I run into this all the time but I clearly need help.
That statement implies that the political entity in question owns all land within its claimed boundaries. Hence all people there are serfs.
Understood, and point well taken. I usually respond by saying, “No. This is my home” and most people don’t say anything much after that. What I am interested in are “snappy” statements that quickly bring the picture in to focus for others in the hopes that they recognize their flawed thinking and why their answer is really a non-answer to societies problems.
A reductio would be okay:
“So if I broke into your house and stole your stuff, it would be okay because you can just move to Wyoming?”
ymmv
IF all land in the US is property of the US government, than they are right. otherwise they aren’t.
That is worthy of noting and does make sense to people who THINK as we do here. However, as I’m sure you’ve probably experienced in your own dialogues, most people who DON’T think as we do here will fall back on the old canard, “Well, that’s wrong (or immoral, etc.) because you are stealing and that’s against the law”. For anyone who can see where this is heading, once one strips away all the “fluff” and poor logic, the implicit or tacit assumption is that the State exists before society, thus, it (the State), is the final arbiter. And because this is so, and because “we” are bound by the “laws” of the government and we freely choose to be/stay here, then this is incumbent upon us to just “deal with it”, maybe become active in politics, etc., but that’s just the way it is, blah, blah, blah.
At this point I’m looking for a very quick logical way (at least in the initial phase of a dialogue) to “undermine” the tacit or implicit assumption that because the State exists and it is what governs us, that we must all just accept this “brute fact” of its (the States) superiority over the individual. I guess what I’m asking is: How does one show, quickly, that the individual is superior to the State?
Sorry. I was trying to respond to Sieben.
Yes, Merlin, but how does one show the fallaciousness of this line of reasoning since many Americans understanding of the idea of “property” is “stunted”, especially when it is spoken of in the same context of being obedient to the government JUST BECAUSE they are the governing authorities and “that’s the way “our” system works”, blah,blah, blah.
I guess what I’m asking is, how does one show that it does not logically follow that just because I exist in a society where some or most do not want to assert their full autonomy and independence, my freely choosing to stay within that society does not negate all that is inherently mine or God-given, and therefore, it is not incumbent upon me to “find” somewhere else that is more to my liking?
There are no rights, norms, and laws that exist outside of (or that are unsupported by) a majority’s perception of legitimacy. If you live in Afganistan, and you prefer not to get stoned for adultery, you have two choices:
-
Educate the majority to adjust their norms to more closely suit your own.
-
Move.
Z.
You could always point to the American Revolution - rather than leave their homes, they did something about it. However, since that could be construed as “leaving”, you could always point to the Confederacy and what happened when it tried to leave.
Z, I will make choice #1. I guess I’m just sick and tired of being raped, violated, ripped-off, stolen from, surveilled, surrounded by confusion and apathy (or at least my perception of it).
Then you’d have to live with all the risks and rewards associated with such choice. I’ve found that a lot (if not most) “majorities” are hopelessly (generations) behind on their way to economic enlightenment and fiercely beholden to their collectivist genes. So choose your “majority” wisely before you even consider #1.
Z.
there is no way other than education. And I mean not only parenting, but schooling, individual relationship with other people etc. Leaving is not an option, because there is no other place to live (absent the state), state hands always catches back.
It is a common strategy for sloppy thinkers to call upon the "if you don’t like it you may leave argument whenever faced with the question of justifying aggression between one party and another. Yet, it should be clear to the reader that such a tactic is misguiding at the least. If the individual is the aggressor, he may phrase the question if you don’t like my aggressing against you than you may leave, than the victim has no recourse but to choose between either staying, and being aggressed against, or leaving and not being aggressed against. Yet, the simple fact that there is a choice does not alleviate the crime, or even answer the initial question of who gives a party the right to make such a claim. After all, the victim is asking the question, who gives an aggressor the right to aggress against me, whereas, the aggressor is presupposing they have such a right by asking the question. To say if you don’t like something I’m doing than you may leave presupposes that you have the right to make such a claim. Yet, the right of one party to aggress against another is the question of concern.
Besides, what does it even mean to truly leave? What are you leaving? Life and property are not homogeneous mobile homes. You don’t truly get to pack up your property and leave. You may of course liquidate your property and relocate, yet this still involves forced exchange of one property for another. What if you like your property and you don’t want to exchange it for other property. What gives other property owners the right to make such claims upon your property? Furthermore, what if 51% of the world believes that the other 49% should do something they don’t wish to do, and if they don’t like they should leave? But where will the go? The Moon?
Jeremiah, Your answer certainly does bring the issue into focus much more sharply and is intellectually honest.
It seems to me that when people attempt to advance the logic of “if you don’t like it, you can leave”, they aren’t really getting to the “core” (and thus aren’t really being intellectually honest enough) of what underlies their logic and assumptions. For example, when confronted with an argument like the one you posted, most people recoil at the thought that they are employing violence, force or coercion (or the threat thereof). The tendency is to have a much higher view of oneself (i.e. "I’m a “good” person, “I’m not a thief”, etc., etc.).
Thanks for the example!
Than perhaps you could ask to know whether Germans who disagreed with Jews being burned would have had to flee Germany instead of, say, plotting against Hitler. Hitler was democratically elected.
Or the American revolutionaries, why did they rise against Britain? If they didn’t like the new taxes, they had to flee.
Or the Russians in the USSR. Or the Hungarians during their uprising.
Heck, by this standard no political change would ever had come about. So,where do they draw the line?
You should leave, and make your own country out of bits and pieces of America. This is also called secession.
And Maiku, I personally have long held the view that the ability for parents/guradians to educate their children or those they have been entrusted with in the way and where they see fit is THE lynchpin in the pursuit of a truly free, just and wealth-creating society. So long as parents/guardians (or at least those who cannot afford to send their child(ren) to a private school AND pay taxes toward the “public” school system simultaneously) are basically held hostage to a single worldview (i.e. statism), I believe the advancement of liberty in ALL its manifestations will be sporadic with occasional “triumphs” (again, this is only my opinion).
Exactly Merlin!