[ExI] Consent by staying?/was Re: The Circle of Coercion

[painlord2k at libero.it]

Il 11/05/2009 22.54, Dan ha scritto:
> --- On Sat, 5/9/09, Stathis Papaioannou<stathisp at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> 2009/5/8 painlord2k at libero.it <painlord2k at libero.it>:
> [big snip]
>> 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?

> For me, there is one glaring problem with this view: the state has no
> right to expell people simply because they don't agree to the state's
> policies.*  This is no different, to me, than any other criminal gang
> riding into town and then telling everyone, "If you don't agree with
> our rules, you're free to leave town."  (Granted, such a gang might
> be marginally more tolerable than one offering the choice of "agree
> or die.")  Just as with any criminal gang, the state has no right to
> demand obeisance -- in the particular case you mention, to demand
> payment of taxes.

Take out "the state". We are not talking about state.
The example revolved around condominiums and shared private properties.
We could take the example of Seasteading.
Hundred persons pay to build the platform and take an equal share of the 
property. They decide unanimously to contribute a fixed sum per capita 
every year to pay for the platform reparations and renovations as a "fee 
to use" the platform. The shares give the owners a right to decide what 
to do with the platform, where the fee give the payers the right to use 
the platform for a fixed time. There could be payers that don't own the 
shares of the platform or sharers that don't pay the fee to use it as 
they live elsewhere.
The heirs (new sharers) would be compelled to pay for the use of the 
platform as anyone else. If they don't pay, they could be forced out of 
the platform.
It is true that they have not an agreement with the other 99 owners, but 
the 99 owners are not bound by any agreement with the heirs. The heirs 
can own 1% of the platform and live elsewhere or abide by the rules. 
They could sell their 1% to someone else interested in owning part of 
the platform. Or they could be forced to use and stay only in their 1% 
of the platform until they pay the fee. Or, in case of modular design of 
the platform, their module could be detached from the others.

> So I believe the consent by staying argument -- if that's what you're
> offering -- fails.

But it is not what I advocate.
My point is that people could decide what to do with their properties.
People inherit the properties will inherit duties and claims.
If they don't want the duties they have not claims.
The fact that there is anywhere to go is not a good reason to not follow 
any rules.



>  Notably, it's quite similar to the argument that
> if people are not openly rebelling than they consent to the
> government ruling over them.

Really democratic government are ruled by the consent of the people, so 
they share their government fate.
If they are not really democratic, the people is captives or 
collaborators. In any way, what happen to them is imputable to their 
government, not to the other side.

Mirco


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: multipart/alternative
Size: 1 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090512/45befd69/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 8.5.325 / Virus Database: 270.12.24/2108 - Release Date: 05/11/09 05:52:00