[glenra]

That argument is fundamentally silly for all the reasons identified long ago by Lysander Spooner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner ) in _No Treason: the Constitution of No Authority_ ( http://lysanderspooner.org/node/44 ).

wikipedia quote: "Spooner bolstered his argument by noting that the federal government, as established by a legal contract, could not legally bind all persons living in the nation since none had ever signed their names or given their consent to it - that consent had always been assumed, which fails one of the most basic burdens of proof for a valid contract in the courtroom."

Adding "and the laws" is problematic because "the laws" are vague, unknowable, constantly changing and in fair part contradictory with one another and with the constitution.

The argument that the government contract even could work this way pretty much assumes what needs proving: that the government "owns" the country and all the land and people in it. If the government doesn't automatically own your land and your kids, it can't be assumed that you've contracted with the government by virtue of buying a house or being born. But if the government does own your land and your kids, no social contract is needed - your allegiance is already mandated without it.

[Locke1689]

Actually read my post this time. The argument clearly addresses Spooner's argument that there is no signing of names or giving consent. Your parents explicitly give consent by making you a citizen of the United States when you are born or, if you immigrated, by explicitly pledging allegiance.

Also,

"No Treason" is a lengthy rant that doesn't take longer than the first paragraph to begin its egregious errors.

For example, in the first paragraph: "It [The Constitution] purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago." Thus he focuses his attention on the Preamble, and evidently ignores Article VII, which says EXACTLY who contracted for the Constitution:

"The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same. Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present, the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In Witness whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names." [signatories FOR STATES omitted.]

He's wrong on this simple matter of fact: the constitution says who contracted with whom. But then he goes on to make a big deal about the people of that era being dead, as if contracts between organizations lapse when their office holders depart.

The rest of his "analysis" is equally shoddy, and consists largely of calling government a collection of thieves and murderers at least 75 times. David Friedman, in "The Machinery of Freedom", says Spooner "attacks the contract theory of government like a lawyer arguing a case": but REAL presentations of cases have to cope with counterarguments, and can't depend so heavily on invalid presumptions which are easily shot full of holes.

As for the argument that the laws are vague, unknowable and constantly changing -- part of the law is that the law will be interpreted by the courts. Yes this does mean that you can be in unknowing violation of the law. However, it was part of the contract that you agreed to. By staying in the US as a US citizen you are continuing to re-up your contract. If you don't like this contract then you are free to emigrate.

[glenra]

Look, if I wanted to read Huben's "non-libertarian FAQ", I'd do that. I don't need you quoting random snippets at me (without linking to it) as if they contained actual information.

But tell you what, two can play at that game. I wrote a counter-FAQ a decade ago. I'll quote from that. :-)

> He's wrong on this simple matter of fact: the constitution says who contracted with whom.

(from http://www.impel.com/liblib/NNLFAQ.html#9 )

What the constitution says regarding its own ratification procedure is essentially irrelevant to the argument that Spooner is making. Spooner's comments speak to the question of who this contract should be considered binding upon. Article VII is not overlooked, it is simply irrelevant to this question.

To illustrate: Suppose I wrote a document which I called the "NNL Constitution" that included the line, "Glen Raphael hereby has the legal right to seize Mike Huben's television and automobile."

In Article VII of this document I would write this: "The ratification of the conventions of three Fiefdoms shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the Fiefdoms so ratifying the same. Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the Fiefdoms present, the nineteenth day of January, in the year one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six. In Witness whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names." [signatories FOR FIEFDOMS omitted.]

"I'd sign this as a representative of my fiefdom. I'd get a couple other libertarians to sign for the other two fiefdoms, one of which is defined to include Huben and his property. The head of the fiefdom having jurisdiction over Huben would have been duly chosen for that role in a "popular vote" that didn't happen to include Huben . Now, is the NNL a valid document with respect to Huben? The answer is clearly no. No matter what the document says, the people who signed that document didn't have his power of attorney so they have no ability to contract on his behalf. They can make binding contracts with each other but not with him, without his consent.

Googling up and regurgitating talking points made by people "on your side" is no substitute for thinking about what the person you're talking to is saying. If you want to see where Spooner is right or wrong, there's no substitute for reading Spooner. Reading Huben's dismissive take on Spooner is not going to make you more informed.

Just as one can't use what it says in the bible as evidence that we are bound by what the bible says, you can't use what it says in the constitution as evidence that we are bound by what the constitution says. It's a document. Anybody can write a document and make claims about it. The question is: are those claims reasonable and legally binding? Spooner had interesting things to say about this. Huben...not so much.

>By staying in the US as a US citizen you are continuing to re-up your contract. If you don't like this contract then you are free to emigrate.

Suppose I live in a bad neighborhood where my car regularly gets broken into or my apartment burgled. You could say that by staying in that neighborhood, I agree to a "social contract" that includes these sort of infrigements. And if I don't like it, I could move. That is the "contract" we have with the US - essentially the same one might have with a local mafiosa. The organization lets you keep your livelihood as long as you stay in line, under threat of force if you step out of line. Don't try to pretty it up.

It's not an explicit contract, it's an implicit one and it is coerced. The idea of a "social contract" is a theory about how consent could have been acquired in some society, but it's not relevant to any actual society - the governments we've got generally got in through terror and force and the populace tacitly putting-up-with-it. We "consent" because we don't want to go to jail, because we want to go along with the crowd, or because we don't see any other options. Not because our parents made some grand gesture they didn't even realize they were making. The random assortment of actions you say constitute signing a contract all have in common that they don't involve actually, you know, signing a contract.

[Locke1689]

It's a sad fact that I can quote from a Usenet piece years ago and you're still making the tired points he refuted.

[glenra]

There's a difference between "refuted" and "dubiously asserted, ignoring all arguments to the contrary". :-)

Looking back on this exchange, the core of our disagreement is the word "explicit". A contract is an agreement. If I sign a piece of paper saying I agree to something, that is an "explicit" contract. But if you merely infer based on my actions in some context that I've agreed to something, you are arguing for the existence of an implied contract.

Huben's text confuses the agreement with the terms being agreed to. The legal codes might be written down explicitly but my consent to them is not written down - it is at best implied. There is no explicit social contract. If you claim there is, what's the basis for your claim? When you say agreement is established by doing X or Y, how do you know that? Just because Huben said so? What is the source of your knowledge that these ten acts establish a contract and some other set of acts don't? Could I not with equal justification claim that, say, picking your nose makes you a citizen of Hackerstan and subject to some random set of laws I've written down?

[Locke1689]

Your citizenship is the explicit signature on the contract. As long as you are a citizen you are a signatory. You can remove your name at any time.

[glenra]

> Your citizenship is the explicit signature on the contract.

A "citizenship" is not a tangible thing. I didn't do anything specific to get a "citizenship", so how can my allegedly "having" one constitute an explicit anything?

Do you not see how circular the argument is? Is your claim really that (a) I'm bound to the US legal code because I "have a citizenship", and (b) I "have a citizenship" because the US legal code says I do? Are you sure you've thought this through?

> As long as you are a citizen you are a signatory.

I'm sorry, but to me the word "signatory" implies having signed something. Your claim makes about as much sense as saying "as long as you have red hair you are a signatory".

> You can remove your name at any time.

That is not actually true; you can't renounce citizenship without the government's consent which it only grants in limited circumstances. You can't do it while residing in the US and if you have significant assets or income in many cases you need to either keep paying income tax for TEN YEARS after you leave or are required to pay a huge one-time lump sum. The practicality of the situation is a bit like being born a slave and having the (limited) right to purchase your freedom later in life.