Say tomorrow, your respective head of state sends you an email stating, “you and you alone have total carte blanche. Do whatever you want, we will completely leave you alone.” Would you still want the state scaled back/abolished? Would you care anymore? Why or why not?
For me, it would be abolished in essence, so I would not care. Really, that is all I want, is for the state to let me opt out. But then everyone would want to opt out, and the state would fall.
Are you talking about the state allowing every individual to secede, or just me? In the latter case, that’s one weird-ass scenario, I’ll give you that.
Just you. Edited to clear that up.
In that case, I contend that the state would still be essentially as criminal as it was before.
As to being less motivated to do anything after that, well, I’m not very motivated to begin with, as all I do is read and talk about this. Accordingly, I don’t think that would change my attitude at all.
would I get free use of ‘state property’ Would they start charging me for road service if I drove on public roads? Would this mean that my own property was essentially my own country? I would probably set up a House of Vice/Tax-Haven Bank in my basement then [:D]
Good thinking, mate. You could use that position for subversive action against the state.
Of course I would still want it scaled back. The state leaving me alone would only make me maybe 20% wealthier and a little more secure. I’d still have to pay high prices for things I need and deal with unhappy public-schooled drones because of state regulations on everyone else.
In fact, I’d much rather have the state only tax me and leave everyone else alone, and I say this purely out of self-interest. I’m sure the indirect benefits accruing to me because of the tremendous prosperity of the rest of society would soon beat the pants off a mere 20% raise in my take-home pay.
This is interesting though, because it suggests that “libertarianism” from a self-interest POV isn’t just about being free from the State but about having a better life in all sorts of ways in its absence. For me, liberty itself is just a tiny slice of the overall benefit of not having a state. So some might say I shouldn’t call myself a libertarian as much as an anti-statist (a title like “generally-better-ist” would sound pretty silly).
(Of course, I’m talking about benefit relative to my current state where I’m not being directly oppressed very hard and don’t really expect to be for the rest of my life (I could certainly be wrong). If I’d lived in communist Russia I’m sure liberty would be much higher on the list.)
If I can opt-out from the State, what about taxes? At my place of employment am I the only who’s money isn’t with held by the State? What about purchases that include a sales tax? Even though I may be “free” from the State, I’d still be living in a country that has a government. I really wouldn’t be that free unless their laws just don’t apply to me individually.
If you were an inmate in a prison and the prison guard said they will leave your cage door open, would you feel free? The only gift you have is the ability to use coercion or violence to expropriate wealth from others without suffering prosecution from the prison guard. What the other inmates do to you is another story. Other inmates will pay for improvement in your quality of life. This will be socially unacceptable and you will be an outcast in your society. You do not have the power to be a dictator or ruler to live as you please because you do not have power over others. The state still rules over everyone else. Without freedom for all, prosperity will not improve for all. It won’t improve for you either unless you choose to act immorally against others. Just as if the state were to grant you the privilege of monopoly rights or regulations that favor your business - others pay the price. Otherwise, if you hold a natural monopoly because you already provide the best products/services at the lowest prices then you don’t need the coercion of gov’t to obtain that position.
So to rephrase your question: If you know you could avoid prosecution or being caught while living a criminal life, would you choose that life style? Would you only break the laws that inflict no damage on others (like doing drugs or not paying taxes) or would you agress against others to benefit yourself?
I suppose it would be a kind of “benign neglect”. Do whatever, they will leave you alone.
Interesting, although I imagine cops would just wait outside to bust all of your vice customers.
None.
Yep.
exempt.
True.
No laws. Absolute personal freedom.
I wouldn’t call that a rephrase of my question, but it is an interesting one in and of itself.
So what would keep the lucky recipient of the e-mail from assassinating the president and working his way down?
Self defense?
.
I don’t see how essentially granting an individual diplomatic immunity gives them authority to commit murder. You either become a dictator or else you operate as an individual within the society. Usually when diplomats commit murder they are put on a plane and sent home… unless they are killed during the victim’s self defense. Usually diplomats only kill people by drunk driving. The victim can’t fight back.
The state does not prohibit you from commiting murder. They only threaten to maybe kill you or at minimum provide you with food, shelter (cage) and dictate when you will see sunshine or shower and take away all other freedoms, at the victim’s family’s expense. A stateless society (individuals them selves) would also not allow you commit murder as long as others are permitted to self defense. If you live in a society where the citizens do not have the right to self defense but you and the state have guns and hold a monopoly of force, then you’re a tyrant. Society is under tyranny. Essentially, you are a member of the ruling elite.
Many of us, I think, are also concerned with empathy. We know that, comparatively speaking, we don’t really have it so bad. Most of us here are educated, and on net benefit from redistribution. Many of us, if we choose to, can get employment with the big firms that get bailouts. Many of us live in neighborhoods that are not heavily policed. Very few of us here are youths with no money to get educated who are harassed by police every day. Yet we still worry about such things as police brutality, because we are concerned with others. So, no, it’s not enough, not nearly enough, to leave me alone.
It’s even worse, though. If you exempt me from taxes, but let me do as I please, I am doing as I please with property built with other people’s money. This is not helpful. You haven’t eliminated the wars that leave me less safe, either, and you can’t exempt me from the economic laws that cause booms and busts. Some programs can reasonably be made opt-out, but not all.
Nothing I suppose. I guess you would be in the “still oppose the state” camp then!
You could say so. [:P]
But I wonder what is the purpose of you asking this. Is it to test your theories that we are about imposing our views on others which you seem to often touch on? Because if it is it is of no use. Because I am sure the fred person from your example could easily find a similarly minded person who has not been fred and then he could act in his name.
I mean lets be realistic here. Lets say the Martians invade and say they are going to exterminate everyone, except you. They are not going to harm your body or your property in any way. So what now? You can now not claim self-defense and therefore you would be a fanatical crusader to oppose the Martians since they have nothing against you personally?? But actually they still wanna kill your family.
If the state sets us free, it will collapse.