6 ms·

> If a judge ordered you to unlock your phone and hand over all your messages, you’d probably be sour but you should also be morally ok with complying. No. It

by pravus 3y ago

> If a judge ordered you to unlock your phone and hand over all your messages, you’d probably be sour but you should also be morally ok with complying. No. It is not my moral obligation to obey the orders of other human beings. Ever. If you want this to be a moral issue you must first prove that there is a moral basis for compliance and I've yet to hear one. Pointing a gun to my face and telling me what to do doesn't sound moral to me. You can ask. Nicely.

dools 3y ago
There doesn't really have to be a moral basis nor does there have to be consent. You can refuse, and you can choose to live outside of society. That might be very difficult, but you have the choice. For many, society doesn't provide any advantages and so they choose non-compliance and all the consequences that come with it.
- foo-bar-bat 3y ago
  "Live outside of society" has a nice ring to it, but the meaning of those words when choosing to disobey court orders converts via bailiff to residing in jail cell. That's not living "outside society" or its constraints. It's very inside of them. If you want to actually live outside of society, perhaps the only way to do that is on a simple sailboat like Moxie did for a while: https://archive.org/details/holdFastADocumentaryByMoxieMarlinspike https://archive.org/details/holdFastADocumentaryByMoxieMarli... But even that only works temporarily because eventually something breaks or runs out, and you will be re-confronted by reality (some society somewhere) once ashore. For example your hypothetical phone unlock is what happened to Moxie. From Wikipedia: "While entering the U.S. on a flight from the Dominican Republic in 2010, Marlinspike was detained by federal agents for nearly five hours, all his electronic devices were confiscated, and at first agents claimed he would only get them back if he provided his passwords so they could decrypt the data. Marlinspike refused to do this, and the devices were eventually returned, though he noted that he could no longer trust them, saying, "They could have modified the hardware or installed new keyboard firmware." source: https://www.wired.com/2010/11/hacker-border-search/ https://www.wired.com/2010/11/hacker-border-search/
  - dools 3y ago
    There are millions of people who live totally lawless lives. Sometimes they get imprisoned, also sometimes they get killed or tortured. But living a life of crime is a choice available to everyone.
    - soulofmischief 3y ago
      What exactly is the point you're making? The rejection was of OP's use of the word "moral" when discussing legal compulsion.
- anonym29 3y ago
  You cannot choose to live outside of society. See: Waco, Rubgy Ridge, etc. You cannot even choose to renounce the citizenship that you did not want, never asked for, and never consented to, without getting another citizenship first. The social contract is the only contract in the world that you can be legally bound to the terms of without ever having agreed to it. In this way, the government acts very much like any other organized crime group: "follow the rules we create or else".
  - gcanyon 3y ago
    > You cannot choose to live outside of society. Sure you can -- just head off to https://www.thecollector.com/bir-tawil-unclaimed-land/ https://www.thecollector.com/bir-tawil-unclaimed-land/ and enjoy your isolation!
  - dools 3y ago
    There are plenty of organised crime syndicates who live outside of society. They sometimes get caught by law enforcement and sometimes they get caught by rival gangs. I didn’t say you can live outside of society peacefully in such a way that everyone will just leave you alone but a life of crime is a choice available to everyone.
    - soulofmischief 3y ago
      This is a naive perspective. The reality is it's not available, but gets forced upon entire classes of people as the only viable option, and leads to a lifetime of economic and emotional struggle.
      - dools 3y ago
        But it’s still a choice right? Like a life of crime may be the lesser of two evils but even that is a choice. People for whom the system offers no advantages are far more likely to make that choice. My original point is that the current state of the law is not some grand moral absolute, it’s just how things happen to have worked out based on a bunch of decisions made by a bunch of people. You can choose how to react to that up to and including breaking the law. The degree to which you do that can determine your consequences. Also sometimes the bear eats you and you’re just unlucky.
- gcanyon 3y ago
  > you can choose to live outside of society. That might be very difficult Try "impossible". No person reading HN is prepared to forgo all of what civilization provides. There are probably a very few people on the planet, who are already living in an extremely isolated tribal setting, who could go it alone, but if they're reading HN I hope they'll speak up now, I'd love to hear their opinion on this.
  - dools 3y ago
    It’s not impossible at all there are millions of people who live lives of total lawlessness.
    - gcanyon 3y ago
      "lawlessness" <> "outside of society" The clear implication of your original statement was that it is possible to not owe society anything by not taking anything from others. To do that requires a level of self-sufficiency that only a very small fraction of people possess.
      - dools 3y ago
        No, I said: “For many, society doesn't provide any advantages and so they choose non-compliance and all the consequences that come with it.” So what I mean is you can choose to live outside of society, meaning not complying with laws. That is lawlessness, it’s a life of crime. Living as a sovereign citizen outside of any legal structure in such a way that you neither depend on any legal structure nor do you infringe upon any legal structure is very difficult, and available only to a very small number of people. But anyone can choose lawlessness at any time.
        gcanyon 3y ago
        And I’m saying that people who do that are ethically compromised in general, and dishonest if they think they are “outside of society” while still benefitting from mains electricity, mass-produced goods, etc.
gyior 3y ago
[flagged]
gcanyon 3y ago
> It is not my moral obligation to obey the orders of other human beings. If you are prepared to live without everything "other human beings" offer you, then sure -- but you're not prepared to do that. So you must reach some sort of agreement with "other human beings" even if that means obeying the occasional "order".
- pravus 3y ago
  > If you are prepared to live without everything "other human beings" offer you, then sure -- but you're not prepared to do that. So you must reach some sort of agreement with "other human beings" even if that means obeying the occasional "order". I don't obey their orders. If I cooperate with another entity I do so on my own terms. I am only morally accountable to myself and must reckon with any consequences of my actions that might reflect harm upon me. I have agency. So yes, I must operate in an ordered system but at no point am I morally obligated to another actor.

by pravus 3y ago

dools 3y ago

There doesn't really have to be a moral basis nor does there have to be consent. You can refuse, and you can choose to live outside of society. That might be very difficult, but you have the choice. For many, society doesn't provide any advantages and so they choose non-compliance and all the consequences that come with it.

foo-bar-bat 3y ago
"Live outside of society" has a nice ring to it, but the meaning of those words when choosing to disobey court orders converts via bailiff to residing in jail cell. That's not living "outside society" or its constraints. It's very inside of them. If you want to actually live outside of society, perhaps the only way to do that is on a simple sailboat like Moxie did for a while: https://archive.org/details/holdFastADocumentaryByMoxieMarlinspike https://archive.org/details/holdFastADocumentaryByMoxieMarli... But even that only works temporarily because eventually something breaks or runs out, and you will be re-confronted by reality (some society somewhere) once ashore. For example your hypothetical phone unlock is what happened to Moxie. From Wikipedia: "While entering the U.S. on a flight from the Dominican Republic in 2010, Marlinspike was detained by federal agents for nearly five hours, all his electronic devices were confiscated, and at first agents claimed he would only get them back if he provided his passwords so they could decrypt the data. Marlinspike refused to do this, and the devices were eventually returned, though he noted that he could no longer trust them, saying, "They could have modified the hardware or installed new keyboard firmware." source: https://www.wired.com/2010/11/hacker-border-search/ https://www.wired.com/2010/11/hacker-border-search/
- dools 3y ago
  There are millions of people who live totally lawless lives. Sometimes they get imprisoned, also sometimes they get killed or tortured. But living a life of crime is a choice available to everyone.
  - soulofmischief 3y ago
    What exactly is the point you're making? The rejection was of OP's use of the word "moral" when discussing legal compulsion.
anonym29 3y ago
You cannot choose to live outside of society. See: Waco, Rubgy Ridge, etc. You cannot even choose to renounce the citizenship that you did not want, never asked for, and never consented to, without getting another citizenship first. The social contract is the only contract in the world that you can be legally bound to the terms of without ever having agreed to it. In this way, the government acts very much like any other organized crime group: "follow the rules we create or else".
- gcanyon 3y ago
  > You cannot choose to live outside of society. Sure you can -- just head off to https://www.thecollector.com/bir-tawil-unclaimed-land/ https://www.thecollector.com/bir-tawil-unclaimed-land/ and enjoy your isolation!
- dools 3y ago
  There are plenty of organised crime syndicates who live outside of society. They sometimes get caught by law enforcement and sometimes they get caught by rival gangs. I didn’t say you can live outside of society peacefully in such a way that everyone will just leave you alone but a life of crime is a choice available to everyone.
  - soulofmischief 3y ago
    This is a naive perspective. The reality is it's not available, but gets forced upon entire classes of people as the only viable option, and leads to a lifetime of economic and emotional struggle.
    - dools 3y ago
      But it’s still a choice right? Like a life of crime may be the lesser of two evils but even that is a choice. People for whom the system offers no advantages are far more likely to make that choice. My original point is that the current state of the law is not some grand moral absolute, it’s just how things happen to have worked out based on a bunch of decisions made by a bunch of people. You can choose how to react to that up to and including breaking the law. The degree to which you do that can determine your consequences. Also sometimes the bear eats you and you’re just unlucky.
gcanyon 3y ago
> you can choose to live outside of society. That might be very difficult Try "impossible". No person reading HN is prepared to forgo all of what civilization provides. There are probably a very few people on the planet, who are already living in an extremely isolated tribal setting, who could go it alone, but if they're reading HN I hope they'll speak up now, I'd love to hear their opinion on this.
- dools 3y ago
  It’s not impossible at all there are millions of people who live lives of total lawlessness.
  - gcanyon 3y ago
    "lawlessness" <> "outside of society" The clear implication of your original statement was that it is possible to not owe society anything by not taking anything from others. To do that requires a level of self-sufficiency that only a very small fraction of people possess.
    - dools 3y ago
      No, I said: “For many, society doesn't provide any advantages and so they choose non-compliance and all the consequences that come with it.” So what I mean is you can choose to live outside of society, meaning not complying with laws. That is lawlessness, it’s a life of crime. Living as a sovereign citizen outside of any legal structure in such a way that you neither depend on any legal structure nor do you infringe upon any legal structure is very difficult, and available only to a very small number of people. But anyone can choose lawlessness at any time.
      - gcanyon 3y ago
        And I’m saying that people who do that are ethically compromised in general, and dishonest if they think they are “outside of society” while still benefitting from mains electricity, mass-produced goods, etc.

gyior 3y ago

[flagged]

gcanyon 3y ago

> It is not my moral obligation to obey the orders of other human beings. If you are prepared to live without everything "other human beings" offer you, then sure -- but you're not prepared to do that. So you must reach some sort of agreement with "other human beings" even if that means obeying the occasional "order".

pravus 3y ago
> If you are prepared to live without everything "other human beings" offer you, then sure -- but you're not prepared to do that. So you must reach some sort of agreement with "other human beings" even if that means obeying the occasional "order". I don't obey their orders. If I cooperate with another entity I do so on my own terms. I am only morally accountable to myself and must reckon with any consequences of my actions that might reflect harm upon me. I have agency. So yes, I must operate in an ordered system but at no point am I morally obligated to another actor.