[ExI] The Circle of Coercion
stathisp at gmail.com
Sat May 9 07:43:58 UTC 2009
2009/5/8 painlord2k at libero.it <painlord2k at libero.it>:
>> Sometimes we are forced to pay for insurance. I am forced to pay for
>> insurance on an apartment I own. I also have to pay for renovations
>> to the building if the owners vote for it, even though I don't like
>> what they propose to do or I can't afford it. If I don't pay, I can
>> be sued or ultimately imprisoned. The argument is, if I don't like
>> the rules I can sell the apartment or try to change the rules through
>> my vote in the owners' corporation. Is that still coercion?
> It is not, if it was in a contract given you before you bought the
> apartment. Bad contract I would say.
> The government imprisoning you is coercion.
> Laws forcing you to do renovations against your will are coercion.
I own one apartment in a building of about ten. If one owner were
allowed to veto any renovations or repairs, then work that could
benefit everyone might never get done. That's why the contract allows
for a majority decision, and that's the contract I agreed to. It's
also the contract I agree to (tacitly, perhaps) when I migrate to a
country. However, I don't agree it when I am born in a country. The
problem is, if you think this is unfair for the native but not the
migrant, since the native did not agree to anything either tacitly or
explicitly, it could lead to a situation where only migrants have to
pay taxes and obey other laws.
>> Why is the social contract "tacit"? Would it make it any better if I
>> signed a piece of paper when I entered a country as a visitor or
>> migrant explicitly agreeing to abide by its laws, including the
>> procedures for changing the laws?
> Yes. Because the migrants could be sued and could not claim "ignorance",
> "their customs are different", "religious duties", etc.
>> Admittedly, I don't have a choice
>> which country I'm born in, but I don't see a way around that
> What is the problem?
> Until you don't write your name under the dotted line, you would not be a
> "citizen" but only a "guest" of your parents. You do wrong, they pay for
> you. When you accept the burden of citizenship you will receive the
> privileges of citizenship.
> There would be not a problem if people were differentiated in groups:
> 1) Citizens
> 2) Citizen's children
> 3) Citizen's guests (probably with subtypes)
> The difference is that the (2) would become (1) only if they want and not
> would be forced to become (1) when they become 18 years old.
> Some laws limiting the rights of (1) would not be applicable on (2) and (3).
So if I decided at age 18 that I don't want to obey the unjust
taxation laws, for example, I could be expelled (to where?), but for
those who accept citizenship taxation is part of the contract they
have entered into?
More information about the extropy-chat