The Agreement

[ReluctantProphet]

You are presented with the opportunity to write an agreement with the highest authority over you (government, God, father, wife, reality, whatever) that you were going to be held to for the rest of your life by penalty of the worst torture and death conceivable regardless of your current or future situation, with only the following 3 stipulations additionally required, what would that agreement be?

1) The requirements of the parties to the agreement will be applied in reverse as well.
2) No other agreement shall ever be made once signed.
3) The exact same agreement would be offered to every other person in the world.

I would suggest considering that at some time you might find yourself being in any possible situation, possibly homeless or wealthy, injured or healthy, miserable or happy yet the agreement, word for word, would still be held. And also that the agreement is only to be “offered” to others to sign, not required.

 

[sparklecat]

Could you clarify what you mean by 1?

 

[CSmrw]

Wouldn't need it. The Constitution and Bill Of Rights is sufficient if held to.

 

[NPH]

Not quite sure what you are getting at, but i'd get stuck in the very first sentence anyway since the absolute highest authority I recognize is myself and my own conscience.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Could you clarify what you mean by 1?

Heheh, that depends on what your definition of 'is' is.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Could you clarify what you mean by 1?

(1) means for example, if you were to state in the agreement that the authority must present to you a fresh cup of coffee at 7:00 AM sharp every Sunday morning, then you would be required to also present to the authority a fresh cup of coffee at 7:00 AM every Sunday morning, both under extreme penalty for the slightest lack of compliance.

 

[sparklecat]

Right, thanks.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Wouldn't need it. The Constitution and Bill Of Rights is sufficient if held to.

Then explain by what means it could be held to. And realize that the Bill of Rights is NOT designed to follow the stipulations as stated. But I agree that it COULD be altered slightly such as to do so.

Explain what changes you would make.

 

[CSmrw]

None. Why change it? Liberty, life, the pursuit of happiness. Right to bear arms, right to due process, separation of church and state...all men equal under the law. Of what possible value is an agreemoment like you propose to a free person? Especially if I am bound to give exactly what I take? If we are equals and we are held to the pricipals of liberty then the exchanges we make will necessarily be proper. No need for extra contracts.

 

[KarateCowboy]

I would agree that I eat food at some point in my lifetime

 

[ReluctantProphet]

None. Why change it? Liberty, life, the pursuit of happiness. Right to bear arms, right to due process, separation of church and state...all men equal under the law. Of what possible value is an agreemoment like you propose to a free person? Especially if I am bound to give exactly what I take? If we are equals and we are held to the pricipals of liberty then the exchanges we make will necessarily be proper. No need for extra contracts.

Liberty, life, the pursuit of happiness.

I would strongly argue that you are NOT being held to this statement at all. Could you explain how any of these words are defined such as to actually accomplish what they appear to propose?

For example, your right to pursue happiness is taken away as soon as your happiness depends on something that infringes on others, which is just about anything depending on the hour.

Since the penalty is extreme torture and death, if you make the slightest mistake or the authority makes the slightest mistake, then the offender must be tortured.

Right to bear arms, right to due process,

Currently your only right to bear arms is IF you are not declared a criminal even by undue process. In addition, currently, "due process" only means that a court requiring no evidence at all, has declared you guilty of something based merely on accusation (usually from a wife).

No need for extra contracts.

I can't imagine how you could think that anyone in the USA today is "free", but if you think that the OP is not needed and irrelevant, then why are you responding?

 

[CSmrw]

So you don't think the American principals are valid? Fascism then? Or Theocracy? Monarchy? Whatever, we are enemies, then.

As to why I responded, I thought perhaps this idea of yours was absurd on it's face considering the rules I live by already accomplish anything I can reasonably hope to attain, and being arrogant and intrusive, figured this was as good a thread as any to wander around in.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

So you don't think the American principals are valid? Fascism then? Or Theocracy? Monarchy? Whatever, we are enemies, then.

You accept enemies easily.

My OP is not a challenge to the validity of the USA. I simply disagree that the constitution conforms to the OP request.

But then being a free American, you have no constraints to disrupt and complain in whatever insane manner you like up to a point.

I have only asked a question. Your idea seems to be that asking questions is something a person is free to do as long as they expect no legitimate answer. As long as my happiness conforms to your concerns, then I am free to pursue it, else you feel free to torment and perhaps attempt to thwart.

I don't see how any of that relates to the OP question, but then, you are only following what you think the Constitution constrains you to.

 

[CSmrw]

The OP asks a question for which a reasonable man has no practical answer. Why would I want to enter such a draconian agreement? That was my point. I have an agreement that works as well as can be expected already in place. Why is your agreement worth considering at all? That's the response.

As to the rest, whine is not my favorite beverage.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

As to the rest, whine is not my favorite beverage.

Evidence appears to the contrary.

If someone had posted, "God already has such a convenant with His people." Would you consider that a legitimate answer to the question?

I am not asking anyone if they already have such an agreement nor if they want to sign up now. I am only asking a hypothetical question concerning ethics and morality.

 

[CSmrw]

Hypotheticals are tricky because a lot depends on unsaid assumptions. What led me to the place where the contract seems reasonable to begin with? WHo am I? WHat is my situation? Where am I from where am I going what are my goals what is my situation... the list of variables is too big to answer this question reasonably. If I am as I am right at this moment the contract is a useless and abhorrent joke. I really don't know what you are trying to get at by asking this.

If you say God...(anything) I have to say I don't believe in God.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Hypotheticals are tricky because a lot depends on unsaid assumptions. What led me to the place where the contract seems reasonable to begin with? WHo am I? WHat is my situation? Where am I from where am I going what are my goals what is my situation... the list of variables is too big to answer this question reasonably. If I am as I am right at this moment the contract is a useless and abhorrent joke. I really don't know what you are trying to get at by asking this.

If you say God...(anything) I have to say I don't believe in God.

If the question is beyond your ability to reason, then why argue about off topic issues?

You have plenty of other threads to rant on that might be within your reasoning skills. Your presumption that no one can reason beyond your own abilities is why you can't see the things you state.

The rules here are to stick to the OP.

 

[CSmrw]

I am exactly on the OP, I am nust not answering it the way you want. I am asking for clarification or additional information. Barring that I am saying the the contract, which was OFFERED in the Op, not demanded, is not something I would consider under my present circumstances, which is a direct answer to your OP.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

Not quite sure what you are getting at, but i'd get stuck in the very first sentence anyway since the absolute highest authority I recognize is myself and my own conscience.

"The highest authority OVER YOU. You are not over you. You might conceive that you are the only authority in the universe, but you are still not over yourself regardless.

 

[ReluctantProphet]

..I am saying the the contract, which was OFFERED in the Op, not demanded, is not something I would consider under my present circumstances, which is a direct answer to your OP.

One last time..

Did the OP ask if your present circumstance would allow you to consider such a thing? - NO.

The OP asked a question. The question has nothing to do with your current circumstances, preferrences, or assumptions.

It is simply asking ,"IF ..."

Whether you think such information is important to you or what you wonder my intention in asking the question might be, are irrelevant to the question.

Your statements concerning the US constitution and bill of rights COULD be an approach, but you took the subject to whether you think the question itself needs to be asked.

I did not ask if such a question needs to be ask, did I?