3 ms·

>Anywhere you would consider going there will be some government trying to dictate how you live your life and take a portion of your livelihood, and anywhere th

by xxpor 11y ago

>Anywhere you would consider going there will be some government trying to dictate how you live your life and take a portion of your livelihood, and anywhere that you might avoid that you are usually risking that in conjunction with a humvee full of armed militants storming your home and murdering you. It's almost like the two are related!

lliamander 11y ago
> It's almost like the two are related! Lol, a fair bit of truth to this. However, I would say that in the past: - There were places you could go where you didn't have either of those problems because there just weren't enough people around. - Governments didn't take as much of your livelihood - There were a greater variety of societies, so you had more options in choosing one that you found least onerous in their expectations. Of course travel took longer, and life wasn't all sunshine and roses, but once you moved to a new place you could fairly effectively start over.
zeveb 11y ago
I can't find the exact quote, but there's one floating about how until about 1910 the most government that average Englishman (outside of London) would experience was the post office. 1890 rural England isn't particularly known for being a lawless hellhole.
- zanny 11y ago
  Places where nobody lives are usually not conducive to marauding bands of malcontents. Those almost always require some support structure behind them, because if you just pillage and burn you have no reliable source of food or prosperity. There is an explicit reason why the places people would "disappear to" like South / Central America, central Asia, or Africa, are all predominantly totalitarian states. You are just, in such places, hoping to fly under the radar and be the one mouse not to be pounced on by the lion destroying everything.

3 ms·

>Anywhere you would consider going there will be some government trying to dictate how you live your life and take a portion of your livelihood, and anywhere th

by xxpor 11y ago

lliamander 11y ago
> It's almost like the two are related! Lol, a fair bit of truth to this. However, I would say that in the past: - There were places you could go where you didn't have either of those problems because there just weren't enough people around. - Governments didn't take as much of your livelihood - There were a greater variety of societies, so you had more options in choosing one that you found least onerous in their expectations. Of course travel took longer, and life wasn't all sunshine and roses, but once you moved to a new place you could fairly effectively start over.
zeveb 11y ago
I can't find the exact quote, but there's one floating about how until about 1910 the most government that average Englishman (outside of London) would experience was the post office. 1890 rural England isn't particularly known for being a lawless hellhole.
- zanny 11y ago
  Places where nobody lives are usually not conducive to marauding bands of malcontents. Those almost always require some support structure behind them, because if you just pillage and burn you have no reliable source of food or prosperity. There is an explicit reason why the places people would "disappear to" like South / Central America, central Asia, or Africa, are all predominantly totalitarian states. You are just, in such places, hoping to fly under the radar and be the one mouse not to be pounced on by the lion destroying everything.