However, within the confines of the US, if you choose to stay, you IMPLICITLY agreeing to the law of the land.
I'll take that as a concession to the point that I have at no time explicitly agreed etc etc, thank you.
How does it restrict life? Liberty is not absolute. What kind of happiness are you not free to pursue?
There is one I action I can think of whose illegality is a violation of the freedom of all three: selling marijuana. Suppose I really like marijuana--it makes me happy--so much so that I wish not only to use it myself, but to increase my happiness by bringing this happiness to as many others as possible. Laws against its simple small-scale cultivation and/or possession interfere with my pursuit of happiness that is in no way detrimental to (nor even involving) any second or higher-order parties; of course liberty is not absolute, but one would think that the law would rightfully confine itself only to restricting the freedom of actions which actually have a direct and negative impact on others. If I'm thrown in jail/prison for smoking pot, obviously my freedom is gone. If I choose to bring my happiness to a number of people beyond a certain threshold, I may have my life ended under federal law (18 U.S.C. 3591(b)).
Perhaps you misunderstand that the declaration of independnce meant. In any case, it was declaring to britain the intentions of the new nation. Your rights are enumerated in the first 10 amendments to the constitution.
Do you really hold to the view that the Declaration of Independence was merely some sort of "Dear John" letter from the colonies to Britain, and has no meaning otherwise? It's revered as one of the most important of the founding documents of this country--just because it's not part of the Constitution or otherwise a set of laws or specifics about the way our government is to be structured doesn't mean it's not vitally important in determining the ideals upon which this nation was founded. And the first sentence of the second paragraph reads thus: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." To ignore the importance of this seems to me equivalent to those certain Christians who have their favorite scriptures they will quote, but when confronted with one they can't explain or make fit into their view of Christianity, they argue to the effect that "Well, Paul intended that for the Ephesians specifically--it doesn't have direct bearing on us today..." or similar.
Your arguments consistently cast aside the principles I'm trying to aim at and circularly point out that the letter of the law makes no such provisions--there's no need to do that, as I'll completely concede the point right now if I haven't already done so.
Does your profession/area of study fall under the category of law somehow? I ask because I've noticed a tendency of people whose profession does involve legal matters to fight tooth and nail to keep the argument completely within the framework of existing law, rather than the principles behind the law or principles completely beyond the law.
The logic of each step is sound in a microcosm, but where it breaks down is that there is no contractual basis for you to stay and nothing preventing you from trying to change the laws should you wish to do so.
This is equivalent to arguing that party C is in fact subject to the terms of the contract between parties A and B by default because the body of the contract has a clause (implicit or otherwise) that makes party C a party to the contract without his or her actually having entered into the agreement, but conceding the oh-so-magnanimous allowance for party C to quit the agreement if and only if party C will agree to have no further dealings of any nature whatsoever with parties A and B.