[nickff]

Ah, the 'love it or leave it' theory. This argument is not used by any serious philosophers (that I know of). One of the many problems with this argument is that there is no reason to believe the state has a greater moral entitlement to the land where I live than I do. What makes the state special anyway? Why can't I just claim to be a state and have legitimate authority over the land?

Another problem with this theory is that there is nowhere for the anarchist to go. Suppose you were abducted (at night or as a child) and put on a ship which heads out to sea when you lack the capacity to take action, then you are told that you must obey the captain or leave. Do you have to obey the captain? If you disagree with the captain, do you have to jump in the ocean and drown, or try to swim to another ship with an equally tyrannical captain? What makes the modern state different?

As an aside, the 'you should leave if you don't like it' idea is also used by such prestigious organizations as the Klu Klucks Klan.

edit: I believe it is important to know who makes similar moral arguments; if you find this company troubling, that is your concern, not mine.

[Frondo]

You claimed that "most citizens never chose to join the club". I pointed out that your parents made the decision for you, as they were your legal custodians from birth to the age of majority.

As for the lack of stateless land that an anarchist may emigrate to, the lack of such land does not mean that the country of your citizenship is no longer valid. If you chose to renounce your citizenship and end your involvement in the social contract that your parents entered into on your behalf, where you go is up to you and no longer has anything to do with your former country.

Also, trying to compare me to the KKK? Really? Come on, you can be better than that.

I'm not even sure how to respond to the rest of this; it's difficult to make sense of it.

EDIT: It is so uncool to edit your remarks instead of replying! But I guess in the independent nation-state of nickfftopia you can do what you want, eh?

[nickff]

So the essence of your argument is: 'if you don't like it, leave, and if you can't leave, it's not my problem'?

The power for parents to make decisions is relatively broad, but a decision made on behalf of a child is not the same as a decision made by the latter (for example, selling a child into slavery does not imply the child wanted to be a slave, or is obligated to continue in servitude).

The abduction/shanghai-ed example of the captive on a ship is a relatively common one, if you do not know how to address it, I suggest you ponder it for a while.

In addition, you never addressed what gave the state any authority at all, and why I can't just claim to be a legitimate independent state.

[Frondo]

If you don't like the decisions your parents made for you, once you reach the age of majority, you may undo those decisions.

I'm not sure why your decisions to renounce your citizenship should obligate the world to create the new kind of place you want to go to.

As for parents selling their children into slavery, I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. Citizenship isn't slavery.

As for your desire to claim to be a legitimate independent state, I'm sure you can do so. I wouldn't be surprised if you habitually do so right now. I can't help you with getting recognition from the rest of the world, though.