Am I missing something in the logic, but can’t this argument be taken to its logical conclusion that the government can do anything it wants to its citizens?
I like David Friedman’s answer:
The Mafia don replies that of course he owns the territory–if you don’t believe him, go ask the current capo di capi. If you don’t like it, you are free to move to the territory of a different don; if you remain, you are implicitly agreeing to accept his “taxes.” Why is his claim any less justifiable than the government’s? He provides you with protection against other dons, just as the government provides protection against other governments.
im not sure if taking it to its logical conclusion is really valid. i need to know more where a statist is coming from when they argue that the government is voluntary because you choose to live within its borders
im not really sold on David Friedmans thought experiment. i think a better refutation is Roderick Long-circular logic proposition, David Hume’s empirical refutation, and Walter Block even has rebuttal.
But it really comes down, to being a circular logic claim by the statist. The people who make up the government claim they have jurisdiction over a geographic territory- How did they ever get a legitimate claim over the territory? Because they said they did. It just sounds very circular.
Anything but prevent/restrict them from leaving.
That’s an implicit part of Friedman’s thought experiment.
Brainpolice had an interesting post on this.
My take is that the “love it or leave it” argument is circular reasoning: it assumes precisely what is has to prove, viz. the legitimacy of government’s authority.