3 ms·

Just because I was born in a public hospital doesn't mean perpetual claim on life. The government may force lower-than-market acquisitions for land in order to

Just because I was born in a public hospital doesn't mean perpetual claim on life. The government may force lower-than-market acquisitions for land in order to provide more prevalent transportation infrastructure, but that doesn't make it right. Other, freer options could have existed, but violence of the state impede their spread. I never signed the social contract; and food to slave does not entitle ownership. My use of the roads, or benefit derived from them, is defensible. Else I ask; in what manner may I make myself free? Is there a way out of the perpetual claim against my livelihood? Further, if social responsibility is so great for my common man, what right do you have to demand my efforts go towards local healthcare when others a bit further away starve? What makes a fellow countryman more due for grain than a differing skinned man in a land far away? Is it not indefensible to claim ownership of my resources for your health, but hold firm against the claims by others against claims of ownership against your wealth for nourishment.

rosser 14y ago
Is there a way out of the perpetual claim against my livelihood? Yes. Leave. Every minute you spend still here, you're re-signing the social contract. If you don't want to support the upkeep for the society you've chosen to participate in, and continue to choose to participate in with every action that isn't making for the door, then don't participate. You don't get to reap the benefits of living in a society without sharing some of the weight of keeping it running. You're free to disagree with how it's kept running. I certainly do. You're even free to take action (within the limits of the laws of the society you're part of) to change how it's kept running if you disagree strongly enough, and can present a better alternative. But to begrudge the fact that you ante up some of your livelihood in order to make sure that the laws and services and such that protect and support your continued participation in society, which includes earning that livelihood, while continuing to participate, is selfish beyond reason.
- 3pt14159 14y ago
  I'm not selfish, I want to be free. I'm not against working and helping the needy, those born mentally handicapped to the poor, for example; what I'm against is what I consider to be the false: Benefit begets claim. I am happy to help the poor, and I do help them beyond the actions of the state. The collective and violent claims by others stop my ability to leave since all habitable land is claimed. Furthermore, maybe I want to live in a collective much like Canada, but since not enough others hold the basic views that I hold, there is not yet a stateless society with voluntary order, including lifelong agreements to pay a portion of gross personal revenue to the collective.
  - smcl 14y ago
    > The collective and violent claims by others stop my ability to leave since all habitable land is claimed Not true, Bir Tawil [1] is an 800 sq mile territory unclaimed by both of the countries which surround it - Egypt and Sudan. However I'm sure that after a short while there the infrastructure, public works, etc referenced by one of the parent posters will be sorely missed. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil

rosser 14y ago

Is there a way out of the perpetual claim against my livelihood? Yes. Leave. Every minute you spend still here, you're re-signing the social contract. If you don't want to support the upkeep for the society you've chosen to participate in, and continue to choose to participate in with every action that isn't making for the door, then don't participate. You don't get to reap the benefits of living in a society without sharing some of the weight of keeping it running. You're free to disagree with how it's kept running. I certainly do. You're even free to take action (within the limits of the laws of the society you're part of) to change how it's kept running if you disagree strongly enough, and can present a better alternative. But to begrudge the fact that you ante up some of your livelihood in order to make sure that the laws and services and such that protect and support your continued participation in society, which includes earning that livelihood, while continuing to participate, is selfish beyond reason.

3pt14159 14y ago
I'm not selfish, I want to be free. I'm not against working and helping the needy, those born mentally handicapped to the poor, for example; what I'm against is what I consider to be the false: Benefit begets claim. I am happy to help the poor, and I do help them beyond the actions of the state. The collective and violent claims by others stop my ability to leave since all habitable land is claimed. Furthermore, maybe I want to live in a collective much like Canada, but since not enough others hold the basic views that I hold, there is not yet a stateless society with voluntary order, including lifelong agreements to pay a portion of gross personal revenue to the collective.
- smcl 14y ago
  > The collective and violent claims by others stop my ability to leave since all habitable land is claimed Not true, Bir Tawil [1] is an 800 sq mile territory unclaimed by both of the countries which surround it - Egypt and Sudan. However I'm sure that after a short while there the infrastructure, public works, etc referenced by one of the parent posters will be sorely missed. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil