Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by lutorm 6430 days ago
That link makes no sense to me. Not that I'm saying this particular system we are talking about is perfect, far from it, but what's the alternative? How would you like society to make decisions? After all, any society must necessarily make decisions affecting those who do not have a say, like infants and people yet to be born. Surely it's better if as many as possible of those affected have a say? (Personally, I'd like the entire world to have a vote in the US election because of its far-reaching effects, but I don't think that delegitimizes the system... entirely. ;-)

If you feel oppressed by the US democratic system, you could always apply for asylum in a country that you think better runs according to your values...

1 comments

What if I want to simply secede from the government entirely?

To your final point, though, I find this talk of emigration strange. Many people ask me this question and I concede that it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility for me. However, am I not petitioning for the same thing a voting population is? The difference I see is that I do not want to affect change through the apparatus of the state because I find it illegitimate. Instead I will try to affect change through non-violent means. I'll speak with you and try to convince you that non-violence is the way toward a peaceful and sustainable society. I will not use the barrel of a gun personally or by proxy(the police) to tell you or anyone else what to do. I will not get together with my friends to vote on what you must and mustn't do.

Be peaceful.

Great in theory, but you can't secede from the effects of government. Lets say that you built a farm and where completely self sustaining. You never went out for anything, never put your waste onto the populace's sewer system. You never went out for healthcare, or drove on the public's roads, or used any technology funded by the government. What about the education you received at the tax payers expense? What about the past medical care you got as a child that you will never repay. Your theory is so irrational as to be impossible.
If this person's parents had more than the median income, they almost certainly paid enough in taxes to cover their child's education. They probably also paid for his/her health care.

The value provided by the government is merely the sum of all taxes paid - overhead/waste/corruption. Some people (the rich) get less back than they put in, some (the poor) get back more than they put in. So anyone who is sufficiently rich (1) has probably already repaid any debt they owed to society, and can legitimately secede.

(1) I ignore for the moment people who got rich from rent seeking, e.g. defense contractors, trial lawyers or members of public sector unions.

There have been some things that get pretty close. Kibbutzs in Israel simulate much of the "live peacefully with neighbors" but they tend towards collectivism.

The problem with going whole-hog anarchism is that on any significant scale (even a couple hundred people) peer-to-peer trust breaks down and anything that steps in to make processes more streamlined and reliable or introduces organizational structure becomes functionally equivalent to a government. We rely to such a huge extent on specialization of labor and trust of abstractions that such freedom doesn't scale if one expects modern amenities.