Hacker News Reader

Comment by nickff | Hacker News Reader

Most citizens never chose to join the country 'club', so there is no moral justification for a membership fee. If I created a club, defined territorial limits (which happen to include your house), and charged you a fee, would you feel obligated to pay? If I asserted that I was giving you a number of benefits, would your obligation increase? If I employed force to extract the fee from you, would that be legitimate? You might argue that the state is entitled to do these things, but what would give them this authority?[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Political_Autho...

View on HN

Your parents made the choice to enter you into the club when you were born here. As your custodians, they had the legal right to do so. When you reach the age of majority, of course, you are free to leave and relinquish your club membership.

Ah, the 'love it or leave it' theory. This argument is not used by any serious philosophers (that I know of). One of the many problems with this argument is that there is no reason to believe the state has a greater moral entitlement to the land where I live than I do. What makes the state special anyway? Why can't I just claim to be a state and have legitimate authority over the land?

Another problem with this theory is that there is nowhere for the anarchist to go. Suppose you were abducted (at night or as a child) and put on a ship which heads out to sea when you lack the capacity to take action, then you are told that you must obey the captain or leave. Do you have to obey the captain? If you disagree with the captain, do you have to jump in the ocean and drown, or try to swim to another ship with an equally tyrannical captain? What makes the modern state different?

As an aside, the 'you should leave if you don't like it' idea is also used by such prestigious organizations as the Klu Klucks Klan.

edit: I believe it is important to know who makes similar moral arguments; if you find this company troubling, that is your concern, not mine.

You claimed that "most citizens never chose to join the club". I pointed out that your parents made the decision for you, as they were your legal custodians from birth to the age of majority.

As for the lack of stateless land that an anarchist may emigrate to, the lack of such land does not mean that the country of your citizenship is no longer valid. If you chose to renounce your citizenship and end your involvement in the social contract that your parents entered into on your behalf, where you go is up to you and no longer has anything to do with your former country.

Also, trying to compare me to the KKK? Really? Come on, you can be better than that.

I'm not even sure how to respond to the rest of this; it's difficult to make sense of it.

EDIT: It is so uncool to edit your remarks instead of replying! But I guess in the independent nation-state of nickfftopia you can do what you want, eh?

So the essence of your argument is: 'if you don't like it, leave, and if you can't leave, it's not my problem'?

The power for parents to make decisions is relatively broad, but a decision made on behalf of a child is not the same as a decision made by the latter (for example, selling a child into slavery does not imply the child wanted to be a slave, or is obligated to continue in servitude).

The abduction/shanghai-ed example of the captive on a ship is a relatively common one, if you do not know how to address it, I suggest you ponder it for a while.

In addition, you never addressed what gave the state any authority at all, and why I can't just claim to be a legitimate independent state.

If you don't like the decisions your parents made for you, once you reach the age of majority, you may undo those decisions.

I'm not sure why your decisions to renounce your citizenship should obligate the world to create the new kind of place you want to go to.

As for parents selling their children into slavery, I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. Citizenship isn't slavery.

As for your desire to claim to be a legitimate independent state, I'm sure you can do so. I wouldn't be surprised if you habitually do so right now. I can't help you with getting recognition from the rest of the world, though.

By continuing to live in a country, you give it your tacit consent to be governed. This is one of the cornerstones of John Locke's political philosophy[1], which largely formed the basis for the theory behind American government and the Constitution[2].

[1]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/ [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Inf...

This argument has been put forward by other posts (currently) below, though less well expressed. If you read your first citation, you will see that Locke's reasoning was more complex than yours, and actually allows for people to live in a country without the state having authority over them. No one has ever made a solid argument for why all people born in a country are bound to follow its laws, or respect the state's authority, though many have tried (and Rawls probably came closest, though I admire the democracy-theorists for their creativeness).

The basic question is why the state has any special authority to claim the land and impose its will in the first place. Second, why are you (who may have been born there, thus giving you a presumptive right to keep living there) bound by previous agreements which may or may not have been legitimate to begin with. There are two questions which should be answered here:

1) Why can an individual not claim to be an indipendent state (and claim land as well)?

2) Suppose you were abducted (at night or as a child) and put on a ship which heads out to sea when you lack the capacity to take action, then you are told that you must obey the captain or leave. Do you have to obey the captain? If you disagree with the captain, do you have to jump into the ocean and drown, or try to swim to a different ship with a similarly tyrannical captain? How is the ship of state different from the ship described here?

You can try to be an independent state, if you'd like. Good luck against the US Government though, they have a bit of a resource advantage.

> Most citizens never chose to join the country 'club', so there is no moral justification for a membership fee.

Then they can leave. It's actually really easy.

And go where? Is there any real alternative? Why does the victim have to be the one to leave?

> victim

I think you mean "freeloader".

So someone who is forced to pay taxes at gunpoint is a freeloader? I'm not sure I follow (unless you are specifically arguing against anarchists on some sort of welfare/social security).

> So someone who is forced to pay taxes at gunpoint is a freeloader?

Someone who wants all the priviliges of living in a particular society without having to pay for any of them is, yes, a freeloader.

>You might argue that the state is entitled to do these things, but what would give them this authority?[1]

In the case of the United States, doesn't the Sixteenth Amendment give the State (meaning government, the entity, not State as in Utah specifically) this authority?

Did the citizen in question personally ratify the constitution, or otherwise agree to it? If not, why would they be obligated to follow a contract they never accepted?[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract

Well...citizens, individual citizens can't ratify Constitutional Amendments in the US, so I'm unsure if this question is valid. Can you clarify your stance?

Some people voted for ratification, but none of them happen to be alive now. If you want to propose another means by which you can justify citizens being bound to follow the constitution, please do. There are a few theories including the social contract, and implied social contract which argue that citizens have consented to accept the authority of governments (unfortunately those are both wrong); philosophers have devoted a great deal of time and effort to justifying the government, but failed. If you have a novel theory, please describe it.

There are a few theories including the social contract, and implied social contract which argue that citizens have consented to accept the authority of governments (unfortunately those are both wrong)

I don't think I have much of an alternative-for no honest reason other than having not put the thought or time into coming up with one. Not for a lack of want.

That said, the quoted line above, when you say 'wrong' do you mean "the notion that the citizen automatically accepts government rule" is incorrect by virtue of criminals rejecting the rule of law, evidencing a wholesale rejection of authority, or do you mean the concept itself is morally wrong?

Social contract theory was based on the idea that there was a literal covenant placed by legitimate original owners on the land (claimed by the government), and that this bound all future occupants. This is not correct, as the current governments (of all countries I am aware of) never got their land by gradually gaining consent from all landowners on their desired territory.

Implied social contract theory is more complicated, but the problem with it is that even implied contracts are invalidated if one of the potential parties expressly disavows the implied contract. If implied contract were taken seriously, then any citizen could eliminate any obligations simply by expressing their desire not to be part of the state.

This is a fascinating statement to me. How is an implied contact invariably invalidated-in the case of governments in a representative society, burdened with a multiplicity of values and interests-and further how does a government even function if this contract is merely "implied" and not codified?

In the implied social contract theory, the consent is what is implied, while the contract's terms may be explicit, implied, or some combination of both.[1]

[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/

Thanks for this and your replies, you just pried my mind open and gave me something new to learn about.

Cheers

Reply on news.ycombinator.com