Are Written Contracts A Valid Form of Agreement?

The following conversation took place at my Discord server.

The forward ( > ) symbol indicates “responded to”.
Example: Freddy > Jason (Freddy responded to Jason)

Anyone asked to leave an airplane for any reason should do so, as it’s not their property.

That being said, there is much amiss with the concepts of contracts, trade, money, etc., and such circumstances cannot be evaluated without acknowledging the many errors that preceded them.

I’d go as far as to say that there are few ”higher consciousness” reasons for a person to have need of air travel in the first place.

Well they did just accept my money and let me on that plane. No way in hell that in gonna leave it. There fault for overselling planes not mine

ⒶMP3083 > Benzzzy
You paid for the flight, you didn’t buy the plane. Don’t they reserve the right to kick someone off their plane when they want?

I bought a ride whit the plane at that scheduled time yes. They’re providing a very shitty service if they can just kick someone if for absolutely no reason right before take off, and it’s 99% of time the fault

I agree. I think if they’re gonna kick someone off it should be a valid reason, but they still have that right tho, regardless.

o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘 > ⒶMP3083
what’s that saying? a failure of planning on your part, does not constitute an emergency on mine. if they overbook, that’s on them, they should not be able to deny service of a contract bc of an error on their scheduling. they never have a “right” to not fulfill a contract. Sure, if someone is disrupting normal service, they can deny, but outside of that…

ⒶMP3083 > o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘
If there’s a contract, then yeah they can’t just breach it when they want. Idk, I never had to take a flight on my own before so i wasn’t aware of any contract.

o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘 > ⒶMP3083
Do you think their overbooking is a “valid” reason? Sorry, that should have been my first point.

No. Overbooking would be their fault

if there’s a contracts then there probably is stated that they’ve the right to deny service for no apparent reason. Overbooking is the main cause for people to get dragged of for no reason lul. If you break there rules or whatever then it’s on you

bbblackwell > o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘 & ⒶMP3083
What is a “contract”? It’s an attempt to deny another’s future consent in order to appease one’s fear of uncertainty. It’s a concept born of psychological insecurity, and does nothing to actually mitigate spontaneous alterations of will, or other unforeseen occurrences.

It does do one thing well, however: provide a tangible false justification for immoral punishment if you don’t like the way things turn out (as is the purpose of many “official” papers).

The only relevant issues here are property, disassociation, and theft. They are free to disassociate from you by ending the relationship at any time, and asking you to leave their property. If they agreed to let you fly in exchange for money (a poor footing for any relationship), then they are obliged to return the money, or are committing theft.

The inconvenience of the failed agreement is just the cost of living in an uncertain world. Remember, in the case of overbooking, someone is going to be paying that price. It is befitting a man of high consciousness to prefer it be him… Not just out of compassion and brotherly love, but because he knows there are few who are better equipped to absorb the blow than he.

o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘 > bbblackwell
No, a contract is not an attempt to deny another’s consent. It is a tool to ensure both parties fulfill an obligation. No one forces you into something that is binding in a valid contract.

There is no “false” justification if someone choses to breach a written agreement. It is a construct to ensure that when someone makes a promise. It is either fulfilled or the party in default is liable to make the other whole.

In the agreement of air travel. You have put forth something of value in exchange of service. Once that reciprocal agreement has been decided by both parties. Neither party can justify any change in that agreement, especially for an arbitrary reason.

bbblackwell > o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘
That sounds exactly like what I described.

Man does not have the power to create obligations, only Natural Law can do that. And if there is a violation of the Law, we need no papers to justify its being addressed.

o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘 > bbblackwell
Why are you trying to remove agency from the individual? Surely a man can be obliged by their actions/words. If they fail to meet said obligation, they can be at the very least ostracized for their deficiency.

Though these are just constructs and concepts. What are we, if not trustworthy? I understand that value is always subjective. However, you would have to be quite the outlier or prone to at the very least sociopathy, to not want to be a man of your word.

bbblackwell > o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘
Oh, absolutely! There’s a deeper moral issue here (as always), which is authenticity (the paramount concern in all matters).

Deception is one thing, but a contract attempts to oblige action, which is invalid. Action is held to account by Natural Law alone, and one can never be obliged to perform any acton outside of its parameters (whether it be because that action is immoral, or simply because it is unnecessary).

If we have a contract to trade money for pool cleaning, and I decide I don’t want to do pool cleaning anymore, to leverage a contract to get me to do it is slavery. Plus it’s not very nice… Why would you ever want me to do something I don’t want to do (see Rosenberg and/or Crowley).

o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘 > bbblackwell
That’s the thing, you don’t just get to stop participating in that pool cleaning agreement arbitrarily. Furthermore, I don’t think any pool cleaner had a gun to your head, making you sign anything.

Now, if the cleaner did a sub par job, or never showed up at the scheduled time. That’s on him and he would be in breach. But just bc you were rash in signing said agreement and found a comparable service after the fact at a better value. You made a PROMISE to use his services.

The onus falls on both parties to uphold an agreement. IDK where the loss of understanding, or how you could look at this through a lens that didn’t show things for what they are. If you find the time, I would like to know how you’ve been able to (this is not meant to be an insult) pervert something so binary.

BastardChris > o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘
Consent requires continuation. Otherwise, when she tells you to stop, it’s not rape when you don’t stop.

o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘 > BastardChris
when was the last time you wrote and signed an expressed contract for intercourse? c’mon, apples and oranges, we’re talking about written contracts, not implicit consent.

bbblackwell > o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘
Why would writing something down matter? As for lenses, I try to look at things like an alien first visiting this planet: with no taint of culture, custom, etc. I want to see things raw, for what they really are.

There is no place for promises, contracts, or anything that inhibits future consent or stands in stubborn denial of the evolving Will.

I agree completely that we should all have an honest intent to support mutual thriving, happiness, etc. If I don’t want to clean your pool anymore, I’ll still clean it until you can find a new guy; but knowing I’m out of alignment with this task, you should find one ASAP.

Love obliges, not promises. What kind of an egotistical monster would even want a relationship with someone who doesn’t want to be there? That’s not an authentic recognition of Truth in any regard.

o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘 > bbblackwell
There are many reasons why writing something down matters. Whether it be due to not remembering what was said. Or to reference the exact parameters of the agreement, so they can not be perverted by interpretation.

I get that you want to look at things through that lens, however, it seems to be detracted from reality. Knowing that these concepts and constructs are easily understood by anyone with cognitive ability.

I also get the fact that the words can be disregarded by anyone at any time. Though, wouldn’t it be better to have an objective record? Wouldn’t it be better to have something to hold both parties accountable?

You referenced the pool cleaner again. He would not be right in denying the customer bc they wore a blue hat on a Tuesday. That’s arbitrary AF. However, he would be just in denial of service had the customer come out of the house and kicked his equipment into the pool. One does not just to shirk their duties bc the other party has bad breath, unless that was a stipulation in the signed contract.

I still can’t for the life of me, see how this is a matter of contention. But, hopefully we can find some mutual understanding. Mind you, I’m not dismissing any of your points, as I do believe honor, whether it be love or respect does obligee. I just think there are other things that do as well.

Another point I overlooked is.It all boils down to what the individual values in the pool cleaner scenario.

bbblackwell > o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘
Oh yes, those are good reasons for writing things down… depending on what you mean by “accountability”. I just mean that writing it down does nothing to create an obligation or assure an outcome.

It’s a big transition from where we are to living in universal alignment with Truth. The way we’ve constructed our lives, many secondary, false “needs” arise. Contracts are one such symptom of an earlier misstep.

I want you to enjoy your pool. You want me to be happy in my work. If there is to be any point of contention between people approaching higher consciousness, it should be me telling you I’ll continue to clean the pool until you find a new guy, and you insisting I go now and pursue my true Will. The opposite of the greedy grasping that contracts are generally used to support.

Man does not have the ability to create obligation. This is essential. It is the very (and only) reason why his legislation is illegitimate, and statism is a grotesque farce.

o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘 > bbblackwell
Not trying to “Cathy Newman” you here, but….lol So you’re saying, in the recognition of humanity being social beings. It doesnt really behoove parties to have a framework of understanding? One that seeks to have accountability. One that seeks to understand someone’s intent and hold them to their word…

All jokes aside though. Are you not obliged by way of ego (if nothing else) to stave off advances of those that claim a higher right to your life? There are many things that can create an obligation, force being one of those. I’m not advocating it, I just recognize it as a reality.

bbblackwell > o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘
I don’t know Newman, but I appreciate anything that helps establish greater clarity, so we’re good hahaha

How would accountability work here? The guy said he’d clean the pool for a year, now he wants out… If the contract actually creates an obligation, I now have the right to make him clean the pool—by force if need be. That’s not in alignment with Truth, is it?

Yes, certainly, you may be called to action by various circumstances, but what’s obliging in those scenarios is the Law, not the phenomena itself. I am obliged to uphold self-ownership, for example, so if you’re ruthlessly beating a puppy: Your behavior + my proximity + Natural Law (Love) = obligation to defend.

I’m not free to leave you in a lurch after offering my aid, but it’s not the words—written or otherwise—that oblige. It’s the higher Will—shared by all men, but expressing differently though each—which obliges us to either uphold agreements, or release others from those agreements. The existence of an agreement does not suffice to oblige in itself. That’s my only point.

o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘 > bbblackwell
IDK where you get the idea that you get to force or make him continue to clean your pool. That’s not even close to reality. If you pay a cleaner for a year of service and he doesn’t fulfill that. You get to get the money paid for the services not rendered, returned to you. However, had you not made a binding contract. The pool man can just fuck off w/ your money with no fear of responsibility, or being held accountable for their actions.

Also, higher will can be expressed via words as a means to convey meaning.

bbblackwell > o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘
Ah Ok… so what about this contract changes what he “can” or “cannot” do? He is obliged by the only Law in existence to return your money, and you (and/or your agents) have a right to recover it by any means necessary (in NAP terms, anyway). What does the written contract add to the situation?

I’m not against writing things down (or even making verbal agreements) but doing so doesn’t grant additional power by Natural Law, which is the only source of obligation.

This is a good segue into the discussion of trade, as we can see how the contractual exchange is inferior to mutual gifting. If he cleans pools because he desires to do so, and you give something in gratitude, we don’t have all these problems. Contracts are an attempt to enforce something. They are associated with the idea of “binding”, which is a clue to their true nature.

It’s ill-advised (and silly) to give someone something contingent upon the fulfilling of some promise. Give to give, or don’t. Clean to clean, or don’t. This is alignment of the highest order.

”There is a law that man should love his neighbor as himself. In a few hundred years it should be as natural to mankind as breathing or the upright gait; but if he does not learn it he must perish.”
—Alfred Adler

BastardChris > o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘
“when was the last time you wrote and signed an expressed contract for intercourse? c’mon, apples and oranges, we’re talking about written contracts, not implicit consent.” — o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘

Okay, so she put it in writing and changed her mind. You keep going because she wrote it down and magically it’s not rape!

That’s not to mention “marriage”. I don’t do possessive relationships and my name is anti-coercively-enforced conjugal relationships—aka marriage. That might be confusing because the sex is implicit. So we’re not talking about apples and oranges.

o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘 > BastardChris
Alright, I’ll play this absurd game with you. If someone signs a contract for intercourse (the absurd part) they would be doing so for exchange of something perceived to be of value (most likely $). Were she to withdraw her consent to this contact, in your eyes she would be right in keeping the money? You of all people should comprehend what it takes to have a valid contract.

A valid contract is nothing more than continuous consent. There are legitimate repercussions for violating an agreement. But when consent is lost, the opposite party is left with peaceful means or coercive means. You of all people should comprehend coercion is never valid, legitimate, or righteous.

o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘
who ever coerced anyone? if that’s the case, then you aren’t talking about a valid contract to begin with, so all of this is moot rhetoric.
do you not see the double think in your last comment?

It seems we’re either miscommunicating or you’re position is that it’s not actually coercion.. if it was written down.. the proper rituals performed. and now it’s not coercion.

Please point out my alleged double-think! I will thank you if you can help me pinpoint it.

o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘
I guess I need to point out the requirements of a valid contract.

1) offer
2) consideration
3) acceptance
4) competency and capacity
5) written instrument

As for your double think, “a valid contract is xyz” “if an invalid contract is broke etc..”

maybe double think isn’t the right term, forgive me it’s late

It seems you’re applying your concept of “contract” to mine. Not to put words in your mouth, but it seems your concept is that we can make a promise, have the ritual you just described… and now when I break the promise.. you can coerce me to uphold my promise.

o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y
no, you would then be in breach and any compensation paid to you is owed back to the one that paid you.

I’m only saying when you take a chance on my promise, have ritual, write it down, sign it… you’re taking the risk… when I don’t come through.. the legitimate options left for redress (absent criminal intent) are peaceful.. ostracism, disassociation, etc.

o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘
so if you offer a hooker $50 for some head, you don’t get to put a gun to her and make her do it if she doesn’t want to. you are right in asking for your $50 back though

I’m right in asking for it. But I’m not right for holding a gun to her heard or coercing her.

o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘
wtf? are you even paying attention or are you just glossing over what I type? nighty night chris, ttyl

Well you said “you don’t get to put a gun to her head and make her do it (give some head)”

I’m just saying the same thing regarding asking for your money back.

o𝖓𝖊 𝖔𝖋 𝖙𝖍𝖔𝖘𝖊 𝖌𝖚y𝖘
that isn’t even a direct quote, ffs man

so no, I didn’t say that. that’s just what you thought or heard in your head

as for your just saying the same thing in regards to asking for your money back. wouldn’t that be advocating theft at that point?
oh no hooker, you keep it, I’m just gonna tell all my friends what you did. keep in mind, you would prob not even dissuade a fraction of a percent of her clientele, given she has talent.

Join our Discord community!
Let’s have a LIVE chat!


One Comment Add yours

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s