6 ms·

>I hope that you do not act on your ideas or you will almost certainly spend some time in prison. I appreciate your concern, but I don't think an unjust law ha

by ue_ 10y ago

>I hope that you do not act on your ideas or you will almost certainly spend some time in prison. I appreciate your concern, but I don't think an unjust law has weight; the only reason why I follow the ones that I do is so that I'm not put in prison. Not because I believe they are right. And the laws I break I do so when there is a smaller risk of being caught. Being a citizen is by no means being a house guest, as I am forced to be a house guest of some state anyway. I regard the state is illegitimate.

CalChris 10y ago
> the only reason why I follow the ones that I do is so that I'm not put in prison Ok, so you are aware of disincentives. Well, patents are incentives.
- ue_ 10y ago
  An incentive at the expense of my own freedom, which I refuse to accept as valid.
rlanday 10y ago
There are over 200 sovereign nations you can choose to live in. The fact that you're not happy with any of them suggests you might have unrealistic expectations.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > There are over 200 sovereign nations you can choose to live in There are, perhaps, over 200 sovereign nations, but far fewer that allow at-will immigration such that you are simply free to unilaterally choose to love in them.
- ue_ 10y ago
  >suggests you might have unrealistic expectations I hear this a lot, but I disagree with it. Of course I do not expect the state to just vanish, but my point is that I do not want to 'settle' for a state, because I disagree with the fundamental concept of the modern state, because it is neither anarchistic, nor implementing direct democracy, nor supporting the abolishment of private property. I don't want states to change. I want them to be destroyed.
  - CalChris 10y ago
    You are, however, not offering any good reasons for this. I've had a lot of arguments over the years with libertarians and I find them to be simplistic at best. Anarchists don't even rise to that level of engagement.
    - ue_ 10y ago
      I'm not a libertarian in the economic sense. My reason for wanting the state abolished is firstly because it provides support via conferring of private property rights to the bourgeoisie; secondly, because the state's authority is unjustified as the world's entire divison into states results in non-voluntary association, thirdly because the state insists upon censorship and imposition of authority with threat of violence rather than voluntary association, thirdly my belief that man is born free, only constrained by power and class relationships which exhibit themselves currently as government-citizen and bourgeois-proletarian. But I would like to ask: upon what authority does the state, the private property owner and the landlord declare their dominion? Remember that if the defence of the state is something like "it has been democratically elected" it would follow that any other institution elected via democracy to replace the state would be in legitimate competition with the state, and be just as valid. Furthermore that the officers of the state are not subject to instant recall, and many parts are not democratic at all.
      - CalChris 10y ago
        Under what authority? The consent of the governed. Even in North Korea, it comes down to the consent of the governed. At the same time, there's not a lot of interest in relocating to failed states because whatever freedom you would find there, you would find even more threat and even less opportunity.
        ue_ 10y ago
        >Under what authority? The consent of the governed. That's strange, I don't remember consenting.

by ue_ 10y ago

CalChris 10y ago

> the only reason why I follow the ones that I do is so that I'm not put in prison Ok, so you are aware of disincentives. Well, patents are incentives.

ue_ 10y ago
An incentive at the expense of my own freedom, which I refuse to accept as valid.

rlanday 10y ago

There are over 200 sovereign nations you can choose to live in. The fact that you're not happy with any of them suggests you might have unrealistic expectations.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> There are over 200 sovereign nations you can choose to live in There are, perhaps, over 200 sovereign nations, but far fewer that allow at-will immigration such that you are simply free to unilaterally choose to love in them.
ue_ 10y ago
>suggests you might have unrealistic expectations I hear this a lot, but I disagree with it. Of course I do not expect the state to just vanish, but my point is that I do not want to 'settle' for a state, because I disagree with the fundamental concept of the modern state, because it is neither anarchistic, nor implementing direct democracy, nor supporting the abolishment of private property. I don't want states to change. I want them to be destroyed.
- CalChris 10y ago
  You are, however, not offering any good reasons for this. I've had a lot of arguments over the years with libertarians and I find them to be simplistic at best. Anarchists don't even rise to that level of engagement.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    I'm not a libertarian in the economic sense. My reason for wanting the state abolished is firstly because it provides support via conferring of private property rights to the bourgeoisie; secondly, because the state's authority is unjustified as the world's entire divison into states results in non-voluntary association, thirdly because the state insists upon censorship and imposition of authority with threat of violence rather than voluntary association, thirdly my belief that man is born free, only constrained by power and class relationships which exhibit themselves currently as government-citizen and bourgeois-proletarian. But I would like to ask: upon what authority does the state, the private property owner and the landlord declare their dominion? Remember that if the defence of the state is something like "it has been democratically elected" it would follow that any other institution elected via democracy to replace the state would be in legitimate competition with the state, and be just as valid. Furthermore that the officers of the state are not subject to instant recall, and many parts are not democratic at all.
    - CalChris 10y ago
      Under what authority? The consent of the governed. Even in North Korea, it comes down to the consent of the governed. At the same time, there's not a lot of interest in relocating to failed states because whatever freedom you would find there, you would find even more threat and even less opportunity.
      - ue_ 10y ago
        >Under what authority? The consent of the governed. That's strange, I don't remember consenting.