A PRIMER OF CONSENT:

I have a record of every single message I have sent --- that has absolutely no response offered by your organization except one, it was in the subject of "housing",

That response is filed here:

This html web interface documentation has a spoken voice text narrative interface.

You cannot break this standard to claim you will accept this communication based on your objection to language.  This is because [1] I have a 1st amendment right to speak in any form I wish to speak that is a standard applied to language.  [2] On LinkedIn, the largest and most recognized "Professional's level of social media networking site interface, the use of the "fuck" word is used in "actual in operation" company name profiles on that site. As that standard then applies to the professional's standard across the web in general, it must be "mandatory" adapted to be that standard in all business correspondence communications [ including this one here ].  Such company names include [ but not limited to ], "Fuck Cancer", "Fuck Yeah Astrophysics", "Fuck Rassism", and "Fucked Up Design".  In order for these companies to be in operation with those names appropriately affixed onto their business operations, the name "Fuck" appears directly as is with no substitutions on their business operation licenses.  Otherwise, if it was not on such an entity, it would have to be used in the "dba" section, which in these cases are not represented.  Actually further to endorse this standard would be that there are actual in operation technology active web presence internet domains that mirror the naming convention for these actual in operation company name organizations [ you being an organization that is in operation cross-applying they have the same right as you, I have the same right as you, and you have the same right as us ], to exchange and reply onto your received communications as if you were an adult about these matters.  Fuckeduphuman.net is just an extension of this professional's standard established by LinkedIn and that is who you are interfaced to in an attempt to interface an agency to client interface and to which this correspondence is intended to break that boundary of discrimination that is obviously being applied by your actions upon me.  You will not be adult and professional about your business operations, its presence and accountability onto its operational status, and for that operation to actually not be injuring the community to which you serve. In that we are seeking to cross define operations and their authority to hold operations that are not injuring the community at large, they have their right to operate, without interference, I have my right to operate without interference, and of you if you are operating with sound quality of intent to serve the community properly, you have your right without interference to operate.  But one of these expressions is not like the others.  

I emailed and had an exchange with "Fucked Up Design" and "Fuck Yeah Astrophysics" with absolutely no problem.  I sent them an email and they responded within 48 hours as typical use of email responsibility ensures.  I have double duty to hold my email sound, in that I have open definable inbox naming conventions for my internet domains [ which would include content removal requests ] for my 5 internet domains that are routed to my inbox differently so that these communications are treated and able to be replied upon responsibly.  I have to my best ability to know, I have never received a complaint directly emailed in writing for any of the content I am currently hosting, nor a content removal request, to include such a request from your organization, for the content that I have holding [ binding ] to your organization for the intentioned purpose for which it is to be purposed why I have such contents applied and held onto my internet domains. 

As such, there is a time that is called "silence gives consent" as an option I hold onto these circumstances that I am going to process and structure a "default agreement" that if you do not reply --- that this arrangement is going to be "binded" into presence --- which I then will proceed forward with that arrangement approved by your lack of response.  You see, let's put in words of "understanding" and "teaching" consent.

I am providing an excerpt to an online "educational paper" applying the constructs and concepts of "consent".  This has the discussion points of what is a default agreement established by your not responding equally on the basis of respect and  deserved response to a condition of great concern to the quality of care in client interface, lack thereof, and how such a lacking quality of care actually can, does, and perhaps has cause the preventable and unnecessary deaths of persons living with HIV/AIDS that you are supposed to be serving, and you are not.  This has already been sent to you in standard email corresponding channels, and I have given ample opportunity for you to respond to its premise.  This "contact us" technology tool of communication channel provides to me an auto-confirmation receipt that this content was directed to you, as it is addressed, you have a copy of it in full, and that you refuse to be a "responsible" operating entity within the field of Ryan White Care Act funded social services because you refuse to participate in direct relevant business operation communications.  We are equals even if I have no direct registration company name profile or operating license because I don't need one as long as I am not actually conducting financial operations, which just may change as of May 1st, 2019. 

I will apply and follow through with the necessary requirements to be able to conduct financial operations to the intention consent agreement that will be entered into what I have expressed in:

---

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

James Fieser

10/1/2017

Clarke’s Criticism: Punishment Alone will not Motivate Us to Always Keep Contracts

Suppose that I agree to participate in the social contract. Although I understand that I’m supposed to keep the agreements that I’ve made, I occasionally see potential opportunities to violate these agreements when it might benefit me. For example, while my neighbor is not looking, I could sneak next door, steal his lawnmower, and sell it to a pawnshop. If I’m careful, I will not get caught. So what should stop me from violating the social contract if I can get away with it?

             British philosopher Samuel Clarke (1675–1729) draws attention to this problem and argues that ultimately Hobbes’s theory offers no safeguard to ensure that we will keep our agreements in such situations:

If the rules of right and wrong, just and unjust, have none of them any obligatory force in the state of nature, antecedent to positive compact, then, for the same reason, neither will they be of any force after the compact, so as to afford men any certain and real security; (excepting only what may arise from the compulsion of laws, and fear of punishment, which therefore, it may well be supposed, is all that Mr. Hobbes really means at the bottom.) [Discourse, 1]

Clarke argues here that, if we are not motivated to follow moral rules in the state of nature, then we will not be any more motivated to follow moral rules once we enter into the social contract. Clarke recognizes that fear of punishment may provide some motivation to follow the rules, but he claims that this is not enough. For Clarke, our main motivation to follow moral rules comes directly from an awareness of eternal and immutable moral truths themselves—and Hobbes denies this as a source of moral obligation. In short, according to Clarke, fear of punishment is the only source of motivation that Hobbes provides, and that is not sufficient to motivate us to always keep our agreements.

             Hobbes addresses this issue himself, agreeing that someone might reason as follows: “There is no such thing as justice . . . [and that for someone] to make or not make, keep or not keep, covenants was not against reason, when it conducted to one’s benefit.” Take, for example, someone that we can call a sneaky contract breaker. He knows the terms of the social contract, and verbally agrees to them, but thinks he’s clever enough to break the rules without getting caught.  However, Hobbes suggests that this line of reasoning is flawed:

He, therefore, that breaketh his covenant, and consequently declareth that he thinks he may with reason do so, cannot be received into any society that unite themselves for peace and defense but by the error of them that receive him; nor when he is received, be retained in it without seeing the danger of their error; which errors a man cannot reasonably reckon upon as the means of his security. . . [Leviathan, 15]

In other words, according to Hobbes, it is not reasonable for the sneaky contract breaker to base his own security entirely on his ability to go undetected. If he is caught, then he will be expelled from society, and, it is just not reasonable for him to take this risk. So, for Hobbes, fear of punishment is sufficient to restrain the sneaky contract breaker.

             Hobbes is probably right that we will not take the risk if there is a good chance that we’d be detected. But what if I plan the perfect crime, with no reasonable chance of getting caught? That is, what if I am an extra-cautious contract breaker? In this case, Hobbes needs another source of moral obligation that goes beyond an immediate fear of punishment. Perhaps we can rescue Hobbes from this dilemma by drawing on the virtue component of his theory. Suppose that I carefully scheme to steal my neighbor’s lawn-mower, and I succeed without getting caught. As a creature of habit, I am likely to plan similar crimes against other neighbors, and each time I do I increase the risk of being detected. By starting down the initial path of theft, then, I am taking an unreasonable risk since the odds of my getting caught are increased with each new act of theft. To eliminate this risk, the reasonable thing for me to do is develop the virtue of justice so that I will habitually avoid stealing and never even start down that perilous path. So, when I recognize my tendency to fall into dangerous habits, my fear of punishment should motivate me to develop consistent virtues, which in turn will keep me from breaking the rules. Hobbes’s actual comments on the role of virtues are brief, and he does not offer this specific solution there. However, in view of Hobbes’s position that “the science of virtue and vice is moral philosophy,” this virtue-based solution fits neatly into his overall theory. In short, contrary to Clarke, fear of punishment, along with this virtue of justice, may be enough to keep us from breaking contracts, even though we can get away with it.

 

Hume’s Criticism: We Do not Even Tacitly Agree to a Social Contract

Hobbes did not believe that there was an actual point in history when people got together and signed a social contract. However, if the social contract is not a specific historical agreement, then serious questions are raised about what kind of agreement it actually is and how it forms the basis of morality and governance. Hobbes himself tries to address this problem, noting that we can agree to contracts in either of two ways. First, we may agree through a concrete verbal expression, such as “I hereby agree to abide by the terms of the contract.” Second, we may indicate agreement by inference, whereby, through either our silence or actions, others will understand that we’ve agreed to something. Social contract theorists after Hobbes emphasized this second method, which they dubbed tacit consent. Locke provided the definitive description of what counts as tacit consent:

Every man, that hath any possession, or enjoyment, of any part of the dominions of any government, doth thereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience to the laws of that government, during such enjoyment, as anyone under it. . . [Two Treatises of Government (1690), 2.119]

Thus, according to Locke, if I obtain any possession or benefit from a government, then I’ve tacitly agreed to abide by the rules of that government. For example, if I rely on protection from the local police or the U.S. military, then I’m receiving a benefit from these government agencies and thereby tacitly agree to their rules.

             Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711–1776) was not satisfied with this notion of tacit agreement. According to Hume, willful consent is the key element in any agreement—including tacit agreements—and virtually no one has willfully consented to the authority of their governments:

A tacit promise is, where the will is signified by other more diffuse signs than those of speech; but a will there must certainly be in the case, and that can never escape the person’s notice who exerted it, however silent or tacit. But were you to ask the far greatest part of the nation, whether they had ever consented to the authority of their rulers, or promised to obey them, they would be inclined to think very strangely of you: and would certainly reply, that the affair depended not on their consent, but that they were born to such an obedience. [Treatise of Human Nature (1739–40), 3.2.8]

Hume argues that most people believe they were simply born into a condition of obedience. In fact, according to Hume, based on the idea of a line of succession, politicians try hard to trick people into believing that governments have natural authority over their citizens. Our current rulers claim that many years ago an earlier generation of citizens tacitly consented to a specific government, and governments today inherit that authority over us. Since we cannot go back in time and interview that first generation of citizens, we accept the politicians’ story and see ourselves as born into a condition of obedience. In short, we are tricked into accepting governmental authority, and neither we nor earlier generations of citizens ever tacitly agreed to a social contract. Ironically, Hume feels that this deception is actually a good thing. We need governments for our own protection, and if governments are forced into tricking us into accepting their authority, then so be it. The fact remains, though, that there neither is nor ever was a valid social contract that people tacitly consented to.

             Hume is correct that people do not willfully consent to the terms of a social contract—either explicitly or tacitly. Critics after Hume recognized this problem, and British political philosopher William Godwin (1736–1836) highlights a range of related conceptual problems with terms of the social contract:

 

Upon the first statement of the system of a social contract, various difficulties present themselves. Who are the parties to this contract? For whom did they consent, for themselves only, or for others? For how long a time is this contract to be considered as binding? If the consent of every individual be necessary, in what manner is that consent to be given? Is it to be tacit, or declared in express terms? [Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (1793), 3.2]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definitions of Consents:

Tacit Silence / Spoken Expressed 

Implied Declarations:

Unconditional Stipulation 1 :

        There is no OPT-OUT of this binding mirroring triad naming memespace

        web presence.  ** Content Removal Requests May Be Denied and Withheld

        In Preference of building peaceful resolve new understandings **

Unconditional Stipulation 2 : 

        @Gruwup.net : Great Reasons Us Will Unite Peace

        A definition of tense, reflecting an adult oversight as being

        a grown-up [ or grew up ] maturity of conscience with a 

        preference for moral wisdom, virtue, and guidance.

Unconditional Stipulation 3:

        @Realuphuman.net : Applying #Kramobone, Honesty Binding,

        of conscience with a preference to all parties to hold honesty, truth, 

        and purity of thought in all discussions and negotiations.

Unconditional Stipulation 4:

        @Fuckeduphuman.net :   Obviously Binding Of Memetically Active

         Properties.  

One generally would not prefer their individual persons' real name(s) or their company collective organization name(s) holding/binding onto this web presence internet domain.  This pretty much at any time for any reason for any purpose in such an extreme lexicon of this unusual and perplexing use of the "fuck" word that defines a binding presence upon our informational society that cannot just be ignored.  

Having such bindings would cause a condition of altered presence of consent upon the foundations of thought.  This by either in silence tacit arrangements or expressively declared terms of consent and agreements.    

Where the tacit silence is broken [ or disturbed ] from its default applied tacit consent and should, or would, or could draw a process of constructed consulting to a state of conditioning arrangement to form an absolute unconditional discourse within either formal contracted procedures or informal discussions, understandings, agreements, and signed approved covenants.  

This to reconcile, resolve, and absolve disagreements and conflicts fully by compelling all parties to an arranged discussion of implicit speech necessity.

In that necessity, the legal classification of "legal necessity" [ the lesser of two evils ]

can be community duty bound declared to hold parties accountable for actual harms being conducted upon our communities and our greater society.  

In typical arguments of this legal standard, the action has already been done by the lesser of harming party(s).  These actions would have to be defended by this legal class of argument.  This is not the preferred outcome being introduced here.

Something can be forced into existence before the lesser of harms are actually performed and any irreparable harms can actually be avoided from being done.

This has been very well considered a different paradigm process of relationships upon all human events. 

Without this new paradigm, we have an unstoppable intractable condition of devolved states of digressions that is holding us to accept the allowance of a wicked problem that can never be challenged to hold "moral agency" of rights over wrongs into an account that takes the next stage step upward to new upper tiers of reckoning concern.

This in silence or disrespected disregard without this forced consideration of collective intelligence collectively giving this new form of forged consent into existence.  This can be done without an actual act violating the law.  

This forced arrangement is legally permissible under this legal necessity argument where doing nothing or holding silence for holding no cause action is a greater harm than discourse and reconciliation.

This when there has been no prior social contract established.  Also, this considered when there have been no actual protections offered by the government oversight to protect and ensure the safety and security of a citizen's class, in this case, persons living with HIV/AIDS in the United States of America. Federal oversight has failed to meet the standard of the rest of the world and that lacking standard thus has allowed individual agencies to proceed to an injury affect onto the community.  This by not applying their fiduciary duty as a non-profit to meet the needs of the community to which any Ryan White Care Act has the responsibility and duty to meet criteria of reporting criteria that establish a periodic audit of this reporting.  This has not been done in these cases.  In such, the consent to agree to be held within the legal requirements of any said forth government authority has to be considered in this case null and void replaced by "legal necessity" to protect lives that are [ present tense ] falling to illness by HIV/AIDS disease to premature, unnecessary, and preventable death,.

A new contract is or will be, set forth into new actions and motions.  

This to hold parties of individual persons or parties of collective business organizations as commerce business processing defined shall give us collectively made agreements upon our needs that are binding by a different set of priorities.  One which hopefully focuses on our collective basic human needs upon the discoursed and agreed upon circumstances.

This holding a controlled outcome for all of us to rely upon for any future time needs as we progress upward into peace bridging models of reconciliation and understanding.