I believe people should be able to peacefully associate with others in any way all parties voluntarily agree to.
If a group of people want to call their associations a “team,” or a “corporation,” or a “marriage,” or a “commune,” or a “government,” fine - so long as they do not aggress against…
And the flaw is revealed.
[Redacted for brevity, click for full statement]…
The moral of the story: If you’re going to advocate for voluntary unions and voluntary collectivism. Don’t forget that The States voluntarily agreed to the same thing. That agreement can’t be thrown away every time someone new is born.
Someone cannot make an agreement for me. I am not subject to some other parties’ decisions. What kind of Game of Thrones mentality is it that makes the oath of fielty of a father applicable to his sons? As I’ve previously noted when discussing the illegitimacy of democracy:
[O]nly those who agree to participate are bound by the policies of participation: subsequent generations are not automatically beholden to the decisions of whichever ancestor agreed to [certain] terms. Everyone who agreed to the creation of the “United States of America” is long dead, yet somehow we are all tied to not only their constructs but the ensuing (and, due to their internal incongruity, even less legitimate) agreements and constructs of later generations? (Which is putting aside the fact that even at the creation of the United States, there were multitudes who not only objected but didn’t even have a say in the matter - women, slaves, natives, among others.)
I agree. You should not be forced to agree to anything. But please recognize the community has agreed prior to you being born (as I’m sure you’ve heard: You are not the center of the universe). You’re welcome to move out. That’s the point you miss there. No where in the moral of the story did I advocate you being forced to agree to something you don’t want to. So I will disregard the rest of your reply as it does not pertain to the point of the story. Regardless if you think Democracy is illegitimate, you are not forced to stay there. And so, it goes without saying, that if you don’t like the situation where you live, move out instead of trying to coerce and persuade everyone to your side of the table.
Thank you for your cooperation. :)
Let’s try again.
No one who made said agreements is alive. Even when said individuals were alive, there were many - many - who were forced to comply to those agreements despite not consenting.
Since you seem to think in terms of stories, pull up your teddy bear and follow along: Imagine if your father owned his land and his home outright and unambiguously. Then, his four neighbors in every direction banded together and decided to form a coalition for, say, the sake of making lawn-care universal among the participants. Could they compel him to pledge loyalty and pay into to the coalition or be forced out of his land? Of course not. And it wouldn’t make a difference if instead of four neighbors it was 20 or 200,000.
Now, let’s say your father did agree to join the coalition. Why would such an agreement be upheld in perpetuity? If a husband can divorce his wife, why can’t an individual alter terms on other agreements? Cell-phone contracts are for a limited time, and terminating them early only requires a pre-determined fee. No matter what one may turn over in a voluntary contract, the present will is not alienable (ie. one always reserves the right to change one’s mind).
But let’s go one further and accept that at no point in his life did your father terminate his agreement with the coalition. When you inherit his private property (if he found you suitable as an heir), then the decision to accept or reject the terms of the coalition falls to you. You do not suddenly lose your rights to your life, liberty, and property simply because you refuse to opt in to an agreement your father once made, especially if those people he made original agreements with have also passed. So if you decide that you do not want to be a party to the coalition, you do not suddenly lose your rights on your land and thus must move. Further, you do not owe any termination fees or penalties since death (your father’s) is what terminated the contract to begin with.
Again: since you were not the person who made the original contractual arrangement, no one can claim any part of your life, liberty, or property. Any such claims are illegitimate. Therefore, your illogical conclusion to “move out instead of trying to coerce and persuade everyone to your side of the table” does not apply since your demands to be left alone are in response to others who wish to violate your self-ownership under the guise of pre-existing contracts. And if the neighbors call it a government instead of a coalition, the only thing that changes is the noun.
- On Understanding Freedom and Self-Ownership
- Unjust Laws are Threats
- Alienable Rights?
- Re: Non-Aggressive Coercion
- Government is the Biggest Bully of All (more)
- I am the 100%
- lalibertyquotes reblogged this from laliberty
- anarcho-alowisney likes this
- dialectic reblogged this from laliberty and added:
- downgetup reblogged this from laliberty
- thinksquad likes this
- laliberty reblogged this from dialectic and added:
- stupittmoran likes this
- sashutka1 reblogged this from laliberty
- epicdoubletap likes this
- booksofthought likes this
- self-ownership likes this
- ryancander likes this
- lalibertarienne reblogged this from laliberty
- corvoattano likes this
- freedomextremist reblogged this from laliberty
- statewilleatitself likes this
- mmarrazzo likes this
- aurantii likes this
- lindseycathryn likes this
- patientgore reblogged this from laliberty