Taxes are a form of Theft

[BK117B2]

I do. The person selling it does. A couple other parties involved in the sale do. The government does.

exactly , the contract is enforced by the government, you are again using their services, think of it like a buffet, you still have to pay for the whole thing even if you only eat the lettuce and crackers.

Contract enforcement by government isn't a service government provides. It is forced regardless of whether you want it or not.

Incorrect. Not leaving your home is not the same as using services from someone else.

it is if your home is inside a states borders.

.

Wrong. It just means that borders exist beyond your property.

Well, if they are stateless, then their friends/family/whatever.

which is just might makes right, no real rights here.
you want rights you got to pay for them.

That's not might makes right. That would be might makes might.

No, I mean it would already be taken and still held by dead people. There'd be no habitable territory left for living humans

there isn't it is all transfers from previous claims. and along every string of transfers you can find a claim by conquest.

Except that there IS, since we acknowledge that people dead for thousands of years no longer have any actual claim

[BK117B2]

there can't be a giant contract because people can't just be born as a party into a contract

actually they can, remember part of the big contract is defining what a contract can and cannot do. this contract is literally the one that defines what consent, contracts, and persons ARE.
Your parents are given legal guardianship of you from the moment of conception and they choose to make you part of the contract by making you a citizen, up until you reach a certain age or sue for self determination, at which point you can then choose to leave and get out of the contract (give up citizenship) or stay and remain a part of it. You can also leave at anytime after that point.

No, it does not and cannot. Without the consent from a party to form an agreement, there is no contract.

[Billugslovakc]

So i'm guessing OP wants a world without taxes? Then who would pay for government services

[Ifreann]

So i'm guessing OP wants a world without taxes? Then who would pay for government services

No one. The whole thing would go to shit and we'd be fucked.

[Galloism]

actually they can, remember part of the big contract is defining what a contract can and cannot do. this contract is literally the one that defines what consent, contracts, and persons ARE.
Your parents are given legal guardianship of you from the moment of conception and they choose to make you part of the contract by making you a citizen, up until you reach a certain age or sue for self determination, at which point you can then choose to leave and get out of the contract (give up citizenship) or stay and remain a part of it. You can also leave at anytime after that point.

No, it does not and cannot. Without the consent from a party to form an agreement, there is no contract.

So dine and dash is fair and legitimate.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

So i'm guessing OP wants a world without taxes? Then who would pay for government services

In OP's perfect world all governments would run on generous donations.

[Big Jim P]

So i'm guessing OP wants a world without taxes? Then who would pay for government services

No one. The whole thing would go to shit and we'd be fucked.

Indeed. The whole problem is, is that "government services" has long ago exceeded its purpose.

[BK117B2]

I see that you've given up attempting to actually discuss the point with some rambling about American legal definitions.

Also, the government (as an organizational structure) cannot have any rights that people do not have. People do not have any such right to extort others like that.

The government is only exercising the rights by proxy of its people. Since the government owns the sovreignty rights to all its land, the people collectively choose how to exercise those sovreignty rights. Those include taxation.

You have produced no documents where the US Government has surrendered its sovreignty rights to your land.

The government owns land held jointly by the people...it doesn't own the rest of it. I need produce no such documents...the land was sold to me without any such condition. I also didn't purchase it from the government.

Wrong. Without agreement, contracts do not exist.

You just yourself agreed that verbal contracts can exist without explicit agreement, via the restaurant example.

You didn't think that through. Nothing about the restaurant example even included a verbal contract. That also isn't very relevant to what you just quoted. I'll state the fact again: if you haven't gotten agreement, you don't have a contract.

Unless it can prove that it reserved those rights in the contract, it does not have them.

Sorry, the purchaser has to prove they have the sovreignty rights.

I received my rights in purchase from the previous owner. The government wasn't a party to that agreement.

It has been sold or given away many times. Since being abandoned by the heirs of the original owner(s), it becomes perfectly valid.

It wasn't abandoned. It was stolen.

And also abandoned. You seem to be operating on the false assumption that those are mutually exclusive.

Except that, as has been repeatedly explained, that isn't relevant to the actual issue at hand.

Actually, it is extremely relevant. If the person who sold the property to you did not have the rights to sell the sovreignty over that property, then those sovreignty rights cannot be cancelled by that person. Whether it's in the contract or not is irrelevant - you cannot sell another person's rights, or a group of peoples' rights.

The person who sold it to them didn't have the right to sell those sovreignty rights either. So they're still not cancelled. The person who sold it to them? Same problem. Since the rights were claimed, and never cancelled or abandoned, heirs successively and collectively still claiming those rights continuously, they still exist - including the right to tax

Now, you can try to sue them for misrepresenting that they had sovreignty rights over the land and those transferred to you, but please please tell me if you do. I want to drive to anywhere in the country where this trial occurs in order to observe.

Wrong again. But by all means: back up your claim and provide the contract stating that the government was placing such conditions with the buyer's signature on the page to demonstrate agreement

[BK117B2]

No, it does not and cannot. Without the consent from a party to form an agreement, there is no contract.

So dine and dash is fair and legitimate.

Wrong, as I unambiguously stated. Do try to follow along

[New Werpland]

No one. The whole thing would go to shit and we'd be fucked.

Indeed. The whole problem is, is that "government services" has long ago exceeded its purpose.

What?

[Ifreann]

No one. The whole thing would go to shit and we'd be fucked.

Indeed. The whole problem is, is that "government services" has long ago exceeded its purpose.

Not really, no.

[Infected Mushroom]

thats impossible, parties can only enter into contracts voluntarily and children cannot consent, any such ''contract'' would be void

Parents can legally consent for their children.

but not as a contract party, the contract would be between the parent and the institution (the child could be a beneficiary though), the risks, liabilities, responsibilities for the consequences of the breach are only for the party to the contract, the parent. The child is a third-party beneficiary to the contract (ex I buy a car for my boyfriend, the boyfriend benefits from the agreement but should something blow up with the contract details... who is subject to the terms? The party only and not the beneficiary. If payment is not received, the company has a claim against me because I am the party, that another person benefits doesn't make them a party)

[Galloism]

The government is only exercising the rights by proxy of its people. Since the government owns the sovreignty rights to all its land, the people collectively choose how to exercise those sovreignty rights. Those include taxation.

You have produced no documents where the US Government has surrendered its sovreignty rights to your land.

The government owns land held jointly by the people...it doesn't own the rest of it. I need produce no such documents...the land was sold to me without any such condition. I also didn't purchase it from the government.

It doesn't matter. The person who sold it to you didn't have the right to cancel the sovreignty rights held by the other 300 million people.

You just yourself agreed that verbal contracts can exist without explicit agreement, via the restaurant example.

You didn't think that through. Nothing about the restaurant example even included a verbal contract. That also isn't very relevant to what you just quoted. I'll state the fact again: if you haven't gotten agreement, you don't have a contract.

Then dine & dash is ok, because you've never actually formalized an agreement. You never agreed to pay them, so you don't have to pay them.

This is really simple.

Sorry, the purchaser has to prove they have the sovreignty rights.

I received my rights in purchase from the previous owner. The government wasn't a party to that agreement.

Exactly, so it can't have surrendered its rights. Third parties can't surrender rights belonging to someone else.

It wasn't abandoned. It was stolen.

And also abandoned. You seem to be operating on the false assumption that those are mutually exclusive.

Prove such abandonment.

Actually, it is extremely relevant. If the person who sold the property to you did not have the rights to sell the sovreignty over that property, then those sovreignty rights cannot be cancelled by that person. Whether it's in the contract or not is irrelevant - you cannot sell another person's rights, or a group of peoples' rights.

The person who sold it to them didn't have the right to sell those sovreignty rights either. So they're still not cancelled. The person who sold it to them? Same problem. Since the rights were claimed, and never cancelled or abandoned, heirs successively and collectively still claiming those rights continuously, they still exist - including the right to tax

Now, you can try to sue them for misrepresenting that they had sovreignty rights over the land and those transferred to you, but please please tell me if you do. I want to drive to anywhere in the country where this trial occurs in order to observe.

Wrong again. But by all means: back up your claim and provide the contract stating that the government was placing such conditions with the buyer's signature on the page to demonstrate agreement

Given it's held those claims longer than any of us have been alive, and it's generally up to the buyer to prove they own such rights to the land, that burden of proof is on you.

However, if you'll tell me what state you're in, I'll be happy to do some research on exactly how the land passed from goverment hands into private hands. It varied greatly depending on region and time period.

However, I suspect you'll have trouble finding any contract signed by the government where it surrendered sovreignty rights - rights it has held for a very long time period.

[Galloism]

So dine and dash is fair and legitimate.

Wrong, as I unambiguously stated. Do try to follow along

Stop taking up mutually contradictory positions and I'll stop pointing out your mutually contradictory positions.

[Galloism]

actually they can, remember part of the big contract is defining what a contract can and cannot do. this contract is literally the one that defines what consent, contracts, and persons ARE.
Your parents are given legal guardianship of you from the moment of conception and they choose to make you part of the contract by making you a citizen, up until you reach a certain age or sue for self determination, at which point you can then choose to leave and get out of the contract (give up citizenship) or stay and remain a part of it. You can also leave at anytime after that point.

thats impossible, parties can only enter into contracts voluntarily and children cannot consent, any such ''contract'' would be void

Uh, in the sense we've been using "contract" in this thread, children can very well engage in limited contract authority.

Otherwise, you could not sell ANYTHING to anyone under 18 ever, as it involves the exchange of money for goods/services. I have yet to see any store which has a sign that says "you must be at least 18 to PURCHASE ANYTHING".

We generally don't allow children to engage in contracts of duration. We do allow limited trade (which involves verbal contracts).

[Infected Mushroom]

thats impossible, parties can only enter into contracts voluntarily and children cannot consent, any such ''contract'' would be void

Uh, in the sense we've been using "contract" in this thread, children can very well engage in limited contract authority.

Otherwise, you could not sell ANYTHING to anyone under 18 ever, as it involves the exchange of money for goods/services. I have yet to see any store which has a sign that says "you must be at least 18 to PURCHASE ANYTHING".

We generally don't allow children to engage in contracts of duration. We do allow limited trade (which involves verbal contracts).

the state starts exercising jurisdiction over the child before the child can even comprehend (let alone consent to) the supposed terms

its artificial to say that a person when they reach 18 join this contract because they were already subject to jurisdiction and governance flowing from before they were 18; in fact, from the moment they were a squealing baby

[Galloism]

Uh, in the sense we've been using "contract" in this thread, children can very well engage in limited contract authority.

Otherwise, you could not sell ANYTHING to anyone under 18 ever, as it involves the exchange of money for goods/services. I have yet to see any store which has a sign that says "you must be at least 18 to PURCHASE ANYTHING".

We generally don't allow children to engage in contracts of duration. We do allow limited trade (which involves verbal contracts).

the state starts exercising jurisdiction over the child before the child can even comprehend (let alone consent to) the supposed terms

its artificial to say that a person when they reach 18 join this contract because they were already subject to jurisdiction and governance flowing from before they were 18; in fact, from the moment they were a squealing baby

Yes - their parents subjected them to it, as part of their authority.

Their parents usually also bear the brunt of any breaches of the child's contract. You DO have a point that we should never charge children as adults (except in... VERY VERY FUCKING RARE circumstances), but that doesn't mean that parents cannot bind their children to follow certain rules.

Most schools have a bus riding contract that children sign on behalf of their parents. If the children misbehave, they can be kicked off the bus. They are subject to these rules because the parents agreed to make them subject to those rules.

Once they turn 18, they make their own choices. They can choose to continue it, or not.

As an analagous example, I got my first credit card when I was 15. I signed, and my parents cosigned. Once I turned 18, my parents cosigning wore off. I continued with the credit card for a number of years. I left that contract going once I turned 18. I also had a checking account - same thing happened. This is acceptable.

If I had changed my mind, I could have cancelled it the moment I turned 18. Otherwise I am bound by the terms by choosing to continue being subject to them. Was that invalid?

Should all children's bank accounts and credit cards be immediately closed once they turn 18?

[Infected Mushroom]

the state starts exercising jurisdiction over the child before the child can even comprehend (let alone consent to) the supposed terms

its artificial to say that a person when they reach 18 join this contract because they were already subject to jurisdiction and governance flowing from before they were 18; in fact, from the moment they were a squealing baby

Yes - their parents subjected them to it, as part of their authority.

Their parents usually also bear the brunt of any breaches of the child's contract. You DO have a point that we should never charge children as adults (except in... VERY VERY FUCKING RARE circumstances), but that doesn't mean that parents cannot bind their children to follow certain rules.

Most schools have a bus riding contract that children sign on behalf of their parents. If the children misbehave, they can be kicked off the bus. They are subject to these rules because the parents agreed to make them subject to those rules.

Once they turn 18, they make their own choices. They can choose to continue it, or not.

As an analagous example, I got my first credit card when I was 15. I signed, and my parents cosigned. Once I turned 18, my parents cosigning wore off. I continued with the credit card for a number of years. I left that contract going once I turned 18. I also had a checking account - same thing happened. This is acceptable.

If I had changed my mind, I could have cancelled it the moment I turned 18. Otherwise I am bound by the terms by choosing to continue being subject to them. Was that invalid?

Should all children's bank accounts and credit cards be immediately closed once they turn 18?

you are conflating being a third party beneficiary to the contract or having the name attached to an agreement (often a mere formality), with actually being a party to the contract

the child can be kicked off the bus but that isn't because a contract was breached and the child was a party, it's because the school bus is private property (or the property of the public school) and the child is on it... and while the child is in the school grounds (including the bus), statutes have allowed the schools to impose certain rules and regulations within a reasonable limit (its really not a contract law issue)

the child gets the benefit of being able to enter these territories (the school and access to its benefits such as education) only because the parents enrolled them as a third-party beneficiary to the contract (the parents providing parent in exchange for the provided education to the beneficiary), the child isn't a contract party. When things blow up, its the parents who are at risk if there is a breach. The child misbehaving isn't so much a breach as it is the child simply not complying with the school's rules. The parents agreed beforehand that expulsion and revocation of the benefits are a possibility but the child misbehaving is not considered breach on the part of a PARTY, its simply a possible event in a contract. What WOULD count as a breach, is if say... the parents did not pay the tuition... or if the parents simultaneously enrolled the child in three schools (assuming the contract forbade it). But if the child does something wrong, thats a contingency covered under the contract triggering certain rights on the part of the school (such as the termination of services) but is it not a breach.

[Galloism]

Yes - their parents subjected them to it, as part of their authority.

Their parents usually also bear the brunt of any breaches of the child's contract. You DO have a point that we should never charge children as adults (except in... VERY VERY FUCKING RARE circumstances), but that doesn't mean that parents cannot bind their children to follow certain rules.

Most schools have a bus riding contract that children sign on behalf of their parents. If the children misbehave, they can be kicked off the bus. They are subject to these rules because the parents agreed to make them subject to those rules.

Once they turn 18, they make their own choices. They can choose to continue it, or not.

As an analagous example, I got my first credit card when I was 15. I signed, and my parents cosigned. Once I turned 18, my parents cosigning wore off. I continued with the credit card for a number of years. I left that contract going once I turned 18. I also had a checking account - same thing happened. This is acceptable.

If I had changed my mind, I could have cancelled it the moment I turned 18. Otherwise I am bound by the terms by choosing to continue being subject to them. Was that invalid?

Should all children's bank accounts and credit cards be immediately closed once they turn 18?

you are conflating being a third party beneficiary to the contract or having the name attached to an agreement (often a mere formality), with actually being a party to the contract

the child can be kicked off the bus but that isn't because a contract was breached and the child was a party, it's because the school bus is private property (or the property of the public school) and the child is on it... and while the child is in the school grounds (including the bus), statutes have allowed the schools to impose certain rules and regulations within a reasonable limit (its really not a contract law issue)

the child gets the benefit of being able to enter these territories (the school and access to its benefits such as education) only because the parents enrolled them as a third-party beneficiary to the contract (the parents providing parent in exchange for the provided education to the beneficiary), the child isn't a contract party. When things blow up, its the parents who are at risk if there is a breach. The child misbehaving isn't so much a breach as it is the child simply not complying with the school's rules. The parents agreed beforehand that expulsion and revocation of the benefits are a possibility but the child misbehaving is not considered breach on the part of a PARTY, its simply a possible event in a contract. What WOULD count as a breach, is if say... the parents did not pay the tuition... or if the parents simultaneously enrolled the child in three schools (assuming the contract forbade it). But if the child does something wrong, thats a contingency covered under the contract triggering certain rights on the part of the school (such as the termination of services) but is it not a breach.

My school's contract includes that the child must either monetarily compensate the school for damages or perform equivalent services for the school to repay damages done. They can also be suspended from school.

The child can be monetarily punished for breach of said contract.

Now, as a backup, they can go after the parents as well.

So, should all bank accounts close and credit cards be terminated the moment children turn 18? Otherwise, it's a continuation of a previous contract and, somehow, not valid.

[Infected Mushroom]

So really, the child situation looks like this.

A agrees to pay B in exchange for B providing with some benefits to C; these benefits are conditional (if A fails to pay or if C does a particular action, the benefits can be revoked by B without there being a breach of the contract)

Who are the parties?

The parties are A and B ONLY. Even though C benefits from the contract, he didn't agree to anything. Even though what happens under the contract may be influenced by what C does (ex if C does ''the particular action'' B is suddenly allowed to revoke benefits)... C is still NOT a party. C's actions only fall within the scope of the contracts' terms, they can never be a breach.

If A refuses to pay... THAT is a breach. No matter WHAT C does, C can never be in breach of a contract (even though he is affected since the contract intended to benefit him).

In the same way, when I enrol my child in a school... the contract is set up for the benefit of the child and there are conditionals I have agreed to (the child didn't agree though) upon which the school is allowed to revoke benefits to my child without the school being in breach. But no matter what the child does (even though it alters what is and isn't allowed under the contract), the child can never be in breach. The child isn't the party. If on the other hand... I don't pay or the school doesn't provide in a situation where it should provide, THEN we have breaches of contract.

[Infected Mushroom]

you are conflating being a third party beneficiary to the contract or having the name attached to an agreement (often a mere formality), with actually being a party to the contract

the child can be kicked off the bus but that isn't because a contract was breached and the child was a party, it's because the school bus is private property (or the property of the public school) and the child is on it... and while the child is in the school grounds (including the bus), statutes have allowed the schools to impose certain rules and regulations within a reasonable limit (its really not a contract law issue)

the child gets the benefit of being able to enter these territories (the school and access to its benefits such as education) only because the parents enrolled them as a third-party beneficiary to the contract (the parents providing parent in exchange for the provided education to the beneficiary), the child isn't a contract party. When things blow up, its the parents who are at risk if there is a breach. The child misbehaving isn't so much a breach as it is the child simply not complying with the school's rules. The parents agreed beforehand that expulsion and revocation of the benefits are a possibility but the child misbehaving is not considered breach on the part of a PARTY, its simply a possible event in a contract. What WOULD count as a breach, is if say... the parents did not pay the tuition... or if the parents simultaneously enrolled the child in three schools (assuming the contract forbade it). But if the child does something wrong, thats a contingency covered under the contract triggering certain rights on the part of the school (such as the termination of services) but is it not a breach.

My school's contract includes that the child must either monetarily compensate the school for damages or perform equivalent services for the school to repay damages done. They can also be suspended from school.

The child can be monetarily punished for breach of said contract.

Now, as a backup, they can go after the parents as well.

So, should all bank accounts close and credit cards be terminated the moment children turn 18? Otherwise, it's a continuation of a previous contract and, somehow, not valid.

You have to be careful about not conflating ''an account opened in the child's name through the actions of X in bank Y in which X and Y are the parties and the child is a beneficiary'' ... with the situation where ''the child, as a party, opens up a bank account with bank Y for his own benefit.'' If there is a breach of a term with the account, who does the bank go after? Its going to go after you, not just because the child can't pay, but because the child isn't even officially a party to the contract (now of course, there could be a lot of other statutes that operate outside of traditional common law that complicate this and you might not go to contract law as the first stop of analysis).

Now you mention that your contract with the school has a clause that says the child must compensate the school if the child damages property in the school. Why is that there?

You have to keep in mind that contracts are allowed to say anything on its face (but that doesn't mean everything in it is enforceable). It is common practice for schools, companies, and organisations to insert that type of thing even where the person affected isn't a party to the contract because it is an attempt to circumvent the law of torts and damages.

If you are trying to prove that the child committed a tort (damaging the school property), there are higher tests for compensation (the law would concern itself with the elements of the offence, the state of mind of the child, the circumstances, defences etc). But when you are dealing with a breach of contract... the law doesn't care. The law doesn't usually inquire into the state of minds for a contract being breached for example. The hurdles are lower. However, its not going to stand up in court if there is a breach because such a term would violate the doctrine of privity (you are changing the tort liabilities of a third party through the agreement of two other individuals, no matter how you dress it up, this is what it is).

IN PRACTICE, if your child did break something, the school would come to you and you would probably compensate (not because of what the contract says or anything but because you are a reasonably conscientious individual, though you might dispute the amount). Now let's say you refuse to pay them. They will then point to the contract you signed. A layperson would be scared into paying it. But truth be told, if you fought it to the court the court is likely to conclude that this is really a tort issue (the child committed a tort against the school through property damage... probably the tort of conversion) and that the school CANNOT GET AWAY with trying to dress this up as a contract law issue so that it can bypass some of the elements that would need to be established in a tort proceeding.

In practice, these things tend to not stand up too well but they have a huge psychological persuasive power (there is something about the act of signing... if you signed the term, even if ultimately unenforceable, there's still the sense that as a matter of conscience you agreed to something). That's why its there.

[Galloism]

My school's contract includes that the child must either monetarily compensate the school for damages or perform equivalent services for the school to repay damages done. They can also be suspended from school.

The child can be monetarily punished for breach of said contract.

Now, as a backup, they can go after the parents as well.

So, should all bank accounts close and credit cards be terminated the moment children turn 18? Otherwise, it's a continuation of a previous contract and, somehow, not valid.

You have to be careful about not conflating ''an account opened in the child's name through the actions of X in bank Y in which X and Y are the parties and the child is a beneficiary'' ... with the situation where ''the child, as a party, opens up a bank account with bank Y for his own benefit.'' If there is a breach of a term with the account, who does the bank go after? Its going to go after you, not just because the child can't pay, but because the child isn't even officially a party to the contract (now of course, there could be a lot of other statutes that operate outside of traditional common law that complicate this and you might not go to contract law as the first stop of analysis).

Now you mention that your contract with the school has a clause that says the child must compensate the school if the child damages property in the school. Why is that there?

You have to keep in mind that contracts are allowed to say anything on its face (but that doesn't mean everything in it is enforceable). It is common practice for schools, companies, and organisations to insert that type of thing even where the person affected isn't a party to the contract because it is an attempt to circumvent the law of torts and damages.

If you are trying to prove that the child committed a tort (damaging the school property), there are higher tests for compensation (the law would concern itself with the elements of the offence, the state of mind of the child, the circumstances, defences etc). But when you are dealing with a breach of contract... the law doesn't care. The law doesn't usually inquire into the state of minds for a contract being breached for example. The hurdles are lower. However, its not going to stand up in court if there is a breach because such a term would violate the doctrine of privity (you are changing the tort liabilities of a third party through the agreement of two other individuals, no matter how you dress it up, this is what it is).

IN PRACTICE, if your child did break something, the school would come to you and you would probably compensate (not because of what the contract says or anything but because you are a reasonably conscientious individual, though you might dispute the amount). Now let's say you refuse to pay them. They will then point to the contract you signed. A layperson would be scared into paying it. But truth be told, if you fought it to the court the court is likely to conclude that this is really a tort issue (the child committed a tort against the school through property damage... probably the tort of conversion) and that the school CANNOT GET AWAY with trying to dress this up as a contract law issue so that it can bypass some of the elements that would need to be established in a tort proceeding.

In practice, these things tend to not stand up too well but they have a huge psychological persuasive power (there is something about the act of signing... if you signed the term, even if ultimately unenforceable, there's still the sense that as a matter of conscience you agreed to something). That's why its there.

So how about guardian investment and bank accounts that instantly revert to the account owner upon that owner turning 18?

Isn't that a continuation of a contract they didn't necessarily agree to because they're not old enough, the very thing you object to?

For instance. Let's suppose I open a fidelity investment account for my child the day of his birth. It's in his name, and I have control as guardian. It grows over the next 18 years and there is $50,000 by the time he turns 18. The yearly income is his, and has to be reported on his taxes (if sufficiently high enough to be applicable). The limitations to lawsuits and etc (usually being bound to arbitration) as part of the contract ALSO applies to him, even though he is not of age yet.

When the child turns 18, I, as guardian, lose all control of the account. The now adult child has full control, and it also bound by the terms of the contract with fidelity unless he takes positive action - liquidating his positions and removing his money from fidelity -, and fidelity continues to be bound by the same terms, including the contract limitations.

Why is that ok but the law is not?

[Grunberg-Ludbach]

Taxes are a necessary evil. Believe me, I hate paying taxes. But, we need some degree of taxation to fund a transparent and effective government that can make sure that markets are functioning, to provide basic infrastructure, among other things.

That being said, I've lived in three countries in my life. Switzerland, Germany, and the UK. In all of these countries, I've found that a bloated bureaucracy and government inefficiencies have arisen as a result of higher than necessary taxes. We need more privatizations and substantially less welfare if we desire a small, efficient, and market friendly government.

[Infected Mushroom]

You have to be careful about not conflating ''an account opened in the child's name through the actions of X in bank Y in which X and Y are the parties and the child is a beneficiary'' ... with the situation where ''the child, as a party, opens up a bank account with bank Y for his own benefit.'' If there is a breach of a term with the account, who does the bank go after? Its going to go after you, not just because the child can't pay, but because the child isn't even officially a party to the contract (now of course, there could be a lot of other statutes that operate outside of traditional common law that complicate this and you might not go to contract law as the first stop of analysis).

Now you mention that your contract with the school has a clause that says the child must compensate the school if the child damages property in the school. Why is that there?

You have to keep in mind that contracts are allowed to say anything on its face (but that doesn't mean everything in it is enforceable). It is common practice for schools, companies, and organisations to insert that type of thing even where the person affected isn't a party to the contract because it is an attempt to circumvent the law of torts and damages.

If you are trying to prove that the child committed a tort (damaging the school property), there are higher tests for compensation (the law would concern itself with the elements of the offence, the state of mind of the child, the circumstances, defences etc). But when you are dealing with a breach of contract... the law doesn't care. The law doesn't usually inquire into the state of minds for a contract being breached for example. The hurdles are lower. However, its not going to stand up in court if there is a breach because such a term would violate the doctrine of privity (you are changing the tort liabilities of a third party through the agreement of two other individuals, no matter how you dress it up, this is what it is).

IN PRACTICE, if your child did break something, the school would come to you and you would probably compensate (not because of what the contract says or anything but because you are a reasonably conscientious individual, though you might dispute the amount). Now let's say you refuse to pay them. They will then point to the contract you signed. A layperson would be scared into paying it. But truth be told, if you fought it to the court the court is likely to conclude that this is really a tort issue (the child committed a tort against the school through property damage... probably the tort of conversion) and that the school CANNOT GET AWAY with trying to dress this up as a contract law issue so that it can bypass some of the elements that would need to be established in a tort proceeding.

In practice, these things tend to not stand up too well but they have a huge psychological persuasive power (there is something about the act of signing... if you signed the term, even if ultimately unenforceable, there's still the sense that as a matter of conscience you agreed to something). That's why its there.

So how about guardian investment and bank accounts that instantly revert to the account owner upon that owner turning 18?

Isn't that a continuation of a contract they didn't necessarily agree to because they're not old enough, the very thing you object to?

For instance. Let's suppose I open a fidelity investment account for my child the day of his birth. It's in his name, and I have control as guardian. It grows over the next 18 years and there is $50,000 by the time he turns 18. The yearly income is his, and has to be reported on his taxes (if sufficiently high enough to be applicable). The limitations to lawsuits and etc (usually being bound to arbitration) as part of the contract ALSO applies to him, even though he is not of age yet.

When the child turns 18, I, as guardian, lose all control of the account. The now adult child has full control, and it also bound by the terms of the contract with fidelity unless he takes positive action - liquidating his positions and removing his money from fidelity -, and fidelity continues to be bound by the same terms, including the contract limitations.

Why is that ok but the law is not?

You entered into a contract with the bank to create this account, this contract's purpose is to make the child the owner of the account. Since the child is too young, it probably makes you (explicitly or implicitly) a trustee (someone who holds legal title but has fiduciary obligations towards the child) until the child comes of age. At this point you've made a Gift to the child (the account); the account becomes a form of property. The child isn't a party, but he HAS benefited in that he has received a gift.

This intangible property created (the account) has a conditional attached to it, that something is to happen when the child turns 18. What you've really got here is a trustee-beneficiary relationship. You are the trustee, to hold the account for the child's benefit until he turns 18 (although in FORM, it might say the child already has the account).

The contract really only governs the CREATION of the account and an unspecified period of time after the account's creation. The rest is likely covered by a financial regulation statute which draws more on aspects of property law than contracts law. Essentially, it makes more sense to see an investment account as a property than as an on-going contract. If the bank does something wrong, it likely has breached this statute or that statute but I think if you argued it in terms of contact law, it would really primarily cover the creation phase. By the time the child has turned 18, the account has become a property (albeit a property governed by certain statutes) and to which the bank has certain obligations. But its not really a contract between the now adult and the bank; its just subsumed in the essential characteristic of the property itself (as dictated by a combination of what the statutes say and the specifics of how YOU created it). Essentially this is dealing with an intangible property.

It would be in the same category as an intellectual property right. An account is a piece of property (the law would assume that what is created is what was created under the original contract but it itself is not an ongoing contract) and like anything such as a car or a christmas tree... it can be transferred, gifted, held in trust, or sold etc subject to statutory constraints

[Galloism]

So how about guardian investment and bank accounts that instantly revert to the account owner upon that owner turning 18?

Isn't that a continuation of a contract they didn't necessarily agree to because they're not old enough, the very thing you object to?

For instance. Let's suppose I open a fidelity investment account for my child the day of his birth. It's in his name, and I have control as guardian. It grows over the next 18 years and there is $50,000 by the time he turns 18. The yearly income is his, and has to be reported on his taxes (if sufficiently high enough to be applicable). The limitations to lawsuits and etc (usually being bound to arbitration) as part of the contract ALSO applies to him, even though he is not of age yet.

When the child turns 18, I, as guardian, lose all control of the account. The now adult child has full control, and it also bound by the terms of the contract with fidelity unless he takes positive action - liquidating his positions and removing his money from fidelity -, and fidelity continues to be bound by the same terms, including the contract limitations.

Why is that ok but the law is not?

You entered into a contract with the bank to create this account, this contract's purpose is to make the child the owner of the account. Since the child is too young, it probably makes you (explicitly or implicitly) a trustee (someone who holds legal title but has fiduciary obligations towards the child) until the child comes of age. At this point you've made a Gift to the child (the account); the account becomes a form of property. The child isn't a party, but he HAS benefited in that he has received a gift.

This intangible property created (the account) has a conditional attached to it, that something is to happen when the child turns 18. What you've really got here is a trustee-beneficiary relationship. You are the trustee, to hold the account for the child's benefit until he turns 18 (although in FORM, it might say the child already has the account).

The contract really only governs the CREATION of the account and an unspecified period of time after the account's creation. The rest is likely covered by a financial regulation statute which draws more on aspects of property law than contracts law. Essentially, it makes more sense to see an investment account as a property than as an on-going contract. If the bank does something wrong, it likely has breached this statute or that statute but I think if you argued it in terms of contact law, it would really primarily cover the creation phase. By the time the child has turned 18, the account has become a property (albeit a property governed by certain statutes) and to which the bank has certain obligations. But its not really a contract between the now adult and the bank; its just subsumed in the essential characteristic of the property itself (as dictated by a combination of what the statutes say and the specifics of how YOU created it). Essentially this is dealing with an intangible property.

It would be in the same category as an intellectual property right. An account is a piece of property (the law would assume that what is created is what was created under the original contract but it itself is not an ongoing contract) and like anything such as a car or a christmas tree... it can be transferred, gifted, held in trust, or sold etc subject to statutory constraints

So the contract provisions governing suing and arbitration and so forth are instantly nonbinding once the child turns 18? You sure about that?