s self-evidently clear that they are, in fact, totally contradictory to each… Read more other. In Matthew 12:30 (NKJV), Jesus says, “He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.” In John 14:6, He also says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” Clearly, Christianity teaches that all other religions are false. And so does Mormonism. In 1 Nephi 14:10, Smith wrote, “Behold: there are save two churches only, the one is the church of the Lamb of God [speaking, unsurprisingly, of Mormonism] and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church which is the mother of abominations; and she is the ***** of all the earth.” Very loving and tolerant man, that Joseph Smith. Moving on, in the “holy” book of the Muslims, the Quran, chapter 3, verse 85, it says “Should anyone follow a religion other than Islam, it shall never be accepted from him, and he will be among the losers in the Hereafter.” In case you can’t read between the lines, that’s just a polite way of saying that if you’re not a wholehearted disciple of Islam, you’ll burn in hell for eternity. Are you noticing a pattern? All these religions are adamant that if you are not for them, you are against them. So aside from being an egregious violation of the most basic logical laws, a “neutral” position that holds that more than one religion can be true is impossible according to all these worldviews. Not only would a theoretical “middle ground” view necessarily interpret the world differently than all other worldviews – otherwise, of course, it would be identical to one of them – it would logically necessitate that all worldviews and religions other than your alleged posture of neutrality would be false, and their holy books, upon which their entire belief system is based, blatantly false. This would re-create the same alleged fallacy of “either/or” you’ve accused this channel of making (either the neutral worldview is absolutely true or it’s absolutely false) resolving absolutely nothing. In order to accept all worldviews, you have to reject all worldviews but the supposedly neutral one you’ve chosen to take. This channel, in claiming that Christianity is true and other religions are false, did not commit a logical fallacy in any way, shape, or form, but held to a position that is logically inevitable. The choice you now have to make is what worldview you hold to the be the absolute truth – the Bible or some post-modernist cult afraid to label any belief as self-evidently wrong.

▲▲ 1 Reply Link Context •••Agree Disagree Tell me more React Request reference + My feed Report Block user Follow

@Patriot-#1776Constitution from Washington commented…2yrs2Y

This is Why I Believe What I Believe: (Part 2)

You see, every worldview must rest on at least one major assumption, or ultimate standard of truth, upon which is built every other belief espoused by that worldview. With just a few moments of consideration, this can be proven to be true. For every belief an individual has, however minor, we can always ask him how he knows his belief is true, and he will supply another argument or piece of information in support of his belief. But inevitably we must ask who he knows his second proposition is true, and in defense of the second, our hypothetical… Read more individual must supply a third argument, which we then question, and a fourth, which we may also then question, until, as all chains of argumentation must, his line of reasoning comes to an end, terminating in a belief, or ultimate standard, upon which his entire worldview is built. When we ask him how to prove his ultimate standard, he must necessarily be reduced to circular reasoning, either vicious or virtuous, because it’s impossible for any fact or evidence or argument to precede an ultimate standard – otherwise it wouldn’t be ultimate. An ultimate standard cannot be proved by anything other than itself, or it would not be truly “ultimate.” Thus, when discussing ultimate standards, circular reasoning is inevitable, and not necessarily fallacious. In order to logically debate worldviews, we all make assumptions – the true test is whether, using information after we were forced to assume our ultimate standard, we find strong evidence to back it up. As an example of non-fallacious circular reasoning outside the worldview conversation, consider the following: (1) If there were no laws of logic, rational debate and argumentation would be impossible (2) We can rationally debate and make arguments (3) Therefore the laws of logic must exist. Clearly, this is a circular argument, assuming the existence of the laws of logic in order to argue for their existence, but it is a virtuous rather than vicious circle – as the assumptions it made were entirely necessary, as all rational argument is impossible without logical laws and principles of correct reasoning.

We know that every chain of argument must terminate at some point – it cannot go on forever – because any argument that goes on for infinity can never be completed, and an incomplete argument is irrational and never proves anything. In summary, everyone must have an ultimate standard he assumes to be true, an assumption that may be justified or unjustified, upon which his worldview rests. Obviously the ultimate standard of this channel is God’s word – but you cannot, without being hypocritical, accuse them of being irrational to use their ultimate standard to argue for its truth, as, inevitably, all human beings, yourself included, must have an ultimate standard that terminates in some degree of circular reasoning. The Bible, the Quran, empiricism, naturalism, secularism, science – all are ultimate standards whose adherents accept as the basis of all knowledge.

How, then, do we determine if an ultimate standard is rational or not? Because one’s ultimate standard is the basis for his entire worldview, a standard that simply proves itself is far from enough – any rational ultimate standard must provide a means by which to prove everything mankind can know. It must be indispensably logically necessary to explain all these things. It must also be self-consistent, and found to be justified after it is assumed. And the Bible is the ultimate standard through which we can do all these things.

Take, for example, our faith in the reliability of human senses. Everyone, after all, believes his sensory experience – what he sees, hears, touches, tastes, and smells is an accurately representants reality in some basic form or another. When unbelievers are asked how they justify this, most would merely claim, in a completely arbitrary and illogical way, that their sensory organs can be trusted as reliable because they have functioned and proven themselves trustworthy before. In essence, the foundation of their faith in the reliability of human senses is the reliability of human senses. Bible-believing Christians take a different approach, appealing to the Word of God for proof of the reliability of their basic senses, particularly Proverbs 20:12, which tells us that all-knowing and all-loving God created our eyes and ears, and Luke 7:22 and John 3:11, which both attest that we are to draw correct conclusion about the world around us based on what we experience via our senses. In contrast to the arbitrary assumption of the critic, the Christian has this good, rational, and consistent reason to believe his senses are accurate and trustworthy. Of course, this is still circular reasoning – we must, after all, use our sense of the sight to read the text of Scripture – but it is a virtuous circle, as, after the Christian makes his assumption, he discovers his assumption can be logically justified and thus is non-arbitrary. While evolutionists too subscribe to this basic assumption, in their case it is totally arbitrary – in their theory, our ears, eyes, et cetera, have naturally evolved through accident, not by Divine design. But in a world where our senses arose through natural circumstances of Darwinian evolution, there is no reason to put your faith in human senses at all. Thus, while both Christianity and Darwinism use circular reasoning, the Christian circle is virtuous and self-consistent, and thus perfectly logical, while the Darwinian circle is arbitrary and thus fallacious.