Am I a hypocrite if I’m a libertarian and make use of public services?
As a person who was born into the state-society without consent, no.
You have to utilize the current society & adapt to it, to some extent, if you are to survive it.
The trick is learning how to do this while adhering to your principles as much as possible, trying to change the culture & society incrementally towards a better status, & not becoming too cynical to not care at some point (wherein one might be tempted to cast aside their resolve & begin chanting “One of us, one of us!”).
So how do I answer those who claim that it’s not coercion, since I’m free to leave the nation whenever I want.
How is stating that you have the freedom to flee from coercive activity, justify the coercive activity?
If a protection racket sets up shop in my neighborhood, and extorts me, with the justification that “you’re free to move to any other neighborhood”, would we consider this at all legitimate?
If you were in a bar and a known burglar was buying everyone a round, you would not be acting in a “pro-burglary” manner by having a drink.
There’s a difference between voluntary authority & involuntary authority; not all are in opposition with the former & equate voluntary authority with coercion, but most do so with the later.
It’s not a complete answer, but it might help.
PT has a fan. Isn’t that cute?
This is embarrassing. I only now just noticed I mixed up topics, I was writing this right after my reply in another topic :. This is what I get for composing my messages back to back in a terminal window on my slow laptop.
Is it coercive activity if you have freedom to flee from it?
Didnt you read my example?
If it forcibly takes from your property, yes, infact theft followed by such advice could even be described as sadistic.
This is a personal question. Libertarianism is a personal position.
I’ve tried to decouple from the state. It is a slow and deliberate process and will probably take me many years until I can relocate to somewhere that I pay as little taxes imaginable, and fund all of my own wants and needs directly.
Are you really ‘free’ to leave? Perhaps if you swim or walk? Otherwise you must submit yourself to the scrutiny of the governing authority before they ‘permit’ you to leave.
Think of taxes for a while; count thoroughly… And then think of the free, unhampered (e.g. by taxes), competitive market and its services.
Aren’t “public services” strongly overpaid? :-/
You could answer them in part by telling them about the new law from a couple of years ago that makes you owe 10 years of income taxes after you renounce your US citizenship, plus capital gains on any assets you own when you renounce.
How’s that for being free to leave unmolested?
Vaclav Havel’s extended essay “The Power of the Powerless,” helped me resolve this question.
Here is the wikipedia reference.
Yes. It’s the rapists choice. Sure a rape victim could keep resisting and get a bullet in the head. Or they could shut up and let the rapist have his way. Does that ‘choice’ make it any less of a coercive act? No. It’s an irrelevant point to make because no matter the situation there is always a choice, just not always one that people would deem fair or desirable. Whether or not something is voluntary is based on your ability to say no and that’s it. Not your ability to say no, sell all you belongings, uproot your life, say goodbye to all your friends, resign from your job, sell your house, car, etc., and then move to another freaking country. Saying no to a voluntary proposition leaves neither you nor the person proposing the act worse off than before. Saying no to the state does leave you worse off than before. As such it is not a voluntary association. It is an association you have to accept or costs will be imposed upon you against your will. You say no and stay, the cops will hunt you and if you resist past the point they deem reasonable, they will kill you. You say no and move you have to shoulder the costs of uprooting your entire life and moving somewhere, likely to only be harrassed by the involuntary state there.
The root of your problem is you still see actions taken by the state as legitimate that would be wrong/criminal if undertaken by any other person and/or organization. Who else, person or organization in society, is allowed to present you with such a ‘choice’? I mean if you don’t want to buy a new flat panel at Best Buy, do they get say, “Screw you, we’re installing it and charging you anyway?” I mean, heck, you have the right to lock your doors and take steps to try and keep them out, and if all else fails move and live in a box under a Russian bridge to no where so no one can find you, right? Must be a ‘choice’ then.
Cause that’s not freedom. It’s what coercion is. The robber says leave the money and move along as if he or she is being charitable and merciful. And what if the victim doesn’t move along and stands up for real liberty? Will the robber now become a murderer? Those claiming such have completely perverted what liberty means.
Honestly, this whole ‘free to leave’ argument is rather tiresome.
Why should we leave? We own where we live. It is in fact our property. To assume that we must leave if we don’t agree what is being done to us assumes that the government owns where we live or has more right to it then we do.