Would you give up all your rights for a hamburger?

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: At least not until they are inconvenient

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Legality is only as good as the government's will to abide.... The Government we have now, more or less, keeps the agreement but has certainly made a few roughshod runs over them when it deemed it necessary....

Either way, not relevant to the original question. In you examples the government is taking away a persons rights (illegally). Not the person signing away their rights voluntarily, entirely different argument.

Of course, it may be a well shrouded historical fact that Japanese Americans in mainland US (the one in Hawaii apparently felt differently) felt that they were such a threat to national security that they all signed away their basic right to get themselves incarcerated (perhaps there was sashimi involved). In that case I guess the US was just helping them out with their plan.

mndsm, you make a good point about being very careful when taking away someone's rights which was the basis for the way our justice system is set up. Of course, it's been warped and mutilated to be in favor of whoever has the most money. But I digress.

GPS is right about watching carefully the erosion of our rights. It comes from well meaning people who decide that the rest of us need to be protected from ourselves. No matter the reasoning behind it, loss of individual rights is Not A Good Thing.

The most basic job of government is to protect its citizens. For centuries, that was taken to mean only against outside attack. But it's been bastardized to include idiotic crap inside a society such as restricting the fat and salt content of food. That's an example of 'well meaning people incrementally destroying individual rights'.

There's more thoughts I may have to include later.

mndsm wrote: GPS- you're amazing the hell out of me today. Normally I get a good laugh out of whatever you post.... and this has been some of the best reading I've seen on a forum in MONTHS. /randomness.

LOL. I am between business trips, its raining and the kids are back in school. I guess I need to find a good book before I ruin my reputation.

aircooled wrote: Either way, not relevant to the original question. In you examples the government is taking away a persons rights (illegally). Not the person signing away their rights voluntarily, entirely different argument.

I suppose you are right - I was off on a tangent.

aircooled wrote: Of course, it may be a well shrouded historical fact that Japanese Americans in mainland US (the one in Hawaii apparently felt differently) felt that they were such a threat to national security that they all signed away their basic right to get themselves incarcerated (perhaps there was sashimi involved). In that case I guess the US was just helping them out with their plan.

Lucky it wasn't the damn Russians. Do you have any idea how hard it would have been to put all the white folks in prison... er... internment camps?

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

SVreX wrote: Oh, I don't know about THAT: "...that they are endowed by their Creator certain unalienable Rights..."

That was sarcasm I presume. If I wrote down that we as men are entitled to certain things... and then "ratified" it - it means exactly nothing unless I have the means to effect it. Just like the Bill of Rights. It is only meaningful if it is upheld by men. Men said it, and in this case - made it real for a time. If they decided it wasn't worth the effort, it would vanish. I might be eroded by small "changes" or interpretations. It is not unalienable or unassailable. Its just words on paper and the deeds of men who believe in the idea. This is an important thing to remember - because there is a lot of bad that can happen if we forget that those "rights" are only as real as WE make them.

I understand where you are coming from, but I'm still not sure I agree.

Let me work the logic backwards for a minute...

We have lots of laws. Some good, some bad.

Government (more specifically Congress) writes laws. The authority to write those laws is granted to them by the people, as defined in the Constitution.

The laws (and the Constitution ) are interpreted by the judiciary. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

The preamble of the Constitution opens "We the People of the United States, ..." defining both the grantor of the authority, and the relationship between them. That is to say, the authority in the Constitution is granted BY the people, and the presupposition is that they are in agreement to function together as a single body, known as the United States.

However, the entity of The United States does not exist without it's declaration of such, aka: the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence opens (after it's preamble) with the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It, of course, goes on to define that governments are created among men, and that they derive their just powers from the consent of the people.

There is a foundational truth that we agree to hold which is, people have rights, which are given by their Creator, not government.

There is such a thing as unjust governmental power, but it does not fit within the foundational truth upon which our country, our government, and it's authority exist.

Therefore, horrible things like slavery can exist for a season. Bad laws exist. But they are enforced by an unjust power, and are therefore illegitimate. The judiciary is charged with the responsibility ultimately of identifying these injustices, and reversing them.

The willingness of the people to live under tyranny, or bad laws does not change the fact that it is an unjust power, and not ultimately defendable under the Constitution. And it does not change the truth that the rights are unalienable. It only means that they are living under an unjust power.

Of course, we all digress.

The question was, would you sign a piece of paper giving away all your rights for a hamburger?

Rights that can't be taken away (normally / legally).

SVreX wrote: The question was, would you sign a piece of paper giving away all your rights for a hamburger?

Yeah I'd sign it, if they gave me the burger right then and there. But see I read everything before i sign it. So, in all likelyhood, the agreement would be shoddily written and therefore worthless.

Yup, I'd sign it... I'd have a hamburger and you would have none..

So this is where I get all MBA. I'd look to the U.C.C. to give me some guidance.. Cause effectively I am selling you my "rights" for a hamburger..

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2.htm#s2-302 said: § 2-302. Unconscionable contract or Term. (1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any term of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable term, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable term as to avoid any unconscionable result.

Basically I get the court to find such contract unconscionable and then I'm up one hamburger to your none..

I'm not sure that particular clause would be applicable here...

"In contract law an unconscionable contract is one that is unjust or extremely one-sided in favor of the person who has the superior bargaining power. An unconscionable contract is one that no person who is mentally competent would enter into and that no fair and honest person would accept. Courts find that unconscionable contracts usually result from the exploitation of consumers who are often poorly educated, impoverished, and unable to find the best price available in the competitive marketplace."

I don't think the person with the burger has "superior bargining power" or that a college student would be considered "poorly uneducated" or "mentally incompetent" (though I'll concede those are arguable points given voting patterns) ;-)

But in all fairness, I'd take the free burger, too, as the terms of the contract are so broad as to be absolutely meaningless.... and unenforceable by a private party.

ignorant wrote: Basically I get the court to find such contract unconscionable and then I'm up one hamburger to your none..

Would you take a human soul for the burger?

wcelliot wrote: I don't think the person with the burger has "superior bargining power"

There are a lot of factors that decide that. Angus or just ground round? What condiments are included? What kind of cheese? Its really hard to say who holds the cards here. How long has it been since I've eaten?

Would I renounce all my rights for a hamburger? No.

Would I mockingly sign a ridiculous attempt at grandstanding for a hamburger? I'll tell you after I finish my hamburger.

I completely respect that some folks would not compromise their principles for a symbolic sellout. But I have principles, too. One of those principles is "Give me a hamburger."

Another of those principles is "If you want to make a cheap point about how dumb/unpatriotic/uninformed/brainwashed/apathetic college students are with a completely unscienctific and misleading study so you can put a headline in your newsletter about how the country is going to hell and we better vote the way you want us to then you owe me a damn hamburger."

Also receiving hamburgers will be Dick Hertz, I.P. Freely, Mike Rotch, Shaiva Ma'Boosh, Oliver Clozoff and Hugh Jass.

jg

Can you introduce me to Shaiva Ma'Boosh?

Jensenman wrote: Can you introduce me to Shaiva Ma'Boosh?

You'll have to get past her husband Harry, first.

jg

Crap, I was hungry and Harold Thong showed up.

Thanks guys.

wcelliot wrote: An unconscionable contract is one that no person who is mentally competent would enter into and that no fair and honest person would accept.

duh...

right.. what sane person would give away all their rights for a burger?

Like I said, superior MBA skills....

ignorant wrote:

wcelliot wrote: An unconscionable contract is one that no person who is mentally competent would enter into and that no fair and honest person would accept.

duh... right.. what sane person would give away all their rights for a burger? Like I said, superior MBA skills....

One that knows he's giving away nothing. I'm glad i don't have MBA's with those "superior skills" working for me. Of course, most of my MBA's are actually capitalists.... only my lawyers are questionable. ;-)

wcelliot wrote: One that knows he's giving away nothing. I'm glad i don't have MBA's with those "superior skills" working for me. Of course, most of my MBA's are actually capitalists.... only my lawyers are questionable. ;-)

how do you know I am not a capitalist?

One day we'll have to meet and your preconceptions about liberals will be blown away..

< how do you know I am not a capitalist?

Never said you weren't. But since you mention it I've yet to see any evidence in support of it.

If I posted that I was in favor of Government approved, tightly Government regulated speech, would you consider me a "free speech" advocate?

We can label ourselves using whatever semantics we like... it doesn't change the underlying beliefs.

wcelliot wrote:

< how do you know I am not a capitalist?

But since you mention it I've yet to see any evidence in support of it.

Do I need to wear it on my sleeve? nope!

you need to meet me to understand...

In that case I'm secretly Hugo Chavez... I just play a capitalist on the internets

Did they say where the hamburger was made? Just askin, because that could sway my decision either way.

JG Pasterjak wrote: Would I renounce all my rights for a hamburger? No. Would I mockingly sign a ridiculous attempt at grandstanding for a hamburger? I'll tell you after I finish my hamburger. I completely respect that some folks would not compromise their principles for a symbolic sellout. But I have principles, too. One of those principles is "Give me a hamburger." Another of those principles is "If you want to make a cheap point about how dumb/unpatriotic/uninformed/brainwashed/apathetic college students are with a completely unscienctific and misleading study so you can put a headline in your newsletter about how the country is going to hell and we better vote the way you want us to then you owe me a damn hamburger." Also receiving hamburgers will be Dick Hertz, I.P. Freely, Mike Rotch, Shaiva Ma'Boosh, Oliver Clozoff and Hugh Jass. jg

Seriously, why are you guys still arguing after this post? Case closed, I'll have mine all the way without onion, please. My brother Mike would like one, too.

Margie Hunt

Marjorie Suddard wrote: My brother Mike would like one, too. Margie Hunt

Now I'm gonna have this E36 M3 eating grin plastered across my face all night. Thanks!

I can tell you that Herb Adams and Tommy Tutone sign a LOT of stuff in my town