The "you can always leave" argument

[BrentMcCulloch]

Hi All,

I was just wondering if anyone knows where i can find Stefan's response to the common "you can always leave" statist argument?  I imagine he's gone over it a few times, but i'm having trouble finding it.  Having a discussion with a friend about it, and i'd like to review Stefan's perspective.

Thanks kindly!

[TheRobin]

I can't tell you Stefs reply, but meanwhile here's how I would look at that argument.First, the most annoying thing about it is that it's actually true (unless you're somehow unable to move physically). It's also completely irrelevant though. The question isn't whether you can leave, but whether the claim of the group who claims ownership of all the land in a large area is legitimate (or true, or correct). Because if it isn't then it doesn't matter that you could leave to make a case against the violence used against you for residing in that area and doing whatever it is that you do that doesn't harm others.The "you can always leave" only works if the area you leave actually belongs to someone (like in, if you're in my appartment and you don't like the rules you can always leave my appartment), but simply claiming ownership by writing "I own the land" on a piece of paper isn't a valid way to actually own anything. And if I don't own anything I can't rightfully impose my whims/rules/laws upon others.

[BrentMcCulloch]

Thanks Robin.  I was just coming to the same conclusion myself - it's all about the legitimacy of the land's ownership.  I was just looking for Stefan's stuff because he's always so eloquent.  It may be difficult to communicate to my friend that the government does not have any rightful claim on the land (here in canada), in that context, without getting into 8000 other topics.

[masonman]

This question - as you hinted to - is essentially a statement of the validity of the social contract ("if you don't want to pay for or receive the services you implicitly agreed to via the social contract, you have the right to leave, as somebody who doesn't want to participate in exchange with a restaurant can leave").

As a result of some of my debates I created 14 questions (with a 15th added by darkskyabove) to ask somebody who claims social contract theory to be valid:

14 Questions to Critique the Social Contract

 

1.) If there is no clear written contract between a citizen and every politician that makes decisions that require that citizen to pay for certain services, is there a limit to how much they can charge me? If they request my (dismembered) left hand, would they be justified in doing so?

2.) If I wish to reject my "implicit agreement" to the social contract, who do I go to for arbitration, and who would be the person I bring the issue against?

3.) What are the explicit terms of the contract? Is there anything those within the state must abide by, or is it entirely obligations on the part of non state employed citizens?

4.) When Obama took office was he no longer under the social contract (at least the one from the Federal Government), since he would, in essence, be forming a contract with himself?

5.) If I do a favor for you like returning a lost cell phone or cooking you some bacon, can I justly attempt to kidnap you or assault you because I claim you owe me 8,000 dollars as understood in the implied contract? (I will say that I could make the claim that there was an implied contract, but would it be valid for me to immediately assault you or rob you on the assertion that I am correct in my assumption and you are not?)

6.) If I DO in fact build my icy little encampment in Antarctica, but tune in to PBS on my in-tent TV, would the government be perfectly justified in sending police out to require payment or jail me?

7.) If a woman is abused by her husband for years but never moves out of the house, is she implicitly consenting to the abuse?

8.) If I vote for a politician that promises to do "x," but then doesn't do "x," can I demand compensation or at least render the social contract void since he didn't hold up his end of the deal?

9.) If a Chinese citizen goes on a cross country trip across America, is the federal government (or the different state governments) justified in requiring him to pay whatever amount of money they see fit for his use of their services?

10.) When does the actual agreement take place? At conception? At birth? When one is 3 years old? (I imagine some would call this a stupid question, but otherwise I'm unsure how there could be a contract that has no starting point. That can't be the case.)

11.) Do you support or do you oppose exit taxes?

12.) Is it valid that the U.S. enforces the social contract as a result of the use of services it prevents competitors from entering into (Air travel, roads, power, etc)? Would that not make it involuntary, in that they maintain a monopoly on the services by punishing any competitor (see Lysander Spooner attempting to compete with the post office), yet require you to pay for something where choice has been violently prevented from existing?

13.) How is there a social contract that requires one to pay for services one doesn't even use? Why is it all or nothing? If the social contract is implied consent to pay for services as a result of their direct use, why do you have to pay for all the other things that you didn't receive any benefit from? Is that not blatant thievery? Being forced to pay money for something you had nothing to do with as a consumer?

14.) Do property rights start and end only by what you can defend with physical force? Do you own yourself? Is the human will inalienable? (I ask this in curiosity if you believe a voluntary slavery contract could be ethically enforced)

15.) Does this social contract include politicians borrowing money they don't have and expecting me and (most importantly) my descendants to pay it back? Are the unborn under the social contract so the moment they come into existence they now owe money (so, in all practicality, their labor) to the state?

 

[nathanm]

"You can always leave if you don't like it" isn't an argument.   It sounds more like a concession to the claim that the State DOES use violence and that the only recourse is to run away.  Just because person A can fight back or avoid the aggression of person B doesn't mean that person B is acting morally.

[BrentMcCulloch]

Thanks for the help all!  I haven't looked through your long list masonkiller, but i will do so now.

 

In the mean-time, i wrote my friend a potential response, with the intention of a lead-up to a question of legitimacy of ownership (though, not sure how dicey that one will be).

 

Anyways, here's what i've got, would love some feedback if anyone is up for it, am i going to get myself in more hot water by begging the question at the end?

 

---------

 

Okay, bear with a me a moment and we'll get to the 'you can always leave' argument shortly.

 

Let's go back to an example of a restaurant owner in the Bronx in the 1920's.  Let's imagine, for the sake of example, that he acquired the ownership of his restaurant legitimately - he worked hard during his youth, saved up enough capital, and bought a restaurant from a previous legitimate owner in order to fulfill his dream of serving world-class lasagna.  Now, imagine on his first day in businesses a group of armed thugs, aka: the Mafia, enter the restaurant and propose to him a deal.  They say "Hey Luigi, I've got a deal for you. Either you start paying us $50 per month, or me and my boys here gonna beat the snot out of you.  And we'll come back every day and beat the snot out of you until you start paying us $50 a month.  But, if you DO pay us $50 a month, we'll provide you with a service: we'll keep you safe from other thugs who, if it weren't us hanging around, would threaten to beat the snot out of you."

 

This is extortion, a classic protection racket, and I hope that we can at least agree that it is immoral.  Assuming that we do, I would argue that we feel this way for a few reasons:

 

-  First, we recognize that the Mafia has no legitimate claim of ownership over the property of the restaurant or over Luigi himself.  They might have a geographical territory in the Bronx within which they run this same protection racket, and they might say "we own these streets" or whatever Mafia thugs in the 20's said, but their simple say-so is not enough to provide any legitimacy to their use of violence.  Their claim to the property is in fact only premised on the fact that they're willing to defend it with violence should any other group of thugs try to come into the territory and either disrupt or compete-with their protection racket, but the claim itself does not prove or demonstrate ownership.

 

- Second, although Luigi has the option of closing up his shop and leaving if he doesn't like the deal, that does not morally justify the Mafia's extortion of Luigi, even if Luigi knew that his restaurant was within this Mafia's claimed territory when he bought it.

 

- Third, we can see that just because the Mafia is offering a service, in this case the service of protection from other Mafias, in return for the $50 per month, the extortion is still not morally justified.  In other words, it does not matter that Luigi might see some degree of benefit from being extorted - that does not change the morality of extortion.

 

- Fourth, Luigi's ability to plead with or petition the Mafia for a lower price or better protection or more services, does not in itself morally justify the the actions of the Mafia.

 

- Fifth, the fact that some of the restaurant owners in the neighbourhood might not mind being extorted in return for the protection services, does not morally justify extorting those who DO mind.

 

Perhaps i am assuming too much.  Do you think any of the above five points above make extortion moral?

 

So, when comparing between the case of the Mafia as presented above, and similar actions when performed by Government, the real question simply becomes:  is the ownership of the territory legitimate?  If the government has a legitimate ownership over the territory, then they can certainly say 'my house, my rules' with regards to government action.  If the government does not have legitimate ownership over the territory, then they are morally on-par with the Mafia.

 

Do you agree?

 

B.

[Lowe D]

I don't remember how Stefan addressed this line, although I think he did mention it.  It doesn't stick with me, because I rarely get into conversations like this.  Debates are almost never about what people say they are, and experiencing that with others triggers sadness, for me.

There's a song that comes to mind.  It's called

.  It's about a daughter who's molested by her father.  The father is quoted as saying

You could easily go and make your own life somewhere

Couldn't you? Couldn't you? Couldn't you?

[Pepin]

Telling someone that they can always leave is like telling a caged animal that after some a just payment, a whole lot of necessary paperwork, and a good portion of their finite time... That they can be moved to another cage in some other zoo.

Certainly different cages are likely to be better or worse in different respects, and the different zoo keepers are likely to have different rules and attitudes to the animals that they control, but what does that matter?

You might know that prison A is better than prison B, but you would never argue that you'd want to live in prison A or any prison, unless you had no choice but to live in a prison.

[NotDarkYet]

The people in the government don't own all of this property.

 

 

 

[MysterionMuffles]

Masonkiller that is a fine set of questions! Maybe Stef should turn them into a podcast if he hasn't already in a more formal or concise manner.

[BrentMcCulloch]

It's funny, I find my friend in all other aspects of life to be quite smart and open minded, now it feels like he's just arguing for the sake of it.  Here's his response to my example (above re: Luigi and the Mafia):

"in the case of Luigi, the mafia is the legitimate owner of the territory and Luigi either grew up knowing he was on mafia territory or asked permission to move onto mafia territory.  The mafia legitimately owns the territory through many years of precedence as established by people trading land contracts within this territory which specify that the mafia owns it."

[masonman]

 

It's funny, I find my friend in all other aspects of life to be quite smart and open minded, now it feels like he's just arguing for the sake of it.  Here's his response to my example (above re: Luigi and the Mafia):

"in the case of Luigi, the mafia is the legitimate owner of the territory and Luigi either grew up knowing he was on mafia territory or asked permission to move onto mafia territory.  The mafia legitimately owns the territory through many years of precedence as established by people trading land contracts within this territory which specify that the mafia owns it."

 

The problem with this argument is that you have to get into arguments about homesteading and land rights and all that. They will usually be able to talk themselves out of that.

[MysterionMuffles]

 

It's funny, I find my friend in all other aspects of life to be quite smart and open minded, now it feels like he's just arguing for the sake of it.  Here's his response to my example (above re: Luigi and the Mafia):

"in the case of Luigi, the mafia is the legitimate owner of the territory and Luigi either grew up knowing he was on mafia territory or asked permission to move onto mafia territory.  The mafia legitimately owns the territory through many years of precedence as established by people trading land contracts within this territory which specify that the mafia owns it."

 

So then...the Mafia has LEGITIMATE ownership of the territory because they terrorize (or threaten to terrorize) a certain location's denizens in exchange for their money and compliance? Then that's the same thing the government does, execpt on a larger scale and with a lot less class. The Mafia doesn't at least give people the illusion that they can choose which gang will run a certain area, but anyways that's beside the point. The thing with that is, does the Mafia really create land contracts within territory to specify ownership? I thought their ownership is more of an implicit agreement? Once again akin to the government's.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

 

It's funny, I find my friend in all other aspects of life to be quite smart and open minded, now it feels like he's just arguing for the sake of it.  Here's his response to my example (above re: Luigi and the Mafia):

"in the case of Luigi, the mafia is the legitimate owner of the territory and Luigi either grew up knowing he was on mafia territory or asked permission to move onto mafia territory.  The mafia legitimately owns the territory through many years of precedence as established by people trading land contracts within this territory which specify that the mafia owns it."

 

 

What he's doing here is what you did. You used the mafia as a metaphor for the state and he's just acknowledging that.

 

Stef's arguments against this claim are pretty much as Pepin said. You cannot just leave. Metter of fact, leaving is an expensive and very drawn out process. Not to mention, once you leave, they (US) still lay claim to a portion of your earnings and that's almost impossible to avoid without breaching at least one of their gazillion fucking laws. So no... you can't just leave.

 

Also... so I leave. Where to go? To another tax farm with another set of arbitrary rules and another group of sociopaths following me around telling me who what when and where I can and can't do just about everything?

 

If I'm arguing with someone who strongly supports the welfare state (most statists) I ask them how much compassion they really have for actual human beings. After all, they want me to be robbed so some stranger can get a check once a month but but they'll uproot me and send me away from my friends, family, career, home, etc?

 

What LoweD said is true... it isn't about the state. You're arguing about the state but they're arguing about their parents. That's not to say we shouldn't argue with statists. It's just good to keep in mind when they start doing batshit crazy somersaults all over your logic.

 

 

[Freedom2013]

 Debating the "you can always leave" argument is like saying it somehow has merit.

It doesn't.

It might make more sense to respond "so can you".

The point being that we are equal and have equal rights on the matter.

And what happens if/when we fall under a 'one world order' and leaving is not actually viable?

I guess we better hope space travel/colonization becomes affordable.

[Naddrin Kentlar]

one could define having property of something is actually beeing able to destroy that something. If I would have a black hole generator in my basement, I could say, I own the solar system, and also tax it.

[TheRobin]

 

one could define having property of something is actually beeing able to destroy that something. If I would have a black hole generator in my basement, I could say, I own the solar system, and also tax it.

 

And who would own it, if everyone had these generators?

(Because by that logic that would also mean, that everyone who has a knive would own everyone else, because basically everyone is able to stab someone in their sleep)

[DoubtingThomas]

 

What LoweD said is true... it isn't about the state. You're arguing about the state but they're arguing about their parents. That's not to say we shouldn't argue with statists. It's just good to keep in mind when they start doing batshit crazy somersaults all over your logic.

 

I'm inclined to agree with this entirely. The more I debate with my most rational (perhaps an oxymoron in the case of statists, but in relative terms...) of my colleages, the more I understand that the social contract and "you can leave," bits are not meant as arguments. They are meant as a show-stopper to the debate, period. Once you hear "well, you can always leave," then you know that you've crossed the last line of their comfort threshold(s) and have entered territory that their mind has yet to chart. You've made them so uncomfortable in their asessment of reality and their relationship to the state (as indicated: stand-in for their parents) that they would MUCH rather you dissapear from the picture than attempt to re-draw the universe as they know it to account for all the logical steps you've taken them through.

As with debates on religion, I think we run into the same problem: You cannot use reason and evidence to make someone appreciate reason and evidence. If they've decided mentally (or subliminally) to suspend logic in the instance of Jehova or the social contract, then you have no appeal.

[Naddrin Kentlar]

 

 

one could define having property of something is actually beeing able to destroy that something. If I would have a black hole generator in my basement, I could say, I own the solar system, and also tax it.

 

And who would own it, if everyone had these generators?

(Because by that logic that would also mean, that everyone who has a knive would own everyone else, because basically everyone is able to stab someone in their sleep)

 

yeah, perhaps I've been a bit too anxious to take a few leaps. .

Property only exist if it can be enforced. The moment you can destroy something without caring about the consequences from your peers, or you can bypass those consequences, you own that thing, or person.

 

[Pepin]

 

DoubtingThomas, I find that very interesting, in that "you can always leave" is more of a command directed at you in terms of the conversation. Certainly someone making such an remark thinks they are making an argument as I doubt they would say admit to it being a command. An odd area of interest for me as of late has been phrases that are intended to have one meaning, but have a possibility of taking on a seperate unconcious meaning.

For instance, the saying "freedom isn't free"  is typically is meant in a manner that freedom has a price, which is paid by those in the military who fight for freedom. One of the hidden meanings would essentially be "freedom is slavery". My basic idea is that double meanings become a method for part of the psyche to express itself openly without fear of retaliation.

 

[BrentMcCulloch]

 

 

What LoweD said is true... it isn't about the state. You're arguing about the state but they're arguing about their parents. That's not to say we shouldn't argue with statists. It's just good to keep in mind when they start doing batshit crazy somersaults all over your logic.

 

I'm inclined to agree with this entirely. The more I debate with my most rational (perhaps an oxymoron in the case of statists, but in relative terms...) of my colleages, the more I understand that the social contract and "you can leave," bits are not meant as arguments. They are meant as a show-stopper to the debate, period. Once you hear "well, you can always leave," then you know that you've crossed the last line of their comfort threshold(s) and have entered territory that their mind has yet to chart. You've made them so uncomfortable in their asessment of reality and their relationship to the state (as indicated: stand-in for their parents) that they would MUCH rather you dissapear from the picture than attempt to re-draw the universe as they know it to account for all the logical steps you've taken them through.

 

I think this is very much true.  His argument of 'you can always leave' seems to have been meant as a show stopper, an excuse not to think critically about his own moral contradictions and end the conversation.  It continued never the less, and he indeed performed batshit crazy somersaults around logic.  As these debates seem to wildly move from one topic to another, in a subsequent email he came to the conclusion that the thing he didn't like about the moral philosophy of non-aggression was that you could choose to pass by a starving man on the street and let them die of hunger.  His feeling is that we ought to be "morally obligated" to help them, and further that using aggression to make sure someone feeds him is good and moral.

This is a little easier to turn around.  I do the same thing when people bring up discrimination, and find it a very easy argument to win.  This was actually a critical turning point to get my wife to understand liberty, and eventually embrace voluntarism.  We have a mutual friend, Alex, who owns a few restaurants and coffee shops here in Toronto.  During a debate about descrimination I simply asked my wife if Alex should be allowed to discriminate against members of the KKK, should they wish to dine at his establishment, or apply for a job.  To her credit it made her completely pause and re-analyse her position rather than do what most people do, just argue their point without any critical thought of it.

With regards to the starving person on the street, after establishing that 'obligate' in this context really means the use or threat of violence, i simply asked my friend: if this starving person on the street had previously raped and killed my entire family, is it still moral and good to threaten violence against me in order to force me to feed him?  Followed up with:  if this wasn't a starving person, but a cause that the majority of people think is good and moral, such as saving a failing auto-manufacturer through the use of a bail-out, if i am an ardent environmentalist (i could have said austrian economist) who refuses to pay for the bail out, is it moral and good to use or threaten violence against me to force me to pay for it?  Finally followed up by: do you think it's moral to use or threaten violence to force your opinion on someone?

Three days of radio-silence since then.

I imagine he is simply frustrated and not thinking about it, but my hope, futile though it might be, is that he is starting to admit to himself that his views on morality are logically inconsistant.  He is an engineer, so i know he has some value for logical consistancy.

Anyways, I always try to learn something from these conversations, and what I learned from this one was that it's important to establish a few truths before even starting to talk to someone about government.  I smartly had my friend agree that the term freedom was meaningless unless it was actionable.  If I am a slave-master and i say to my slave "you are free to leave whenever you want, but if you do, i'm going to shoot you" - the slave is clearly not 'free' to leave.  There are a few more truths or agreements that in retrospect i wish i had established.

This made me think of Kal Molinet's approach of always starting converstations by asking: "do you think it's moral to use or threaten violence to force your opinion on someone?"

I think if you combine this with the question: "do you think theft or the use of violence is a legitimate way to become the rightful owner of something?"

Then you've got a voluntarist two-pronged pincer-move to start the conversation, which puts them on the defensive immediately.  Not only are the actions of the state immoral, but it's ownership of the territory is as well.  You can start on the offense - challanging their view of the state which they will find difficult to defend since it is inconsistant with their own morality (provided you're not talking to a sociopath) as they've already established - assuming their answers to those two questions is 'no.'

Just a thought I wanted to share.  Maybe i'm being an idealist and underestimating the batshit crazy somersaults, but what the hell, you've got to try someting :-)

 

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

 

I'm inclined to agree with this entirely. The more I debate with my most rational (perhaps an oxymoron in the case of statists, but in relative terms...) of my colleages, the more I understand that the social contract and "you can leave," bits are not meant as arguments. They are meant as a show-stopper to the debate, period. Once you hear "well, you can always leave," then you know that you've crossed the last line of their comfort threshold(s) and have entered territory that their mind has yet to chart. You've made them so uncomfortable in their asessment of reality and their relationship to the state (as indicated: stand-in for their parents) that they would MUCH rather you dissapear from the picture than attempt to re-draw the universe as they know it to account for all the logical steps you've taken them through.

As with debates on religion, I think we run into the same problem: You cannot use reason and evidence to make someone appreciate reason and evidence. If they've decided mentally (or subliminally) to suspend logic in the instance of Jehova or the social contract, then you have no appeal.

 

 

A show stopper indeed. And a favorite of fathers the world wide as a quick, authoritarian ultimatum. It's exactly the same as "My house my rules!". In fact, I've had the argument posed to me by statist as such... "If you can't follow the rules that society agrees on, you can leave". Of course, mothers aren't immune to this nonsense but it has been my experience that it's a lot more common coming from dad. And wih religion, it's the same thing... the deity is the state is the parent. The holy trinity, as it were. [:S]

 

 

 DoubtingThomas, I find that very interesting, in that "you can always
leave" is more of a command directed at you in terms of the
conversation. Certainly someone making such an remark thinks they are
making an argument as I doubt they would say admit to it being a
command. An odd area of interest for me as of late has been phrases that
are intended to have one meaning, but have a possibility of taking on a
seperate unconcious meaning.

For instance, the saying "freedom isn't free"  is typically is meant
in a manner that freedom has a price, which is paid by those in the
military who fight for freedom. One of the hidden meanings would
essentially be "freedom is slavery". My basic idea is that double
meanings become a method for part of the psyche to express itself openly
without fear of retaliation.

 

 

Yeah... I would think the phrase "freedom isn't free" relates to the parent telling the child he can have more freedoms if he behaves and does his chores.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

 

Maybe i'm being an idealist and underestimating the batshit crazy somersaults, but what the hell, you've got to try someting :-)

 

 

 

I concur. And let's face it... you'll know when you've reached an impasse. When I get to that point, I move on. Or at least.... I try to make that my default approach.

[DoubtingThomas]

... the deity is the state is the parent. The holy trinity, as it were.

Well said and very amusing (in a morbid sort of way).

[bitbutter]

In case it's useful, my newest video is entitled You Can Always Leave:

[View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fasTSY-dB-s:900:0]

[Existing Alternatives]

Stef once answered a similar question, specifically pertaining to immigrants. His response, not so eloquently summarized, came down to “where could you go? And why don’t they go instead.”

I don’t buy “land ownership” argument, because the concept of “ownership” is open for interpretation. At the same time, owning land in any given jurisdiction does not automatically give you the right to “do as you please,” or even vote in most countries. Furthermore, you can always rent/lease property and obtain significant rights as the result (even with the exclusion of the owner).

As far as a showstoppers go, I almost got into a physical conflict with a very good friend of mine over something similar (“if you don’t like paying for our healthcare system, just leave”).

Finally, if you are still talking about your Luigi’s example, does your friend basically acknowledge that violence is virtuous, regardless of whether Luigi stays or goes?

[zg7666]

It is not Stefan but it is quite good too - http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/38702.aspx

[Stefan Molyneux]

If u don't like the mafia, move out of the neighbourhood. but you can't take anything with you. and it will take years. and there's no neighbourhood without a mafia.

[Brandon Buck _BB_]

 

If u don't like the mafia, move out of the neighbourhood. but you can't take anything with you. and it will take years. and there's no neighbourhood without a mafia.

 

 

And don't forget... how dare you be unappreciative of all the things the mob has provided for you. Do you think those things just happen for free???

 

[head2wall]

[Freedom2013]

 

For the record, you can't actually leave.

I'll try to demonstrate:

In Canada, for example, you can physically leave the country, but you will still be governed by the State (Canada), as they see fit.

This includes filing tax returns. Canada even applies (becoming more and more common) it's criminal laws to Canadians abroad.

i.e. certain crimes committed abroad can be treated by "the state" as if they were committed in "the state", even if they are not a crime where they were committed. The point being that, even if you physically leave, the state still owns your a$$ and can and will govern you as it sees fit.

On the other hand, you can renounce your citizenship. In Canada, this can be done here:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/renounce.asp

Of course, there are conditions, and the "state" must approve it. These conditions include, amongst others, that you must physically leave Canada AND that you are, or will be, a citizen of a different state. Which, of course, requires that you expressly accept that new states "terms and conditions" or, social contract, if you prefer. Of course that new state must also accept you. So, in this case, you haven't actually left "the state". You have just changed states and your a$$ is still owned and governed as "the state" sees fit.

And if you think that some higher power will come along and support your cause.......... don't kid yourself!

Even the United Nations has declared that "you cannot leave". Not in so many words but check here:

http://www.nostate.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/1961%20convention.pdf and here http://www.nostate.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/1954%20convention.pdf .

Without going into all the details, basically, the U.N. has declared that you cannot renounce your citizenship (state) unless you have, or will have, an alternate citizenship (state). And, if for some strange reason you do find yourself to be "stateless", in that you are not a citizen of any state (refugees and indigenous peoples dealt with separately), the U.N. has declared that, whatever "state" you are physically present in, has the authority to govern you as they see fit. In other words, they still own your a$$.

So what options remain? Well, there's always Antarctica right? There is no state there and the land/territory in un-owned, so we can all just head down there, claim our own little piece of frozen paradise and live free, off the fat of the land. Right?

Ahhh, no.

I can't find the exact link that explains it but basically, there is a (you guessed it) U.N. treaty that says no one can lay claim to any part of the area and I believe it has been declared some sort of protected reserve and so no one can just set up a home there.

It's also a pretty safe bet that the states of earth will (if they haven't already) make similar declarations relating to other planets if/when it becomes viable to travel to, and sustain life on them.

 

The bottom line, if you haven't figured it out, is this:

NO, YOU CAN'T LEAVE!

[Naddrin Kentlar]

and it basicaly boils down to this. Land is a limited resource, and a group of people have monopoly on it and they don't want to share ?. Sounds familiar ?

[Robert Stempien]

Whenever someone says that to u, ask them, "Why doesn't the state just leave?" I said it to this emotional liberal once and she got very mad.

[DaVinci]

I always look at this "you can always leave" argument from the perspective of someone being raped being told the same thing. No sane person would beleive that saying "you can always leave" would justfiy rape, or be a defense in a rape case.

 

This "you can always leave" argument is usually about taxation. Someone says "taxes are needed". Someone responds with "I don't like them", or "I think they are immoral". The first person will then respond with the "You can always leave" argument. But, it's not about leaving. It is about a lack of consent.

So for example three men and one woman organize a rape group. They all agree that once a week when the woman is leaving work one of the men will get to "attack the woman" and "rape her" "against her will"as she is into rough sex in a public place. Now what happens when the woman decides that she does not want to have sex with the men anymore? What happens if during sex she decides for whatever reason that it's not okay? Is she just out of luck because she previously agreed to have sex? Of course not. If the intereation is completely voluntary then she should be able to opt out whenever she wants. Consenting to sex is not a fixed point, it is a continuum. So at any point and for any reason she should be able to opt out.

This is a distinction that is vital to these types of conversations. The difference between a lack of consent, or opting out, and physically leaving an area. You should be alse to opt out without leaving a geographical location if it is a voluntary situation. So if taxes are voluntary then you should be able to opt out. Leaving should have nothing to do with it,

 

 

 

[Libertus]

Statist: Corporations are greedy. They always pay their workers less than the profit they make off of them.You: Well, you can always leave, and get another job.Statist: *gets really mad*

...

So, apparently, the 'you can always leave' argument only applies to some people, sometimes.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

Statist: Corporations are greedy. They always pay their workers less than the profit they make off of them.
You: Well, you can always leave, and get another job.
Statist: *gets really mad*

...

So, apparently, the 'you can always leave' argument only applies to some people, sometimes.

 

Down is up, freedom is slavery, voluntary interaction is oppression. You can always defy gravity.

-Statism