[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. ;)

[rosser]

"Withdrawal of consent" isn't merely "creating things to skirt around the rules I don't like". Withdrawing consent is withdrawing from the system to which you no longer consent.

You do not get to reap the benefits of living in a society without subscribing to its rules and mores. You can work to change them from within, or you can walk. Pretending you can reap the rights of participation in society without shouldering your share of the responsibilities concomitant to those rights is spectacularly delusional.

[itistoday2]

> Withdrawing consent is withdrawing from the system to which you no longer consent.

You haven't actually defined "withdrawing consent" there, you've just repeated the phrase "withdrawing consent".

> Pretending you can reap the rights of participation in society without shouldering your share of the responsibilities concomitant to those rights is spectacularly delusional.

Nice feigned outrage + strawman.

[rosser]

So tell me what would constitute "withdrawing consent" that doesn't mean "itistoday2 gets to participate in modern society without having to play by its rules", because AFAICT, those are the choices: play the game everyone else agrees to play and reap the benefits, or play your own game and forfeit them.

EDIT: verbiage.

[itistoday2]

I'll copy a reply I wrote to a similar question elsewhere.

This is a reply that was written in response to a comment on this post: https://fixingtao.com/2016/01/lunatics-terrorists-and-the-th...

And is copied from here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/40uevh/lunatics_t...

<Begin>

> The system is forced onto Canadian Citizens, there is no way to opt out.

This is not entirely accurate, you can certainly opt-out by leaving Canada.

Canada is a group that has chosen to play by these rules.

So long as the rules reflect the interests of the group members, there is no problem.

The problem occurs when a substantial portion of the group membership feels no longer represented by the rules and wants to play by a different set of rules (and mass-migration is not an option).

It is not about making taxes voluntary per se, but about allowing new groups to form. If a portion of Canadians wish to form a new group, separate from Canada, then they should be allowed to. They can opt-out of paying Canadian taxes, but they will lose all of the benefits that you refer to, and I'm sure they will miss them and therefore decide to implement their own taxation system that they feel represents their interests.

Does that address your question?

</End>

[rosser]

Quoting from within your self-quoted reply:

Does that address your question?

Perfectly, thank you. It seems we're rather in agreement: play along, or don't — where "don't" isn't just a matter of not paying taxes, but still using the roads, or whatever. I'm, personally, not interested in going back and forth on the notion or merits of internal secession, or "home rule" or any of that; that's orthogonal to the point I was trying to make, and with which you appear to concur.

EDIT: But, for the record, I agree that it should, in principle, be possible. In practice, I think it's a far bigger deal than pretty much anyone who'd want to undertake it is probably prepared for, and that's likely part of why it's not allowed. Vanishingly few people have the resources to start their own wholly self-sufficient society.

Further, I submit that many, if not most, of the people who would want to would be doing so in order to perpetuate some prejudice or other. Witness the neo-Nazi group that tried to take over a town in North Dakota as an existence proof of the phenomenon. That's the kind of thing you'd explicitly have to allow, if you pursue the concept to fruition.