6 ms·

You effectively consent to being governed by continuing to live within the national boundaries associated with the government associated with that nation. I'm n

by mwfunk 10y ago

You effectively consent to being governed by continuing to live within the national boundaries associated with the government associated with that nation. I'm not expressing a judgement on whether or not that's the best arrangement, but that is exactly how it works today. What's the alternative, and how would you implement it? What would the upsides to your plan be exactly? What would be the downsides (including negative unintended consequences), and how would you address them? Would the upsides outweigh the downsides? If not, you've answered your own question. But if so, PLEASE tell humanity about it because we've been trying to figure this stuff out for millennia!

SwellJoe 10y ago
There's a wide variety of anarchist literature to choose from. I'm not the best person to ask, though I definitely lean anarchist. Noam Chomsky is among the most famous anarchists that is currently writing on the subject, so his writing is likely a good introduction. David Graeber is another. Both of those folks are coming at it from the left; others come to anarchism or minarchism from the right, which is sometimes called libertarian (with some caveats, as the word "libertarian" has been overloaded to the point of being almost meaningless; I know people who call themselves "libertarian" that support Trump's border wall, or gods' sake!) or voluntarist. Though, left/right, in general, gets a little sketchy as a way to describe a political belief system as the power of the state envisioned gets smaller and more directly accountable to citizens.
- cbd1984 10y ago
  > the power of the state envisioned gets smaller and more directly accountable to citizens. Pure majoritarianism doesn't work, you know. It leads to grossly immoral systems which destroy the rights of minorities. There needs to be larger governments, governments not ruled by the local majority, which can step in to curb the abuses an unchecked majoritarian government would otherwise get away with.
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    It's wonderful how many straw men reside in discussions of anarchism. I have, nowhere, suggested "majoritarianism" (that was a bear to spell on my phone, which wanted to correct it to "authoritarianism").
    - cbd1984 10y ago
      Except without a higher authority to prevent it, majoritarianism is exactly what ends up happening. It isn't a strawman if it's inevitable.
      - programmarchy 10y ago
        To you have any evidence to back up that claim, or just a blind assertion? From Majoritarianism [1], quoting anarchist anthropologist David Graeber: > "Majority democracy, we might say, can only emerge when two factors coincide: 1. a feeling that people should have equal say in making group decisions, and 2. a coercive apparatus capable of enforcing those decisions." Graeber argues that those two factors almost never meet: "Where egalitarian societies exist, it is also usually considered wrong to impose systematic coercion. Where a machinery of coercion did exist, it did not even occur to those wielding it that they were enforcing any sort of popular will." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > There needs to be larger governments, governments not ruled by the local majority, which can step in to curb the abuses an unchecked majoritarian government would otherwise get away with. Changing the size of government doesn't fix any problem created by majoritarianism. A larger government only makes it so that when the majority gets it wrong, they get it wrong everywhere at once and there is nowhere left to run.
    - cbd1984 10y ago
      A larger government is less likely to be ruled by the prejudices endemic to a single region.
jrcii 10y ago
>You effectively consent to being governed by continuing to live within the national boundaries associated with the government associated with that nation To play devil's advocate on this particular point, it could be argued that the place of your birth is by definition your home to which you're entitled a natural right.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  And this is where I step in and point out that the idea of "natural rights" existing prior to constituted/codified societies cannot be supported by rational argument. The entire concept dates back to 17th- and 18th-century "state of nature" thought experiments that can be demolished by a moment's reflection. The underlying assumption of "natural rights" is, after all, that if some humans were somehow born and grew up in a context where no society -- and especially no modern Western society -- was inculcating them from birth with its code of ethics or enforcing it on them, those humans would somehow spontaneously derive the core values of the modern Western code of ethics from self-evident first principles and then automatically enforce that code on themselves without any external incentive to do so. And that is pure fantasy, and is the point in these HN threads where I often start quoting Thomas Hobbes.
  - sverige 10y ago
    Actually, "natural rights" or at least "rights of citizens" is an ancient idea that goes back at least as far as Ancient Greece and further developed in Republican Rome. It was revived greatly with the writings of Machiavelli (who, when you read not only The Prince or The Art of War, but also his Discourses on Livy, was arguably the most ardent republican of the Renaissance). These ideas were picked up by Locke and others and greatly influenced the thinking of the Founding Fathers (please don't downvote me just for calling them that; I'm old). The U.S. Constitution was the culmination of centuries of thinking about political power and is remarkable for its distrust of absolute power. Unfortunately, that distrust has been slowly eroded over the last nearly two-and-a-half centuries, beginning with Marbury v. Madison and currently at such a state that presidents enter into war without an act of Congress, judges make law from the bench, and Congress dictates to the executive which cabinet positions must be filled. It was a great experiment, but actually already a failed one in the sense of the original debate back in the 1770s and '80s.
dpatru 10y ago
> What's the alternative, and how would you implement it? I can think of two basic reasons for the existence of government: 1) The idealistic (naive?) view of government is that it exists because some problems in society are best solved by coercion rather than cooperation. Businesses and charities, when they solve problems, lessen the need for government. 2) Bastiat's more cynical view of government was that it "is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." Moral instruction and wealth, evenly distributed, would seem to lessen the need for this type of government.
programmarchy 10y ago
Your first sentence is similar to saying that if the Mafia moves into your neighborhood and starts demanding protection money, then you consent to their abuses because you continue to live in your home. That's intimidation, not consent. There are plenty of alternatives to living under a monopoly of violence (a state). Anarchy means "no ruler". Thus, by definition it doesn't tell people how to live. There is no central "plan", dictated from on high, though that doesn't mean there are no rules. The premise is that individuals should be permitted to organize themselves, to experiment and make room for diverse forms of society. Another term for this is polycentric law. How to implement? A great start would be to make taxation voluntary by cutting them from the top down. Allow people to not pay for the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, government compulsory education, corporate welfare, or the numerous other unethical, irrational failed policies forced upon the population. The state is not needed for society to function -- in fact, I'd argue it's a parasitic hindrance that's convinced its host of its legitimacy and necessity. Since anarchist philosophy can't exactly be boiled down into a single HN comment, I'd suggest reading Kevin Carson, David Graeber, Stefan Molyneaux, Noam Chomsky, Proudhon, Bakunin, and other well known anarchists if you're serious about learning more.
floydnoel 10y ago
>>> You effectively consent to being governed by continuing to live within the national boundaries associated with the government associated with that nation. >>> What's the alternative, and how would you implement it? Great question. Some here have already mentioned anarchism, which would be great if we could get there- but how could that even happen in the current regime? Most people are not philosophers, and have a hard time imagining things which don't exist here on our little ball of dirt. There is, however, a simple solution which should please anarchists and statists alike: virtual citizenship. Virtual citizenships are the future. As you said yourself, in the current system one must change geographical location to change states, but why should this be so? We are already seeing the beginnings of this with things like Bulgaria's e-citizenship. Don't like the local religious-influenced government? Switch to another. Governments can work out treaties between themselves to establish a baseline of necessities and cost sharing. Changing your government could be simple and easy, which would force governments to compete for citizens. I think most of us realize the benefits of competition vs monopoly. It could become the case that competition between governments becomes so fierce that governments start offering large incentives to join them- such as bonuses or minimum income guarantees. Anyway, that would be my modest proposal for the way forward. This post is the result of thoughtful reflection and is not intended to be trolling in any way. I would appreciate criticisms and responses to my argument. Thank you for reading.

by mwfunk 10y ago

SwellJoe 10y ago

There's a wide variety of anarchist literature to choose from. I'm not the best person to ask, though I definitely lean anarchist. Noam Chomsky is among the most famous anarchists that is currently writing on the subject, so his writing is likely a good introduction. David Graeber is another. Both of those folks are coming at it from the left; others come to anarchism or minarchism from the right, which is sometimes called libertarian (with some caveats, as the word "libertarian" has been overloaded to the point of being almost meaningless; I know people who call themselves "libertarian" that support Trump's border wall, or gods' sake!) or voluntarist. Though, left/right, in general, gets a little sketchy as a way to describe a political belief system as the power of the state envisioned gets smaller and more directly accountable to citizens.

cbd1984 10y ago
> the power of the state envisioned gets smaller and more directly accountable to citizens. Pure majoritarianism doesn't work, you know. It leads to grossly immoral systems which destroy the rights of minorities. There needs to be larger governments, governments not ruled by the local majority, which can step in to curb the abuses an unchecked majoritarian government would otherwise get away with.
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  It's wonderful how many straw men reside in discussions of anarchism. I have, nowhere, suggested "majoritarianism" (that was a bear to spell on my phone, which wanted to correct it to "authoritarianism").
  - cbd1984 10y ago
    Except without a higher authority to prevent it, majoritarianism is exactly what ends up happening. It isn't a strawman if it's inevitable.
    - programmarchy 10y ago
      To you have any evidence to back up that claim, or just a blind assertion? From Majoritarianism [1], quoting anarchist anthropologist David Graeber: > "Majority democracy, we might say, can only emerge when two factors coincide: 1. a feeling that people should have equal say in making group decisions, and 2. a coercive apparatus capable of enforcing those decisions." Graeber argues that those two factors almost never meet: "Where egalitarian societies exist, it is also usually considered wrong to impose systematic coercion. Where a machinery of coercion did exist, it did not even occur to those wielding it that they were enforcing any sort of popular will." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > There needs to be larger governments, governments not ruled by the local majority, which can step in to curb the abuses an unchecked majoritarian government would otherwise get away with. Changing the size of government doesn't fix any problem created by majoritarianism. A larger government only makes it so that when the majority gets it wrong, they get it wrong everywhere at once and there is nowhere left to run.
  - cbd1984 10y ago
    A larger government is less likely to be ruled by the prejudices endemic to a single region.

jrcii 10y ago

>You effectively consent to being governed by continuing to live within the national boundaries associated with the government associated with that nation To play devil's advocate on this particular point, it could be argued that the place of your birth is by definition your home to which you're entitled a natural right.

ubernostrum 10y ago
And this is where I step in and point out that the idea of "natural rights" existing prior to constituted/codified societies cannot be supported by rational argument. The entire concept dates back to 17th- and 18th-century "state of nature" thought experiments that can be demolished by a moment's reflection. The underlying assumption of "natural rights" is, after all, that if some humans were somehow born and grew up in a context where no society -- and especially no modern Western society -- was inculcating them from birth with its code of ethics or enforcing it on them, those humans would somehow spontaneously derive the core values of the modern Western code of ethics from self-evident first principles and then automatically enforce that code on themselves without any external incentive to do so. And that is pure fantasy, and is the point in these HN threads where I often start quoting Thomas Hobbes.
- sverige 10y ago
  Actually, "natural rights" or at least "rights of citizens" is an ancient idea that goes back at least as far as Ancient Greece and further developed in Republican Rome. It was revived greatly with the writings of Machiavelli (who, when you read not only The Prince or The Art of War, but also his Discourses on Livy, was arguably the most ardent republican of the Renaissance). These ideas were picked up by Locke and others and greatly influenced the thinking of the Founding Fathers (please don't downvote me just for calling them that; I'm old). The U.S. Constitution was the culmination of centuries of thinking about political power and is remarkable for its distrust of absolute power. Unfortunately, that distrust has been slowly eroded over the last nearly two-and-a-half centuries, beginning with Marbury v. Madison and currently at such a state that presidents enter into war without an act of Congress, judges make law from the bench, and Congress dictates to the executive which cabinet positions must be filled. It was a great experiment, but actually already a failed one in the sense of the original debate back in the 1770s and '80s.

dpatru 10y ago

> What's the alternative, and how would you implement it? I can think of two basic reasons for the existence of government: 1) The idealistic (naive?) view of government is that it exists because some problems in society are best solved by coercion rather than cooperation. Businesses and charities, when they solve problems, lessen the need for government. 2) Bastiat's more cynical view of government was that it "is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." Moral instruction and wealth, evenly distributed, would seem to lessen the need for this type of government.

programmarchy 10y ago

Your first sentence is similar to saying that if the Mafia moves into your neighborhood and starts demanding protection money, then you consent to their abuses because you continue to live in your home. That's intimidation, not consent. There are plenty of alternatives to living under a monopoly of violence (a state). Anarchy means "no ruler". Thus, by definition it doesn't tell people how to live. There is no central "plan", dictated from on high, though that doesn't mean there are no rules. The premise is that individuals should be permitted to organize themselves, to experiment and make room for diverse forms of society. Another term for this is polycentric law. How to implement? A great start would be to make taxation voluntary by cutting them from the top down. Allow people to not pay for the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, government compulsory education, corporate welfare, or the numerous other unethical, irrational failed policies forced upon the population. The state is not needed for society to function -- in fact, I'd argue it's a parasitic hindrance that's convinced its host of its legitimacy and necessity. Since anarchist philosophy can't exactly be boiled down into a single HN comment, I'd suggest reading Kevin Carson, David Graeber, Stefan Molyneaux, Noam Chomsky, Proudhon, Bakunin, and other well known anarchists if you're serious about learning more.

floydnoel 10y ago

>>> You effectively consent to being governed by continuing to live within the national boundaries associated with the government associated with that nation. >>> What's the alternative, and how would you implement it? Great question. Some here have already mentioned anarchism, which would be great if we could get there- but how could that even happen in the current regime? Most people are not philosophers, and have a hard time imagining things which don't exist here on our little ball of dirt. There is, however, a simple solution which should please anarchists and statists alike: virtual citizenship. Virtual citizenships are the future. As you said yourself, in the current system one must change geographical location to change states, but why should this be so? We are already seeing the beginnings of this with things like Bulgaria's e-citizenship. Don't like the local religious-influenced government? Switch to another. Governments can work out treaties between themselves to establish a baseline of necessities and cost sharing. Changing your government could be simple and easy, which would force governments to compete for citizens. I think most of us realize the benefits of competition vs monopoly. It could become the case that competition between governments becomes so fierce that governments start offering large incentives to join them- such as bonuses or minimum income guarantees. Anyway, that would be my modest proposal for the way forward. This post is the result of thoughtful reflection and is not intended to be trolling in any way. I would appreciate criticisms and responses to my argument. Thank you for reading.