I never agreed to follow the rule of law, the state could ask my signature, why doesn't it?

[Pendrokar]

I think it is interesting that I have never agreed to follow the rules that apply to me from the state, and that the state has never asked me to review its laws and then sign that I agree to them. Of course the common argument is "Not knowing is irresponsible".

 

Did my parents do that, I don't think so... they did vote to be separated from the USSR, last years of which I was born in. So Latvia once again gained independence with laws based on the old state and inclusion of some from LSR(Latvian Socialist Republic). Still does that imply agreement to following the rules of the land?

 

I guess only state employees have signed to uphold the rules, but I am not really sure, as I have never applied for a state employee job.Probably the problem is that I am looking at this from a view of citizenship even though rule of law applies to any human being that is located on state's property. So the state feels justified to apply the law.Seems the notion of "State property" was not a product of Communism and is still in effect.

[Tree Frog]

Don't you remember you signed a social contract! 

[Pendrokar]

Isn't it the belief of statesmen that law is justice. Therefore just/truth. If it is, allow me to sign it. The state probably views it as unnecessary. I bet there would be an uproar from the populace if all of them were asked to agree to all laws that are already being applied to every individual without their consent.Not long ago there was an article about people being deemed insane in the USSR, we treated them in same manner in some former republics of the USSR, even though in USSR some were deemed so because they were not following the law. Only an insane person would not follow the law, right? And I guess a signature on "Agree to all laws of USSR" from such a person would be deemed invalid.

[Culain]

If there were a contract that you could sign, that would imply 'choice'. You're not allowed to have that.

[labmath2]

Are you a citizen of the US? Does that mean something?

[Mike Fleming]

I kind of think of it the same way that if you were born as the child of a slave, you too were a slave and had the same obligations foisted on you.  It's the exact same process.  Except statists claim that their process is somehow legitimate.  The obligations to pay the state and do what it says are pushed on you at birth without your consent.  Just by being born you are a slave of the state.  You can transfer to a different state and have slightly different obligations but you can never fully jettison obligations that you never took on.  

 

If the state asked your signature and you said no, the fraud would be exposed.  It would only take one person.  But there wouldn't be just one saying no.

[ancapzeebo]

I kind of think of it the same way that if you were born as the child of a slave, you too were a slave and had the same obligations foisted on you.  It's the exact same process.  Except statists claim that their process is somehow legitimate.  The obligations to pay the state and do what it says are pushed on you at birth without your consent.  Just by being born you are a slave of the state.  You can transfer to a different state and have slightly different obligations but you can never fully jettison obligations that you never took on.  

 

If the state asked your signature and you said no, the fraud would be exposed.  It would only take one person.  But there wouldn't be just one saying no.

 

Really good argument, i'll try it out on some of the more hard-headed statists I know. 

[Psychophant]

If there were a contract that you could sign that would imply 'choice'. You're not allowed to have that.

 

Yeah bro, a necessary precondition of responsibility is choice. You cannot be responsible for something you were forced to.

[Pendrokar]

Are you a citizen of the US? Does that mean something?

I think not, I already stated the reason in my first post:

 

Probably the problem is that I am looking at this from a view of citizenship even though rule of law applies to any human being that is located on state's property. So the state feels justified to apply the law.

If I were to travel to a different country that doesn't require a visa, then they also don't ask me to follow the law. Foreign refugees also don't get asked that.

 

Recently one of my brothers wanted to bring up some specific law, but before he could finish I stated that I didn't sign to uphold any of the state's laws. They of course got confused, first saying this same "But you were born here", which doesn't imply signature. Then again bringing the notion of "not reading doesn't free from responsibility" and "not everything has to be a contract". Then brought up silly examples of "a burglar won't give you a contract to sign".

 

In the end we at least got to the consent that the state has power and uses force because it feels justified to do so, no matter if anyone agreed. Of course they still think a state is the only thing that can bring about order, but that is a different topic.

 

[edit] Also if anyone would not agree to follow rule of law, I guess the state would have to deport that person. That would be the least amount of force. But since any other state would ask to do the same about their laws, a non-compliant persons would be thrown in international waters, without a lifeboat.

[labmath2]

What would a society where people get to choose what rules they want applied to them and what rules they do not want applied to them look like.

[WasatchMan]

I think it is interesting that I have never agreed to follow the rules that apply to me from the state, and that the state has never asked me to review its laws and then sign that I agree to them.

 

I think the main answer is because they don't have to.  Social normalization seems to be sufficient for the general population to accept the power of the State carte blanche. They have the laws, guns, and prisons, so why complicate things?

[Livemike]

If you did sign would it be valid?  If I wanted to and had the time I could find a dozen things in your laws* that would make you say "But that's not fair!  I had no idea that was what was required of me!".  So unless you're better informed of your legal systems than most lawyers, you would not have given knowing consent to the laws.  You know those terms and conditions you have to click to agree to on the internet?  The law says you didn't really consent to those since nobody reads and understands them.  The laws in your country* are far more confusing and lengthy.  So if you had signed it would morally and legally mean nothing.

 

 

*  I don't know which country you're from but they're all the same in this respect.

[charlesp]

I kind of think of it the same way that if you were born as the child of a slave, you too were a slave and had the same obligations foisted on you.  It's the exact same process.  Except statists claim that their process is somehow legitimate.  The obligations to pay the state and do what it says are pushed on you at birth without your consent.  Just by being born you are a slave of the state.  You can transfer to a different state and have slightly different obligations but you can never fully jettison obligations that you never took on.  

 

If the state asked your signature and you said no, the fraud would be exposed.  It would only take one person.  But there wouldn't be just one saying no.

exactly right. Just because my parents had sex on this piece of dirt we call USA, I'm supposed to feel morally superior enough to send troops around the world and approve of the government bombing brown people because they aren't Christian Americans?

Like you said, if they asked for permission it would expose the fraud. In the spine tingling last sentence of "the story of your enslavement" it says "to see the farm, is to leave it....wake up"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

[prolix]

I think it is interesting that I have never agreed to follow the rules that apply to me from the state, and that the state has never asked me to review its laws and then sign that I agree to them. Of course the common argument is "Not knowing is irresponsible".

 

Did my parents do that, I don't think so... they did vote to be separated from the USSR, last years of which I was born in. So Latvia once again gained independence with laws based on the old state and inclusion of some from LSR(Latvian Socialist Republic). Still does that imply agreement to following the rules of the land?

 

I guess only state employees have signed to uphold the rules, but I am not really sure, as I have never applied for a state employee job.Probably the problem is that I am looking at this from a view of citizenship even though rule of law applies to any human being that is located on state's property. So the state feels justified to apply the law.Seems the notion of "State property" was not a product of Communism and is still in effect.

I think I can make a counterpoint to this. Hopefully someone will let me know if my reasoning goes astray.

 

In the instances where you interact with the state they do make you sign a "contract" of sorts. Yes, it is the state and it is coercive, yes, yes. But technically, on an interaction by interaction basis, you sign, maybe under duress, but non-the-less you sign off on things. Things like drivers license and tickets and tax forms and job applications and bank statements all kinds of things the state has its filthy claws on. Literally every interaction you officially have with the state the make you sign a "contract" or an agreement. And I know, "make" is the operative word in that last sentence.

 

So, I get the place this is coming from and I get where you are going. But I am not sure this is the most efficient vehicle for this idea. So I reason that statements like "the state could ask for my signature" and " I have never agreed to follow the rules" are maybe invalid because the state literally does both those things, with coercion, for example when you get a drivers license.

 

Maybe I am going all, "free man on the land" technical on this one. Maybe things are super different in Latvia .But I think the Original Post  invokes those "free man on the land" type of themes and presuppositions. 

[J. D. Stembal]

Did your parents ever ask your opinion on the rules of the family or the home?

Did you have to sign off on the rules that the family wished to follow?

Did you ever hear the words, "Do as I say, not as I do"?

Were the rules ever applied equitably or universally?

 

This is why we have the state and the mandatory social contract.

[Jaromor]

This might be just a feeling, but I got this impression that contracts between individuals are less and less honored by authorities; i.e. a contract between you and your wife can be tossed out of the window because court does not like it for some reason... (Which goes well along with the patronizing approach to citizens "and their sovereignity and freedoms lulz".)

 

I wonder if maybe we are heading towards a society where you won't even be in position, or authorized should I say, to make any contracts on yuor behalf at all, let alone a contract with state. "A contract? What do you mean by contract?"

[J. D. Stembal]

This might be just a feeling, but I got this impression that contracts between individuals are less and less honored by authorities; i.e. a contract between you and your wife can be tossed out of the window because court does not like it for some reason... (Which goes well along with the patronizing approach to citizens "and their sovereignity and freedoms lulz".)

 

I wonder if maybe we are heading towards a society where you won't even be in position, or authorized should I say, to make any contracts on yuor behalf at all, let alone a contract with state. "A contract? What do you mean by contract?"

 

If I am not authorized to make a contract on my behalf, how can any EULA that I click ever apply to me? How can I be forced to pay back a student loan?

[Jaromor]

If I am not authorized to make a contract on my behalf, how can any EULA that I click ever apply to me? How can I be forced to pay back a student loan?

I wish we lived in a world where "does not make a sense" meant "does not stand a chance".

[Pendrokar]

@prolixYeah I thought about that. That a state/private contract would involve/reference other laws and therefore I agree to a net of laws, perhaps even all of them.Of course I have personally signed the driver's license contract.

[David Ottinger]

Well, this is actually one of the main grievances us voluntaryists have.  There is no requirement of the state to have explicit consent.  The fact that you live within the jurisdiction of the given state is treated as acquiescence to its body of order, i.e. jurisprudence.  For example, if you go to a store and purchase a DVD, on the box are copyright claims, and while you did not explicity sign an agreement, you however performed actions that were binding.  

 

And, while this is all well and good as far as contract law goes, the issue lies in the monopolistic nature of government.  This is why you typically get the whole, "If you don't like it, then just leave," argument -- an argument full of flaws that I won't go into here.

 

The point, however, is that due to this monopolistic nature there is a lack of recourse.  And, in the absence of recourse, then there is no valid contract because it is by its nature a one sided contract.  Thus, what you have is actually called an 'unconscionable bargain'. 

 

(UNCONSCIONABLE BARGAIN, contracts. A contract which no man in his senses, not under delusion, would make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept, on the other. 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 3848.)

 

While many will mistakenly limit the definition of that term to those of unsound mind (e.g. child or mentally handicap), the term actually encompasses fraud as well as fraud preys upon the ignorance of an individual.  And the main aspect of what leads to fraud is the lack of full disclosure.  That's why under the philosophy of law as far as contracts are concerned there is a necessity for full disclosure.   It's a main element for a sound contract.  Basically, without full disclosure there cannot be consideration.  In other words, one cannot consent to that which he/she cannot consider.

 

Of course, many will try to circumvent this argument with the claim, "There is no excuse for ignorance of the law."

 

And, while you can argue how no one man really knows all the "law" given the ocean of edicts out there, hence all the specilization in the legal field.  But, the real point is that on some level you're perfectly aware there is an order that has juridiction over the geographic area.  More importantly, this "law" is not hidden from anyone.  It is made public knowledge.  Thus, if you're ignorant of it, then you do so out of your own will, hence the claim of willful blindness.  In other words, you're choosing to be blind to this body of order -- which is seen and treated as the steward of law.

 

(On a side note, that sort of argument is actually a very clever ruse because the whole argument regarding the unconscionable bargain actually deals with one surrenduring his/her sovereignty, i.e. no one in their right mind would actually surrender his/her sovereignty, unless under duress -- which I can go into conquest later.)  

 

And, this is where the notion of the rule of law and legitimacy of government begins to get confusing because in prior legal systems there was an understanding that the law came from God.  Hence, the divine right of kings, i.e. everyone had their duties as ordained by God.  Whatever class you were born into was in accordance with the will of God.  

 

(Mind you, this is an extremely brief overview of the history of western legal system and philosophy of law.)

 

As the Age of Enlightenment came about, this began to question that whole body of order.  And, mind you, this sort of questioning didn't begin during the Age of Enlightment, rather that's where particular concepts culminated.

 

Some of these concepts are of sovereignty; equality of law; what is the rule of law; public realm vs private realm; natural rights vs legal rights; and, so on.

 

And, from all of that we have gained insight into what the rule of law might be despite it still being something that eludes us.  But, the overall consensus is that it is distinct from the rule by might.  The rule by might is what despotism/tyranny is all about.  Hence, the need for the consent of the governed.  Without it, there is no legitamcy of the government.  This consent is the difference between a de facto form of governance vs a de jure form of governance.  (Personally, I make a distinction between government and governance as some will say there is no governance without government.  But, then, what about self-governance?)

 

And, really, that's what anarchism is all about.  It's the ultimate form of self-governance.  It is simply the next step in this long progression towards equality of law.  (Mind you, I also make a distinction between law and edicts, i.e. the difference between lawful and legal.) 

 

Laws are the moral theories that make up a jurisprudence.  The edicts are a reference to the legal framework that is chartered in order to uphold the rule of law or whatever order one imposes by might.  In other words, the lawfulness of an act is based on its moral standing, and the legality of an act is based on its adherence to the charter, i.e. contract.  Thus, issues of legality are issues of contract, not necessarily morality.  Hence, how you can have an ocean of edicts on the books and still have lawlessness.  (i.e. "Where you find the laws most numerous, there you will find also the greatest injustice.")  In other words, just because one can create order via might, that does not mean he/she is abiding by the rule of law.  

 

And, as far as this topic is concerned, that is why anarchism is statelessness and not lawlessness as many will try to argue that anarchism is without law or rules or regulations and so on.  

 

Further more, this is why I find UPB to be so important to this discussion.  It gives us a methodology for evalutating moral theories, thus it gives us insight into real law (i.e. natural law), not the edicts that are colored as law because of how contracts allow us to create laws among ourselves.  When you sign a contract, you're taking an oath.  That oath creates a law, but it is one that is limited only to those party to the contract.

 

Hence, the whole focus on the idea of a social contract.  People understand that some sort of frame work is needed.  But, again, the problem isn't that there is a need for some sort of contract, rather that there is a monopoly on it, and worse that it is imposed upon us all by force.  So, it's not the rule of law we're actually against.  It's this particular order (which is actually a might makes right form of jurisprudence).  Otherwise, why is the gun in the room?  It serves to *enforce* the monopolistic nature of this particular order.  An order we refer to as statism.

 

Thus, one can easily argue that this whole voluntaryist position is all about one's natural right to contract, i.e. sui juris -- a man of his own "law".   And, personally, I think that scares a lot of people because they assume the source of law is government as many are ignorant of their own sovereignty, let alone what sovereignty actually is.   Thus, they gladly surrender it for some false sense of security which is nothing more than a protection racket.  (Which, I find to be the result of epistomological conquest, i.e. indoctrination of the populace.)

 

 

[dsayers]

What would a society where people get to choose what rules they want applied to them and what rules they do not want applied to them look like.

 

Theft, assault, rape, and murder are behaviors where the assailant simultaneously accepts their own self-ownership while rejecting the self-ownership of their victims. That is to say that anybody that commits one of these accepts the "rule" in their very act of violating it.

 

Any other rules would be voluntary based on property rights. For example, I own this road, you can use it in exchange for X, but you have to stay on the right side of the road to accommodate motorists traveling in the opposite direction efficiently.

[prolix]

Well, this is actually one of the main grievances us voluntaryists have.  There is no requirement of the state to have explicit consent.  The fact that you live within the jurisdiction of the given state is treated as acquiescence to its body of order, i.e. jurisprudence.  For example, if you go to a store and purchase a DVD, on the box are copyright claims, and while you did not explicity sign an agreement, you however performed actions that were binding.  

 

And, while this is all well and good as far as contract law goes, the issue lies in the monopolistic nature of government.  This is why you typically get the whole, "If you don't like it, then just leave," argument -- an argument full of flaws that I won't go into here.

 

The point, however, is that due to this monopolistic nature there is a lack of recourse.  And, in the absence of recourse, then there is no valid contract because it is by its nature a one sided contract.  Thus, what you have is actually called an 'unconscionable bargain'. 

 

(UNCONSCIONABLE BARGAIN, contracts. A contract which no man in his senses, not under delusion, would make, on the one hand, and which no fair and honest man would accept, on the other. 4 Bouv. Inst. n. 3848.)

 

While many will mistakenly limit the definition of that term to those of unsound mind (e.g. child or mentally handicap), the term actually encompasses fraud as well as fraud preys upon the ignorance of an individual.  And the main aspect of what leads to fraud is the lack of full disclosure.  That's why under the philosophy of law as far as contracts are concerned there is a necessity for full disclosure.   It's a main element for a sound contract.  Basically, without full disclosure there cannot be consideration.  In other words, one cannot consent to that which he/she cannot consider.

 

Of course, many will try to circumvent this argument with the claim, "There is no excuse for ignorance of the law."

 

And, while you can argue how no one man really knows all the "law" given the ocean of edicts out there, hence all the specilization in the legal field.  But, the real point is that on some level you're perfectly aware there is an order that has juridiction over the geographic area.  More importantly, this "law" is not hidden from anyone.  It is made public knowledge.  Thus, if you're ignorant of it, then you do so out of your own will, hence the claim of willful blindness.  In other words, you're choosing to be blind to this body of order -- which is seen and treated as the steward of law.

 

(On a side note, that sort of argument is actually a very clever ruse because the whole argument regarding the unconscionable bargain actually deals with one surrenduring his/her sovereignty, i.e. no one in their right mind would actually surrender his/her sovereignty, unless under duress -- which I can go into conquest later.)  

 

And, this is where the notion of the rule of law and legitimacy of government begins to get confusing because in prior legal systems there was an understanding that the law came from God.  Hence, the divine right of kings, i.e. everyone had their duties as ordained by God.  Whatever class you were born into was in accordance with the will of God.  

 

(Mind you, this is an extremely brief overview of the history of western legal system and philosophy of law.)

 

As the Age of Enlightenment came about, this began to question that whole body of order.  And, mind you, this sort of questioning didn't begin during the Age of Enlightment, rather that's where particular concepts culminated.

 

Some of these concepts are of sovereignty; equality of law; what is the rule of law; public realm vs private realm; natural rights vs legal rights; and, so on.

 

And, from all of that we have gained insight into what the rule of law might be despite it still being something that eludes us.  But, the overall consensus is that it is distinct from the rule by might.  The rule by might is what despotism/tyranny is all about.  Hence, the need for the consent of the governed.  Without it, there is no legitamcy of the government.  This consent is the difference between a de facto form of governance vs a de jure form of governance.  (Personally, I make a distinction between government and governance as some will say there is no governance without government.  But, then, what about self-governance?)

 

And, really, that's what anarchism is all about.  It's the ultimate form of self-governance.  It is simply the next step in this long progression towards equality of law.  (Mind you, I also make a distinction between law and edicts, i.e. the difference between lawful and legal.) 

 

Laws are the moral theories that make up a jurisprudence.  The edicts are a reference to the legal framework that is chartered in order to uphold the rule of law or whatever order one imposes by might.  In other words, the lawfulness of an act is based on its moral standing, and the legality of an act is based on its adherence to the charter, i.e. contract.  Thus, issues of legality are issues of contract, not necessarily morality.  Hence, how you can have an ocean of edicts on the books and still have lawlessness.  (i.e. "Where you find the laws most numerous, there you will find also the greatest injustice.")  In other words, just because one can create order via might, that does not mean he/she is abiding by the rule of law.  

 

And, as far as this topic is concerned, that is why anarchism is statelessness and not lawlessness as many will try to argue that anarchism is without law or rules or regulations and so on.  

 

Further more, this is why I find UPB to be so important to this discussion.  It gives us a methodology for evalutating moral theories, thus it gives us insight into real law (i.e. natural law), not the edicts that are colored as law because of how contracts allow us to create laws among ourselves.  When you sign a contract, you're taking an oath.  That oath creates a law, but it is one that is limited only to those party to the contract.

 

Hence, the whole focus on the idea of a social contract.  People understand that some sort of frame work is needed.  But, again, the problem isn't that there is a need for some sort of contract, rather that there is a monopoly on it, and worse that it is imposed upon us all by force.  So, it's not the rule of law we're actually against.  It's this particular order (which is actually a might makes right form of jurisprudence).  Otherwise, why is the gun in the room?  It serves to *enforce* the monopolistic nature of this particular order.  An order we refer to as statism.

 

Thus, one can easily argue that this whole voluntaryist position is all about one's natural right to contract, i.e. sui juris -- a man of his own "law".   And, personally, I think that scares a lot of people because they assume the source of law is government as many are ignorant of their own sovereignty, let alone what sovereignty actually is.   Thus, they gladly surrender it for some false sense of security which is nothing more than a protection racket.  (Which, I find to be the result of epistomological conquest, i.e. indoctrination of the populace.)

 

 

 

Heh, I was halfway through it before I recognized your writing style. Great post...

[David Ottinger]

^I'd rep you to say thank you, but I haven't figured out if you can do that here. 

[prolix]

^I'd rep you to say thank you, but I haven't figured out if you can do that here. 

An error occurred

You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day

[Bedouin]

Actually as far as I know there is the option to opt out, it's just not easy.

 

They get you when you're born in the form of your birth certificate, as well as being able to claim that you're consenting to their rule by residing or otherwise being within their boundaries.

 

Supposedly, you can be a free agent of sorts who is not part of a 'society' if you are not registered at birth, which also makes it possible to not pay taxes.

 

I wholeheartedly recommend watching this entire documentary: I think it's something everybody should know about in the FDR community.

"By The 'Consent of the Governed'"