Fantastic
Sam Aurelius Milam III
I have an old microwave oven.  I call it my wife replacement unit.¹  I know somebody who owns a more modern microwave oven.  I don't know what he calls it.
My old microwave oven doesn't have a clock.  It doesn't need one.  There's a clock hanging on the wall within sight of the microwave oven.   It just heats food.  It has two knobs and a button to start it.  I twist one knob to set the cooking time and I twist the other knob to set the power level.  It doesn't matter which knob I twist first.  I mash the button and away it goes.  The more modern microwave oven has various useless features, such as a digital clock that seldom agrees with either the clock on the wall near it or the digital clock on the nearby coffee maker.  It's a lot more complicated to use than my old one.  It has a keypad.  To set the cooking time, you have to mash a prefix key and type in a number.  To set the temperature, you have to mash a different prefix key and type in another number.  If you don't do it in the right order, then the thing won't work.  So, why would anybody think that the modern microwave oven is better than my old one?  The modern one is more complicated to use.  It isn't even more reliable than my old one.  The light in it has failed three times and been replaced twice.  The original light in my old one still works.
I'm reminded of the country girl who went to finishing school.  When she returned home, her mother asked her what she'd learned.  She said, "I learned how to say 'fantastic' instead of saying 'bullshit'."  The modern microwave oven isn't better than mine.  It's just more fantastic.

Contracts and Extortion — So far as I'm aware, when two or more participants engage in a transaction that involves an exchange of obligations, promises, performance, consideration, forbearance or restraint, goods or services, and so forth, then only one of two possible situations can result.  The resulting situation can be either a contract or extortion.  Either of those two situations, and nothing else, satisfies the characteristics that I've suggested for such a transaction.
The only difference between a contract and extortion is the nature of the participation in the transaction.  If participation is voluntary by everybody involved, then the result of the transaction is a contract.  If any participant enters into the transaction because of force or the threat of force, then the result is extortion.
While I was voluntarily participating in the Social Security program, the situation was a contract.  That, however, invokes the principles of the contract.  One of those principles is that a breach of contract committed by any one of the parties provides a cause of action for the other parties to the contract.  One available remedy is avoidance of the contract.

Breach and Avoidance — My original Social Security card bore upon its face, clearly printed in English, the inscription, "FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND TAX PURPOSES — NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION".  When the Social Security number became a mandatory form of identification, against my will and without my consent, I was compelled to either accept the situation or to avoid the contract.  I wasn't permitted any other options.  My many efforts to refuse such use of the number failed.  If I had the number, then I was required to use it as identification.
Injury resulting from the mandatory use of the Social Security number as identification included but was not necessarily limited to:  a loss of my privacy;  compromise of any of my personal information that was associated with the number;  imposition upon me of a documentation requirement as a prerequisite for activities that should not require such a prerequisite;  and loss of my access to the fundamental principles of liberty, such as the presumption of innocence.

Avoidance of the Contract — If I'd voluntarily accepted the use of the Social Security number as mandatory identification, then that would have legitimized its use for that purpose in my case.  I'd have condoned the injuries that would accrue to me from such use.  That wasn't an acceptable option.  So, on June 13, 1984, I canceled the Social Security number.  For people who don't believe that it's possible to cancel a Social Security number, I'll elaborate.  I wrote a letter to the Regional Commissioner of the Social Security Administration in San Francisco and informed him of my decision to end my participation in the Social Security program.  I instructed him to discontinue my number.  The Commissioner's reply included the expected lies and misinformation.  However, his reply is irrelevant.  The Social Security Administration was in breach of contract or, at least, it was complicit in a breach of contract.  All of my previous efforts to correct the situation had failed.  Therefore, I secured remedy in the only way that was available to me.  Since I legitimately avoided the contract, any opinion to the contrary by anybody in the Social Security Administration is irrelevant.

Validity of the Avoidance — If the Social Security program is to be regarded as a contract, then participation must be voluntary.  In that case, they can assign numbers to me every day for the rest of my life and, if I don't agree to participate, then there isn't any contract.  The numbers don't apply to me.  On the other hand, if they use force or coercion to compel my participation against my will, then the Social Security program isn't a contract.  It's extortion.  Since there isn't any obligation under duress, I don't have any obligation to an extortionate Social Security program.  Any number that is allegedly assigned to me in connection with such a program doesn't apply to me.  Either way, I don't have a Social Security number.  Opinion to the contrary within the Social Security Administration is irrelevant.

The breach must obviously be governed by the nature of the stipulation;  it ought to be assigned in the words of the contract, either negatively or affirmatively, or in words which are coextensive with its import and effect....

The price, motive, or matter of inducement to a contract, -whether it be the compensation which is paid, or the inconvenience which is suffered by the party from whom it proceeds.  A compensation or equivalent.  A cause or occasion meritorious, requiring mutual recompense in deed or in law....

It is defined as "any act of the plaintiff from which the defendant or a stranger derives a benefit or advantage, or any labor, detriment, or inconvenience sustained by the plaintiff, however small, if such act is performed or inconvenience suffered by the plaintiff by the consent, express or implied, of the defendant;"....

It has been variously defined, as follows:  A compact between two or more parties....  An agreement or covenant between two or more persons, in which each party binds himself to do or forbear some act, and each acquires a right to what the other promises....  A contract or agreement is where a promise is made on one side and assented to on the other; or where two or more persons enter into an engagement with each other by a promise on either side....

An agreement upon sufficient consideration to do or not to do a particular thing....

---

A mutual promise upon lawful consideration or cause which binds the parties to a performance.  The writing which contains the agreement of parties with the terms and conditions, and which serves as a proof of the obligation.  The last is a distinct signification....

A voluntary and lawful agreement by competent parties, for a good consideration, to do or not to do a specified thing....

In a large sense the term includes any oppression under color of right;  but it is generally and constantly used in the more limited technical sense above given.

To constitute extortion, there must be the receipt of money or something of value;  the taking a promissory note which is void is not sufficient to make an extortion....  It is extortion and oppression for an officer to take money for the performance of his duty, even though it be in the exercise of a discretionary power....

A person is guilty of theft by extortion if he purposely obtains property of another by threatening to:  (1) inflict bodily injury on anyone or commit any other criminal offense;  or (2) accuse anyone of a criminal offense;  or (3) expose any secret tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to impair his credit or business repute;  or (4) take or withhold action as an official, or cause an official to take or withhold action;  or (5) bring about or continue a strike, boycott or other collective unofficial action, if the property is not demanded or received for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act;  or (6) testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another's legal claim or defense;  or (7) inflict any other harm which would not benefit the actor....

Refraining from action.  The term is used in this sense in general jurisprudence, in contradistinction to "act."....

As regards forbearance as a form of consideration, see Consideration.

The rights given to a party by law or by contract which that party may exercise upon a default by the other contracting party, or upon the commission of a wrong (a tort) by another party.

Remedy means any remedial right to which an aggrieved party is entitled with or without resort to a tribunal.  "Rights" includes remedies....

Transactions regulate only the differences which appear to be clearly comprehended in them by the intentions of the parties, whether they be explained in a general or particular manner, unless it be the necessary consequence of what is expressed;  and they do not extend to differences which the parties never intended to include in them....

Frontiersman  1510 North 22nd Drive Show Low, Arizona   85901        A woman works from sun to sun but a free man's work is never done.

Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth
Dear Buck
How do you feel about the Dred Scott decision? 

Biblical Misinformation
Original Source Unknown.  Forwarded by ccrandal.

Q.		How did Adam and Eve feel when they were expelled from the Garden of Eden?
A.		They were really put out.
Q.		What's one of the first things that Adam and Eve did after they were kicked out?
A.		They really raised Cain.
Q.		What excuse did Adam give to his children as to why he no longer lived in the Garden of Eden?
A.		Your mother ate us out of house and home.
Q.		What's the best way to get to Paradise?
A.		Turn right and then go straight.