[ExI] The Circle of Coercion

[painlord2k at libero.it]

Il 09/05/2009 9.43, Stathis Papaioannou ha scritto:
> 2009/5/8 painlord2k at libero.it<painlord2k at libero.it>:

> 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.

The don't "have to" as they can leave.
Obviously, there must be a way to limit the number of the unwanted 
people entering.
I think the children of the owners of your building are not owners, so 
they could be kicked out if they don't behave. Mainly by their parents.

>> 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?

It could be.
This depend on what contract they accept.
I, for sure, would insist on that taxation must be agreed by the taxed 
before being collected. And the agreement must be confirmed after a 
period of time. No open-ended "suck my blood" invites to the vampires.

Like in your building, they could collect money from you for some 
reasons, but they must document the reasons before and must document how 
they spent the money after. I'm sure they have claims only for 
renovations and reparations needed, I suppose they can not claim money 
for improvements not needed. E.G. they could claim money to substitute 
lamps with LEDs when the lamps worn out, not to substitute working lamps 
with LEDs.

The fact they sign a written contract is important as they explicitly 
accept a limited set of duties and receive a limited set of claims.
In your case, the contract say something, but you are bound from the 
laws written before and after you accepted the contract by someone else 
with or without your agreement.

The main problem is that would be difficult to implement a single 
contract stating all and any duty and claim of any and all citizens.
The main contract would state some basic rules and the penalties 
associated for breaking them. Something like "Don't kill", "Don't 
steal", etc. Then other contracts would rule other matters.

Mirco