2 ms·

See my comment above. It's not theft because it is part of the constitution. The constitution was enacted by the people, not by a random force-bearing entity th

See my comment above. It's not theft because it is part of the constitution. The constitution was enacted by the people, not by a random force-bearing entity that is beating you up. Yes, it happened in the past. But the consent doesn't expire until people change the constitution (anything else is insane, as you could never form a government of any sort). Until then, those are the rules of the country, and living here means abiding by them. The argument that "i didn't vote on this personally and therefore i did not consent" is not sane. It may be a sane argument before say, age of majority. Even then you could be emancipated and leave. But once you hit age of majority, you are consenting by staying. Note that in basically every legal system that has ever existed, you are also consenting by exercising any other rights. Like any contract, you don't get to pick and choose what parts you consent too, you can either ratify the document as a whole and adopt the contract or not. But note: If you don't, this is the same document that enables folks to have the power to make it illegal for people to murder you, and enforce that, so ...

pitaj 10y ago
You can't just claim my consent. I don't consent by inaction, I don't consent because I was born here. I don't consent because my parents consented for me. No. There is no consent.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  Now you are just asserting things randomly that are false becuase you can't come up with a good argument Sorry! This is just "i don't agree with the collective's decision making process, and don't want to have to abide by it, or have to remove myself from it". Again, the document you refuse to consent to is literally the only thing granting you the benefit of being here.
  - pitaj 10y ago
    No. The document doesn't grant me the right to life. It doesn't grant me the right to own property. Everyone has natural rights. These are described in the declaration of independence and other documents. You don't have the right to take anything from me just because there's another person in the room. The state doesn't get special moral or justice exemptions just because it's a special type of group.
    - CJefferson 10y ago
      Why do you have the right to ownership of things? I personally don't see the difference between the right of taxation, and the right of ownership. Both are constructs created by our laws, I believe. There are societies with neither taxation, or the idea of individual ownership of belongings.
    - tscs37 10y ago
      >The document doesn't grant me the right to life. Nothing does. You don't have an objective right to life. >Everyone has natural rights. There is no such thing as a natural right. Natural right implies that it is a objective right, something that can be reasoned to be always true no matter the mindset of those who reason. Human rights or just about all rights we have are subjective, we made them up. And yes, that includes all basic human rights. Your right not to be violently murdered is at it's essence a subjective notion that you don't want to be murdered above all. It's true that some documents have documented these rights, notably the declaration of independence and some other similar. But that doesn't change the subjectivity of these documents either. >You don't have the right to take anything from me just because there's another person in the room. Again, this is entirely subjective. The other two people in the room might massively disagree and argue that since their are in the majority, they have every right to do what they want with you and your property. It entirely depends on the moral and ethical framework used by those in the room. For some, it might be fully ethical to murder you and practice their cannibalism a bit. >The state doesn't get special moral or justice exemptions just because it's a special type of group. Which is just as subjective. Most people in the US seem to agree that the moral framework they have constructed is beneficial to them and that a majority rule is sufficiently moral and ethical to ignore the complaints of the few. You can whine about it all day but it doesn't change that the majority believes that a majority can rule (which is an entirely subjective notion).
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Your right to own property is a textbook example of the social contract at play, because without that contract your "right" extends exactly as far as your personal ability to prevent me from taking it.
- Frondo 10y ago
  Your parents consented for you. They were your legal guardians until your age of majority (or emancipation) and had the right to consent on your behalf. You don't need to like that fact for it to be true. You are free, now, presumably as an adult, to revoke your consent and citizenship. We won't stop you.
lacampbell 10y ago
I think this is a particularly terrifying view. Following this logic all number of terrible things that we would normally consider crimes could be written into a constitution - and your line of thinking is we should then stop considering them crimes. Until then, those are the rules of the country, and living here means abiding by them. Again this isn't a compelling argument, or even a point. You might say that about any state - totalitarian or not. I'm struggling not to invoke Godwins law here. The argument that "i didn't vote on this personally and therefore i did not consent" is not sane. It may be a sane argument before say, age of majority. Even then you could be emancipated and leave. But once you hit age of majority, you are consenting by staying. Note that in basically every legal system that has ever existed, you are also consenting by exercising any other rights. Like any contract, you don't get to pick and choose what parts you consent too, you can either ratify the document as a whole and adopt the contract or not. Again, this logic leads to some terrifying conclusions. Your argument is that by living in an area under jurisdiction by a given state, you consent to everything the state does to you because you haven't fled. Again - think of all the things states potentially have the power to do, still do to this day, and have done in the past. It follows that everyone on the globe consents to these things unless they bcome refugees. I've yet to see anyone make a coherent argument for "taxation isn't extortion" which doesn't immediately lead to the authoritarian conclusion that nothing a state does is a crime, and that anyone living in an area controlled by a state consents to whatever the state chooses to do. An argument I can at least respect "taxation is essentially extortion, but I believe the end justifies the means".

pitaj 10y ago

You can't just claim my consent. I don't consent by inaction, I don't consent because I was born here. I don't consent because my parents consented for me. No. There is no consent.

DannyBee 10y ago
Now you are just asserting things randomly that are false becuase you can't come up with a good argument Sorry! This is just "i don't agree with the collective's decision making process, and don't want to have to abide by it, or have to remove myself from it". Again, the document you refuse to consent to is literally the only thing granting you the benefit of being here.
- pitaj 10y ago
  No. The document doesn't grant me the right to life. It doesn't grant me the right to own property. Everyone has natural rights. These are described in the declaration of independence and other documents. You don't have the right to take anything from me just because there's another person in the room. The state doesn't get special moral or justice exemptions just because it's a special type of group.
  - CJefferson 10y ago
    Why do you have the right to ownership of things? I personally don't see the difference between the right of taxation, and the right of ownership. Both are constructs created by our laws, I believe. There are societies with neither taxation, or the idea of individual ownership of belongings.
  - tscs37 10y ago
    >The document doesn't grant me the right to life. Nothing does. You don't have an objective right to life. >Everyone has natural rights. There is no such thing as a natural right. Natural right implies that it is a objective right, something that can be reasoned to be always true no matter the mindset of those who reason. Human rights or just about all rights we have are subjective, we made them up. And yes, that includes all basic human rights. Your right not to be violently murdered is at it's essence a subjective notion that you don't want to be murdered above all. It's true that some documents have documented these rights, notably the declaration of independence and some other similar. But that doesn't change the subjectivity of these documents either. >You don't have the right to take anything from me just because there's another person in the room. Again, this is entirely subjective. The other two people in the room might massively disagree and argue that since their are in the majority, they have every right to do what they want with you and your property. It entirely depends on the moral and ethical framework used by those in the room. For some, it might be fully ethical to murder you and practice their cannibalism a bit. >The state doesn't get special moral or justice exemptions just because it's a special type of group. Which is just as subjective. Most people in the US seem to agree that the moral framework they have constructed is beneficial to them and that a majority rule is sufficiently moral and ethical to ignore the complaints of the few. You can whine about it all day but it doesn't change that the majority believes that a majority can rule (which is an entirely subjective notion).
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Your right to own property is a textbook example of the social contract at play, because without that contract your "right" extends exactly as far as your personal ability to prevent me from taking it.
Frondo 10y ago
Your parents consented for you. They were your legal guardians until your age of majority (or emancipation) and had the right to consent on your behalf. You don't need to like that fact for it to be true. You are free, now, presumably as an adult, to revoke your consent and citizenship. We won't stop you.

lacampbell 10y ago

I think this is a particularly terrifying view. Following this logic all number of terrible things that we would normally consider crimes could be written into a constitution - and your line of thinking is we should then stop considering them crimes. Until then, those are the rules of the country, and living here means abiding by them. Again this isn't a compelling argument, or even a point. You might say that about any state - totalitarian or not. I'm struggling not to invoke Godwins law here. The argument that "i didn't vote on this personally and therefore i did not consent" is not sane. It may be a sane argument before say, age of majority. Even then you could be emancipated and leave. But once you hit age of majority, you are consenting by staying. Note that in basically every legal system that has ever existed, you are also consenting by exercising any other rights. Like any contract, you don't get to pick and choose what parts you consent too, you can either ratify the document as a whole and adopt the contract or not. Again, this logic leads to some terrifying conclusions. Your argument is that by living in an area under jurisdiction by a given state, you consent to everything the state does to you because you haven't fled. Again - think of all the things states potentially have the power to do, still do to this day, and have done in the past. It follows that everyone on the globe consents to these things unless they bcome refugees. I've yet to see anyone make a coherent argument for "taxation isn't extortion" which doesn't immediately lead to the authoritarian conclusion that nothing a state does is a crime, and that anyone living in an area controlled by a state consents to whatever the state chooses to do. An argument I can at least respect "taxation is essentially extortion, but I believe the end justifies the means".