You can leave = you consent?

What you don’t understand is that the state doesn’t care what you think. Your right and we all agree the state is wrong to use coercion. Now what? That is the only thing that matters. The state is not going to change so you either do something to reduce or eliminate the coercion or accept it? What is your choice?

The more you whine about the injustice without taking action indicates one of two things, either the injustice isn’t as bad as you are making it out to be or freedom to you isn’t as important to you as you say.

Personally, I think it’s ok to admit to one or both of these two things. Its the pretending that irritates me.

No, but if you don’t want to keep being robbed you will have to resist the robber or move. If you choose to do neither then you are making the decision that you prefer to live where you are being robbed than choosing to resist or leave. So not being robbed isn’t as important as you are claiming it to be.

When not being robbed becomes important enough, you will start resisting or leave.

Your lack of action makes your claims appear disingenuous. It’s like mitigating your damages in a lawsuit, if your house has a leak we accept you to shut off the water, if you don’t we might blame the plumber for the leak but we will hold you partly responsible for not attempting to mitigate the flooding.

I think a better point is that the arbiter of government authority is government itself (supreme court “interprets” the constitution).

Leaving the land is not costless, on more levels than material wealth.

Government is a hegemonic relationship - it arbitrarily grants itself whatever power over you it desires, and it imposes costs upon you to leave a contract that you never agreed to.

If government was a mutually beneficial relationship, it would not seek coercive monopoly, allowing you to provide yourself with the same services that the government provides.

What you apparently don’t understand is that this is a discussion forum and people have lives outside of these forums that may and sometimes do involve activities aimed at undermining statism.

What you also don’t understand is that we can’t force “freedom” upon people and that if we want freedom it won’t come through moving to some obscure African country or voting in a certain candidate but by enough people just not worrying about what the government says. The only way to make this happen is through education.

He seems to think non-resistance stems from a lack of desire for freedom, as opposed to the crushing power of the State. Which is to say, the objective conditions needed to revolt against it are presently lacking.

-Jon

And there Max goes again, accusing people of “whining about injustice” when we’re simply trying to have a discussion about the nature of the state to clarify how things really work. The moment that anyone, in an intellectual discussion about interpersonal relations, points out the coercive nature of the state’s power as an environmental condition, he belittles them as irresponsible and apathetic “whiners” for this sin. It amazes me.

Ignorance is strength.

I think it is obviously a combination of both. Certainly we have found people who want to revolt but don’t because they know they will fail, while there are clearly others who believe that the state is good and/or necessary, while there are others who feel no direct impact and could care less.

This will inevitably change, as the state blunders its way into a situation that destroys countless lives, yet can’t be blamed on free individuals.

Whose talking about other people, I am just talking about yourself. There are other places where the state is either non-existent or much reduced in its coercive power than probably where you live. If the issue is your own greater personal freedom then you would have left already. Obviously, the oppressive state is not nearly as bad as you are suggesting.

How many people do you estimate you will have to “educate” before you achieve your personal freedom?

With this education that you are going to provide what do you propose the newly educated should do?

In Somalia, there is no state. Why, haven’t you moved there and removed your horrible burden?

The answer is simple, your life under the “crushing power of the state”, is superior than freedom in Somalia. There are other options, you are just afraid or lack the confidence to pursue them.

If you have the ability to reduce or avoid entirely the state’s coercive nature and decide not to, then you should understand that you are part of your problem.

Is every action in your life controlled by the state?

Are you unable to physically move for some reason in order to reduce the state’s coercion?

I’ll be at your house in ten minutes with a few friends of mine and some weapons? No complaining allowed, just leave if you don’t like it.

No, the only way you can avoid being robbed is by moving. The thief can enter your house while you are on vacation or running errands or for whatever other reason you are not there, and rob you.

So again, if two of your neighbors elects someone to be the official thief (and they pick one of themselves), and you do not move once they do this, does this mean that you have consented to being robbed?

(hint: consent only occurs when you have actually given consent, as in voting for the thief, not because of inaction)

I have not said that the people using coercion are right. I have said it doesn’t matter from your proposed perspective. If you want to not be robbed you will have to either resist or leave. If you do neither it indicates that being robbed is a superior alternative to leaving or resisting.

So for you being robbed is a superior alternative than freedom, since you could move somewhere else and have more freedom if not be entirely free of the state.

Your position is, you are being robbed, you refuse to resist or leave, this event has occurred everyday of your life and you have no intention of changing anything in the future. How bad can it really be?

My point is you have no right to remain if I choose to do turn at your house and proceed to rob you fornightly, you can just move right?

If resistance will not be a deterrent then yes moving is your only option. I think I have stated several times that the thief is in the wrong, but it doesn’t matter because the thief is always wrong. What matters is what are you going to do about the thief? If in the end the answer is nothing then you might as well quit complaining about the thief. If your not willing to save yourself then the thief will never be stopped.

See you complain about the thief because you want someone else to do something about the thief. You are not willing to address the thief yourself so you expect someone else to do your fighting for you. How bad can it be to robbed if your not willing to take any action to change your situation?

The slave has no rights in the eyes of the master. Who are you trying to convince, me? I have already agreed the thief is wrong. The thief doesn’t care though and it makes no difference to the thief because he thinks he is right. It only matters what you do.

Does having your victim mentality reduce the amount of robbery? Do you feel better when your things are taken knowing that you hold the moral high ground?

If you are not willing to at least help remove the yolk of your slavery what do you want me or anyone else to do for you?

:begins rolling ey-

I’m totally embellishing, & probably used a logical fallacy or five, but in all the name that is Stossel, give me a break.

I agree with MaxLiberty here. Freedom isn’t free. Its defense may be sometimes be infeasible, costing more than the injustice it seeks to prevent. Yes, things would obviously be better without the thieves. Short-term costs may be bad but long-term could be worth it, but only on the condition that resistance will be successful and justice would thereafter be sustained.

The goal of education must be to change the persepctive of the apathetic, with the intention of organizing some form of resistance, be it political or actual. Bitching to the choir may actually disorganize such movements.

Resistance requires more power. I suggest we start saving, developing social ties, educating the apathetic and uninformed, etc. By organizing and raising power someday the cost of fighting injustice will be significantly diminished.

The only problem is that Max views this as inaction.

If you don’t abandon your friends and family to run off to some third world sh*thole (if it were any good people would live there already, right?) and try to stay under the radar of whatever homicidal tin-pot dictator that claims the ground where you have set up camp then you are overtly agreeing to pay whatever cost is required to finance your own serfdom.

All or nothing as it were.

It’s not like the libertarian movement has gone from total obscurity to getting a general showing through people like Ron Paul or anything like that in the last thirty years.

I think Max needs to read the fable of The Tortoise and the Hare.