Hacker News Reader

Comment by srin | Hacker News Reader

What? How would you keep living in society but isolated from its government? You would continue to be using services that exist because of taxes for one thing. If you can't accept society's contract it's not really possible to live in it with no conflict.

Not saying government is perfect, and I agree with you that if you don't accept the society's government you are still coerced to live in it, but you can't really just choose to not take any part in it. You accept it, leave, or try to change it.

View on HN

Let us take some normal examples of services that exist. Let us say I own the home I live in for purposes of non-ambiguity. Would you say I own the water on my property? If I don't have water, would you be okay if I never paid taxes but paid for the water? Would you be okay if I never paid taxes but paid for the roads usage each time I used it? Or on a monthly basis? A thought experiment begins with the basic fact that you and I live in a society where certain things must be done, like paying taxes. If I refuse to pay, as oleganza says, will you come to an alternate arrangement with me? Or will you put me in jail?

In short, is my personal liberty a right? Or is it subject to the privilege of my citizenship?

Note: anyone who comes with "privilege of citizenship" argument (or "property rights are only defined within a government") already uses some moral theory. So it's better to ask for explanation what this theory means in reality. E.g. if some group of people vote 51% vs 49%, they can do whatever they want? Or are there "absolute rights"? So now the person who advocates the government must prove all this stuff, or shut the fuck up.

One thing is the reality, another thing is justification for it.

Government, rape and theft exist. We cannot get rid of them, we can protect ourselves. That's reality. But we don't derive moral justification from reality. Theft does not become moral because it exists. Government does not become moral because it's inevitable. It becomes moral because of some principle that you hold. So saying "you can't really just choose to not take any part in it" does not invalidate any of my argument.

Now, society != government. Society is 95% anarchy. People voluntarily trust each other, deal with each other, live closer to people they like and further from people they dislike. They choose what to eat, whom to marry etc. Then, there is small group of self-proclaimed religious guys who self-identify with the whole society and also claim the right to use violence because of some mystical "social contract". No one was signing this contract. And even if some dudes in 1787 signed some piece of paper, it has nothing to do with you or people around you. It's just a belief in magical lines called "borders" that suddenly change the moral nature of a man. Within the "border" a man in a costume can arrest someone, but outside the "border" he cannot.

That's simply religious nonsense. If we were in 1241 when everyone believed in god, miracles and priests, it wouldn't make me stupid or extremist. It would make everyone else around stupid and arrogant. Even if there are 99% of them.

I never said society == government, then I wouldn't have said "society's government".

Government is a PART of society. Along with other norms (like what we consider acceptable in social situations).

Also, government is set up to protect from rape and theft. You're right, government often has immoral shortcomings, but most people believe it is better than anarchy. No one was signing this contract? Most people agree with the need for cops.

I'm not saying government does its job ideally. I'm not saying the majority wanting something makes it right. All I was saying in the comment was that if society wants something, and you disagree and want to be isolated from, while living with, that society, then there will be problems. If, on the other hand, you just want the society to not have a government (either at all or just not the current incarnations) then that is different.

I couldn't reply to your comment in response to my earlier comment so I am replying here.

I believe in natural rights, not designed in the human framework sense, so I totally agree with you on what democracy is actually: mob rule of the majority. Proponents of government actually must accept its truth: wealth transfer at the point of a gun. I live in India (a high-tax and high-tax evasion socialist paradise where even the roads are not good) and I wouldn't pay taxes at all, since I get nothing in return. But poor people get a lot (and of course, rich politicians steal most of the money), but there is no point in denying the truth: but for the State's implied threat of violence, I would not fork out what I earned. Period.

It's just a belief in magical lines called "borders" that suddenly change the moral nature of a man. Within the "border" a man in a costume can arrest someone, but outside the "border" he cannot.

It's not any more magical than to claim that you have exclusive rights over everything that's inside some lines called "property limits", and that you even have the right to harm people who cross those magic lines without your consent.

I'm not advocating any right to property or self defence. I and you and many other people simply choose to live peacefully around people sharing same views on what's okay and what's not. And use peaceful methods to prevent violence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com