I should be too as I took a contract impairment case all the way to the (state) Supreme Court and lost. The court simply denied that a contract existed even though both defendants and the court itself had previously said that it did.
There is a three part test to impair contracts expressed in Energy Reserves Groups vs Kansas Power and Light. In simple form it is thus:
The Supreme Court laid out a three-part test for whether a law conforms with the Contract Clause in Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light.[23] "First, the state regulation must not substantially impair a contractual relationship. Second, the State "must have a significant and legitimate purpose behind the regulation, such as the remedying of a broad and general social or economic problem."[24] Third, the law must be reasonable and appropriate for its intended purpose. " This seems in direct contravention of the contract clause.
The problem is that the court system is part of the State and increasingly, the Deep State. To move to current events, I have a contract with Kaspersky to provide an anti-virus program. It has almost 3 years to run. The government is forcing Kaspersky to violate the contract by prohibiting updates, making the program useless. This has yet to be litigated but I assume the government will hang its hat on the second reason, in this case, national security. Since I don't and have never had a security clearance, I fail to see how this applies to me.
The court system refuses to enforce bright letter Constitutional provisions so I am not optimistic about enforcement of arcane provisions of contract law.
Of course, regulation - as opposed to objective law - is the violation of the individual's rights (including the individual's right to his own life and his own effort [property] and thus his right to free association and free trade [contract]. Regulation treats the individual as the property of the State, to be disposed of as it sees fit, to satisfy its desires. It's premise is that the individual can only act by the permission of the State, and that the individual is guilty unless he can prove himself innocent of violating the decrees and demands of his Master.
Regulation is the rejection of the principle of rights and justice.
Of course they did. They preach and practice the principles of regulation - ie they reject the principle of rights and justice. That was my whole point.
So long as "they" (aka the entire US government and the US population [Left *and* Right]) consider "regulation" to be valid, the violation of the individual's rights is not only inescapable, it is intentional.
"private property is the first principle and cornerstone of a free society"
The individual's right to private property is not the "first principle". The "first principle" is the individual's right to his own life and thus his own effort (of which property is but one example, contracts being another). In other words, the right of property is but a corollary of THE fundamental right of life. In other words, "private property" is the practice of the "first principle" of one's *monopolistic* ("exclusive" as the article puts it) right to one's life.
Typo: “ assumes that men that men and have free will “
“ or else go to Goal “
I suspect this should be “Gaol”.
I just cross-checked with the original source, and it's "Goal," which means, believe it or not, that Adams misspelled "gaol"!
You are kidding me!! :-)
I’ll believe a printer’s error before that. But either way, I guess I should have recommended “[sic]” instead. Sorry about that!
Thanks. Good catches.
1. Kaspersky has its origin in Russia. Russia bad, DOJ good. So geopolitics ensue.
2. Excellent review of the origin and role of contracts in our Republic.
3. This is the type of information we need to review to understand the intellectual and moral framework for our superior Republic.
Cecil Rhodes unavailable for comment.
I should be too as I took a contract impairment case all the way to the (state) Supreme Court and lost. The court simply denied that a contract existed even though both defendants and the court itself had previously said that it did.
There is a three part test to impair contracts expressed in Energy Reserves Groups vs Kansas Power and Light. In simple form it is thus:
The Supreme Court laid out a three-part test for whether a law conforms with the Contract Clause in Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light.[23] "First, the state regulation must not substantially impair a contractual relationship. Second, the State "must have a significant and legitimate purpose behind the regulation, such as the remedying of a broad and general social or economic problem."[24] Third, the law must be reasonable and appropriate for its intended purpose. " This seems in direct contravention of the contract clause.
The problem is that the court system is part of the State and increasingly, the Deep State. To move to current events, I have a contract with Kaspersky to provide an anti-virus program. It has almost 3 years to run. The government is forcing Kaspersky to violate the contract by prohibiting updates, making the program useless. This has yet to be litigated but I assume the government will hang its hat on the second reason, in this case, national security. Since I don't and have never had a security clearance, I fail to see how this applies to me.
The court system refuses to enforce bright letter Constitutional provisions so I am not optimistic about enforcement of arcane provisions of contract law.
Of course, regulation - as opposed to objective law - is the violation of the individual's rights (including the individual's right to his own life and his own effort [property] and thus his right to free association and free trade [contract]. Regulation treats the individual as the property of the State, to be disposed of as it sees fit, to satisfy its desires. It's premise is that the individual can only act by the permission of the State, and that the individual is guilty unless he can prove himself innocent of violating the decrees and demands of his Master.
Regulation is the rejection of the principle of rights and justice.
Indeed, but they did it.
"but they did it"
Of course they did. They preach and practice the principles of regulation - ie they reject the principle of rights and justice. That was my whole point.
So long as "they" (aka the entire US government and the US population [Left *and* Right]) consider "regulation" to be valid, the violation of the individual's rights is not only inescapable, it is intentional.
"private property is the first principle and cornerstone of a free society"
The individual's right to private property is not the "first principle". The "first principle" is the individual's right to his own life and thus his own effort (of which property is but one example, contracts being another). In other words, the right of property is but a corollary of THE fundamental right of life. In other words, "private property" is the practice of the "first principle" of one's *monopolistic* ("exclusive" as the article puts it) right to one's life.