Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbaddabba
So you want a free parcel of land to do what you want, without having people try to kill you to take it?
Lucky for you, if you're living in the states you DO have opportunity to live like a pilgrim. Only a tiny percent of the land is actually settled. Go out and plant your flag in the soil... no one is going to care if you're in a remote enough area. You can crown yourself king and stick it to the man.
They are correct that governments pay people to enforce laws, yes.
Will we be another step closer to world peace if I also choose to define it as coercive or a racket? What about if I called them tyrants?
I'm going to predict it's less about the country they want to leave not accepting their renunciation than it is about other countries not accepting them 9 times out of 10.
And the rest of the time it's because they owe a fat tax bill that the country they're leaving doesn't want to eat.
It's not like developing countries are clamoring to keep would-be refugees.
I don't want a free parcel of land no. I'm a staunch patriot and will happily uphold my nation's laws, values and sovereignty.
However, that has no bearing on whether or not the state as a legal persona is coercive. It most definitely is. It monopolizes violence, it decides the laws, it determines what is yours to keep and citizenship is not a choice for most. For me that is acceptable as long as the social contract between citizen and state contains is based on a concept of liberal rights and values (human rights, the right to vote, personal property, free speech and so forth).
You (and many others in this thread) seem like you are very comfortable with what the state can grant or cede, but extremely uncomfortable with its powers and the principles behind them. Instead of tackling this issue, which would be a healthy exercise and perhaps give some perspective on the ethics of how state power should be used, you seem to deny it instead.
The danger with your line of thinking is that the barrier between the despotic state and the liberal state is a lot thinner than most people realize. The liberal state is not at risk of slippery slopes, it exists
on the slippery slope and it needs constant checks and balances to not tumble.