If there are "consequences" (i.e. the initiation of violence) then it ain't voluntary. We call that extortion.
No sorry that's just not what extortion is. If it were then any contract with a penalty clause would be considered extortion. Citizenship is a business arrangement at its core. In exchange for various fees you are provided with rights, status as a citizen, and various government services. But it's a package deal. You don't get to split out what you want and leave the rest and you don't get to negotiate the fee. You can terminate your subscription at any time, but like any other subscription, all the benefits disappear when you cancel.
You're like a broken record...who cares the mobility rate in other nations? Fact is there are abundant opportunities here in the US. Fact is tens of millions of immigrants have come to the US and found more degree of mobility than their home nation. I watch first-hand in my area where thousands of migrant workers fill labor voids in CA in farming and hospitality and construction, etc. and with hard work can achieve the American dream. If things were so horrible as you claim Americans and migrants would be going to other nations...
Never had cable TV in your life? Never had a gym membership? Never belonged to a golf club or a hunting lodge? Never owned a mobile phone?
Sure you did. Your parents signed you up for the trial period when you were born. All the benefits of citizenship with the costs covered. The first 18 years are free. When you came into majority and didn't immediately end your citizenship and vacate the country you agreed to continue.
Really? I don't remember signing any such forms. I think you're mistaken. There was no voluntary agreement.
Anyone that wants to know if the US is socially mobile. International comparison provides the means to test relative success. As I said, immigration should actually induce greater opportunities for social mobility. That the US, relative to other western countries, has such low social mobility is therefore particularly disturbing.
This isn't North Korea. No one forces you to stay here involuntarily. You make the choice to stay here voluntarily.
No, my point was that you are not forced to stay here involuntarily, that is a voluntary decision you make.
I'm following on the discussion by Nonsense. You claimed your choice to stay here was not voluntary. I disagree for the reasons I've stated.
I didn't say anything about a social contract. Nonsense pointed out the error in your argument about the "threat of force" in taking your money because you don't have to stay here and be subject to that threat. You were arguing that your choice to stay here was not voluntary. I disagreed for the reasons stated.
Although we've demonstrated you're fine with threat of force as long as it is used for your personal preferences.
the meritocracy rewards the privileged because only the privileged are able to compete in their market, the poor generally have lower intelligence and hard work like ditch digging does not pay a lot of money for building wealth. in America feudalistic systems reward the weak and poor and the meritocracy rewards the rich and strong, the privileged weak are able to relate to the poor who are also weak and empower them. only in england where the kings and queens rule, do the weak oppress the weaker in feudalism.
Sorry, I had thought in our last discussion, you indicated you were fine with use of threat/force if someone took your car to get it back.
Nope, not fine with the initiation of aggression. I think you're mistaken. You're the one who advocates the initiation of aggression, not me.
