Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Phillip Rhodes" <motley.crue.fan AT gmail.com>]

On 7/16/07, Jim Cook <james_cook AT mindspring.com> wrote:

Well yes, but ... do you think that as a "sovereign individual" you
could live in North Carolina and not partake/accept/benefit from
ANYTHING our local/state/federal government provides?

Under the current system, no.  And that's unfortunate.  Or maybe
I should say it's unfortunate that the current system is evil
because it uses initiation of force (or threat of said force)
to achieve it's goals.  Take away that aspect, and to be
honest, I'd probably sign up.  But I will always reject - on
principle - any entity that presumes to deny me the
right to choice in how I live my life (as long as I'm
not violating anyone else's rights) or distribute my property.

 

And when you write "their rights," how would you define "rights" if not
for the state?

I believe that all rights can be defined in terms of property rights. Respect private
property and everything follows from that.  That's  a whole discussion in it's
own right though (no pun intended).  If anybody cares, I'd be happy to
carry on that line of thought later.

 

Isn't "the state" an artificial construct designed to facilitate a civil
society?  

That's what we're told.  It may even be nominally true, but as long
as participation is based on coercion, I don't find anything civil
about it.
 

As such, doesn't it become the sum of the parts which are "we
the people"?

As long as participation is voluntary, then yes.

And if so, then which is inferior, your obligations to "the state" or
your right to do your thing?

I don't accept the idea that I have any obligation to "the state" except
that which I voluntarily accept.

Part of living in a civilized society is an obligation to work for the
"greater good."  Here and in many other countries, that obligation is
fulfilled (partially and often poorly) by a distribution of wealth via
taxes. 

I agree that most people would agree that working for the "greater good" is a noble
thing.  Make it voluntary and you won't hear me complain at all.

 What I mean by voluntary is that those who feel there is no
obligation to society at large, or that there is a better/different way
to accomplish that are free to 1) find such a country,

Demanding that someone leave their home, land, family, etc.  in
order to escape involuntary participation in "the state"  does not
strike me as just, to be honest.

or 2) accept it
as it is while working for change.

Yes, that's what a number of us are doing. http://www.lp.org
http://www.lpnc.org
:-)


TTYL,

Phil