LS - I’m not sure how you have concluded that education and persuasion are not action. Not only are they action in fact, but they are things without which liberty hasn’t the slightest hope.
Nor does it follow that because X posts on forums that X only posts on forums.
Did I say education and persuasion were not action?
My issue is, at what point does a slave acknowledge that he can do more outside the slave pen, rather than within?
I don’t see what the argument is here. If I have a well-fed, bathed slave, who obeys my commands because otherwise, I’ll kill him, is he not a slave? Is your point that we should deny ourselves the advantages given by the existence of a somewhat free market in the past, to spite the government?
How cheap is talk? How cheap was it for the folks who wanted to speak in St. Paul?
Yes, but no one is threatening to kill you if you renounce your citizenship. If you choose to become a stateless person.
In my mind, if I am against the state, then what need do I have for it’s shelter and security? If I know it is immoral and evil, a tool of slavery and oppression, why would I continue to carry it’s papers and identify myself as belonging to it?
This isn’t about spiting the government. It’s about whether we voluntarily maintain our association with an institution that I think many of us reject on nearly every, if not all, levels.
An inconvenient truth? No takers?
You do have a point.
With around 1,000 posts, sadly I feel it may be my first good one. [:P]
Well you know where I stand on the issue. There are a couple of investment opportunities like the online gold currency that you could partake in to help you feel a little more on the offensive as well.
Max, I’m not short of ideas or energy. I’m trying to re-arrange somethings so I have the last ingredient, which is opportunity. I did sign up on your forum. I’m not all up-to-date on the LC specifically, but I think the idea in the abstract has a lot of potential and you will hear more from me down the line.
Of course not. They don’t kill you if you choose to become a stateless person, because there is no such thing. It’s not a choice. If you renounce your citizenship and stay here, you’re considered a citizen and they still collect your taxes by force if you don’t pay. You can shout from the rooftops that you aren’t a citizen and won’t pay your taxes, and they’ll arrest or kill you. Nothing is happening here. You can throw away your papers, but again, if you remain here, you’ll be arrested or killed for doing so.
So you go somewhere else. Again, you will have to accept the papers and taxes of the place you are going, or they’ll arrest you, or deport you back here, where you’ll be jailed. That’s assuming this new place you live in will even issue you papers and let you live there, which it won’t if you’ve thrown away your old papers.
So you go somewhere uninhabited. My guess is the US will still consider you a citizen and still demand taxes. But, leaving that aside, we’ve now added a new element to the equation. If going somewhere all alone is the only way to escape having a state, then you will have to give up every advantage of society and of division of labor - advantages that have nothing to do with the presence of the state, except that the state diminishes them. So now the question is whether or not the loss of these non-state things is worth it to you. All of us have demonstrated by our actions that it isn’t.
I don’t think most of us are getting shelter from the state. I was threatened with the prospect of being forced to rely on state shelter, and wasn’t happy with it. As for security, the state has announced that it will kill alternative providers of security if they don’t work with the state, so it’s not a choice between state security or other security, it’s state security or nothing. Besides, you can’t give it up anyway.
You should try reading No State [1], [2]. It is in fact a choice, and there is such a thing. Don’t misinform people. I don’t know why I am responding to the rest, but I am…
Your argument is based on ignorance (see above) and fear mongering. It is exactly the sort of intellectual approach we seek to rebuke here.
The bottom line, in the theoretical forum of theoreticians, is that if we are truly anti-state, and we truly believe the anarchist rhetoric we discuss and debate, then why would we maintain our official slave relationship with the state? I can understand (barely) the Agorist hypocrites who talk a good game, but have no intention of practicing Agorism practically, or who diligently file their tax returns, or who will not be the one to step forward to lead a march when the time comes, no matter how many books and papers and blog posts they may have to their credit.
But I have trouble reconciling the claim of being an anarchist and not breaking my official slave status.
No, the bottom line is that we anarchists identify the state as what it is - a bunch of very well-armed thugs. An anarchist realizes that expecting to find within its laws a way out of the state is foolish. You’d have to expect, for one thing, that the state will obey its own laws. That’s how the tax resisters get themselves into trouble. If you renounce and stay here, either they won’t recognize it and will still insist that you pay your taxes and obey their laws - or they will arrest you and treat you in accordance with their doctrine that any due process limits we recognize on state power apply only to citizens. They are somewhat limited in what they do to foreign citizens since their governments sometimes object (if they aren’t interested in securing a quid-pro-quo arrangement.) You will have no government, and they will do with you as they wish.
In keeping with your screen name, you are exploring different parts of the freedom philosophy, and that’s admirable. A week ago, you were supporting a Republican Presidential candidate, a tactic which is different from your current preferred tactic. I’m glad to see that. Some of us here have gone through these stages before, and rather than flinging insults at us, you might consider the possibility that we’ve picked up ideas along the way. One is to avoid being killed whenever possible. If you do what you suggest, and are killed for your belief in liberty, it will either not be reported at all, or will be reported in such a way that most people will say “Thank goodness that nut is gone.” You will not have done anything to contribute to liberty, nor will you be any freer.
Even if you have a government, they will do as they wish based upon your statement that they do not follow their own laws.
Please don’t lecture me on renouncing, you didn’t even think it was actually possible two posts earlier. You’ve considered it for less than an hour.
I could have named myself Liberty Overlord of Knight of BooHooHoo. You do not know me. It’s a forum screen name. I think we’re all exploring. I’ve met two people on this forum who impress me.
First, I’m Canadian. Second, Paul hasn’t been actually running for months.
Such arrogance.
You haven’t been through this stage honey pie. You didn’t even know it was possible.
But everything that doesn’t lead to death is on the table right? I’m curious because this is not that much bigger of a deal than applying for a passport and walking through customs. Certainly walking through Customs in the US (as a card carrying citizen) could lead to being whisked away to a black site, and tortured for 2 or 3 years in the CIA’s rendition program, until they realize you are just some poor SOB on a business trip who will admit to anything they want, dumping you on the streets of Morrocco brain damaged and naked.
A lot of people still fly.
Again, you keep immediately going to murder, having not even known statelessness was possible, or having barely any time to consider the consequences or outcomes. And some statists probably said “thank goodness that nut is gone” when Mises and Rothbard passed. They might say that about Ron Paul. I’m certainly not going to let my post mortem reputation hold me back from protesting my slavery, not that I see murder as the guaranteed punishment for taking a stand.
That’s debatable. The entire purpose of doing this is protest. And self-respect.
Let’s review. You’re lecturing the rest of us for the apparent sin of following laws and having taxes taken out of our paychecks. Your point is that we’re just accepting slavery. You want to get out of that paradigm. But you propose to do that through the laws, which you know already are written to protect them from you, not the other way around. Why aren’t you guilty of the same sin, of using their laws?
Now, in response to some of these complaints, it could be pointed out that this is an economics and political theory forum, not a forum for the kind of thing you are talking about. Most of us come here because we believe that the path to a free society, or at least the path we are attempting to take to a free society, involves education in the economics of a free world, which is needed because we’ve lived in an unfree economy for so long that people no longer understand freedom. We recognize that in order to spread this idea, we need to understand it, and that’s why we’re here.
You’ve suggested renouncing citizenship as a path to freedom. I’m suggesting that this won’t make you free. Consider the position the state is in if you renounce and remain where you are, unmolested, without paying any taxes. Won’t this encourage others? Most likely, they won’t come after you for doing it, they’ll just continue to demand taxes from you, as they’ve done to others who renounced - including those who renounced and left the country. You’d have to face their guns, though, if you decide not to pay those taxes, because the taxes are illegal. That’s where you’re expecting that people with far more power than you will restrain themselves, to their own detriment.
You’re standing alone against the most powerful force in the history of the world. If 100 other people join you, you won’t be so much be standing together as each standing alone. Regardless, even if you were together, 100 people is no harder to contain than 1 person.
Yes, a person walking through an airport can be renditioned. It is far more likely that things will happen to a person who publicly refuses to pay taxes. The odds are different.
You’re critical of me for holding a job that requires citizenship, since that supposedly makes me a comfortable slave. You’re probably even more critical of the fact that I hold professional licenses. Very well. My point is that the state didn’t create my industry, and I see no reason to abandon it to the state. In renouncing citizenship, you’ll make yourself ineligible for professional licenses and for any jobs in the white market. I hold that these markets are products of the free market, not of the state, and if the state makes me jump through hoops to be in them, simply leaving the field isn’t always necessary. The state has no moral claim to ownership of my field, so why should I leave it to the state and its minions?
You’re constructing strawmen, and I’m getting tired of it.
I didn’t lecture the"rest of us". I pointed out a perspective I have been debating. I believe that becoming stateless is the correct thing to do.
It has nothing to do with taxation.
You attacked my idea from ignorance claiming that there is no such thing as statelessness.
You were wrong, and have yet to own up to it. You immediately went to taxes, thinking that is my issue.
It is not.
It is a philosophical issue, that if you are truly against the state, why would you maintain your affiliation with it when there currently exists an opportunity to live perhaps under a state, without acknowledging it’s ownership of you.
I then became heated, because you were calling me a liar.
You have in turn become incredibly defensive. I don’t care about your career or degrees. I don’t care if your industry is state sponsored or not, although I would argue that if you cannot survive in your career or industry without the state, then you might be on the wrong side of this moral argument.
You’ve repeatedly challenged me on the futility and possible consequences of going stateless. Much of it sounds like an argument from the perspective of someone who is not ready to stand up for himself and to confront the evil around him.
Your country is bombing innocent people and committing mass murder around the world. My country is complicit in this.
I refuse to be a party to this, and I will resist personally, and denounce publicly. Others may have different opinions and concerns, but whether you like where I am coming from or not, or it makes you feel uncomfortable and defensive or not, is not my problem.
This isn’t about you, it is about me. And I was looking for some feedback on the thought process behind it.
Perhaps you should go back and read the posts between us. Things definitely turned for the worst when you attacked my motives because you were/are ignorant about statelessness.
Yes, this forum is not for ideas and action, only ideas. I get it now.
I get what you are saying LS. Having come to the conclusion that the state is wrong you want to take action that demonstrates your thinking and simply not cower in the face of the state. I think it’s a great idea. Don’t be discouraged by the naysayers, the library libertarians. In the words of Teddy Roosevelt
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.