[viraptor]

> You are always free to withdraw your consent from having your life be ruled by what a handful of people you've never met

No, actually you are not free to do that. You can declare it, but it doesn't change anything in practice.

[Riseed]

Whether it changes anything likely depends how you do it. For example, writing a letter to the editor may not change much, while renouncing citizenship would likely change a lot in practice.

[viraptor]

But to renounce your citizenship you have to have another place to live. Unless you create your own country, or go meet the entire government, you're still "ruled by what a handful of people you've never met".

[Riseed]

One could emigrate to or create a micronation or microstate. Sealand is a fairly well known micronation. The Conch Republic [0] is another, and is an example of (on multiple occasions) withdrawing consent from being ruled by the outside government.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_Republic

[Ao7bei3s]

Sealand, really? Who'd want to live like that? And how'd you finance it?

[Riseed]

Someone wants to live like that, or it wouldn't exist.

[Ao7bei3s]

A single caretaker. Not even the self-proclaimed regent lives there. Yours is hardly a convincing argument.

[itistoday2]

So go ahead and create your own country. You won't be the first (nor the last) to have done so.

[itistoday2]

> No, actually you are not free to do that. You can declare it, but it doesn't change anything in practice.

Sure you are. People do it all the time.

[itistoday2]

lol @ HN downvoters who can't handle reality. That's OK, I understand and respect that you've chosen to subject yourself to rules you don't like. Just less whining and complaining, OK?

[derekp7]

Could you clarify what your thought is? Are you basically suggesting civil disobedience as a form of protest? That has had some effect in the past, however it took a large coordinated effort, plus it took enough people from outside the movements to recognize the non-moral nature of the laws that were being protested, and finally it also caused a lot of sacrifice for those conducting the civil disobedience.

[itistoday2]

I am saying that if a large group of people feel they are being abused by a system that does not represent them, they are always free to reject that system and adopt another one that does work for them.

If you walk into a casino and notice that the rules appear to be rigged against you, do you try to work within the casino's system, perhaps petitioning the staff to change the rules to be more in your favor?

You have other options: (1) Leave the casino, (2) attempt to cheat the casino, (3) fight the casino using either violent or (preferably) non-violent means, (4) create a new establishment that you and your group are happy with.

Your other choice is to continue to play the slots and vent online when you keep losing, and although that might make you feel better it won't change the reality of the game.

[viraptor]

I'd like this to succeed (really), but as far as we know, right now, you're choosing option 5 (venting online) while trying to convince us that 1, 2, 3, 4 are better. Show us what you've done.

And I mean what you've done about withdrawing the consent, not about tech projects.

[itistoday2]

> Show us what you've done.

My C.V.: https://fixingtao.com/cv/

EDIT: just noticed you stealth-edited this in:

> And I mean what you've done about withdrawing the consent, not about tech projects.

Tech projects can fall under (4). Tor, BitTorrent, Bitcoin, Silk Road, etc. were all tech projects representing withdrawal of consent through the creation of "new establishments". Creating a new country (if that's what you're referring to) also falls under (4) but requires a more cohesive community that does not knee-jerk downvote when told they have options. ;)