Is it fair to say “If you don't like it, just leave"?

[Bryan]

This is the second part of a two-part series; Part One is found here:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-for-the-State


RPFs – by Bryan: The phrase "If you don't like it, just leave" is often used in public discourse when someone suggests that others move if they do not like the rules. Is this is a fair and rational position?

Two issues need to be considered when determining who is correct in a “just leave” argument. The first issue to consider: Did the individual freely agree to the terms of what they are now contending? If someone bought a home in a subdivision that requires the payment of homeowner association dues, do they really have a valid position to not pay them? Wouldn’t “just leave” be the valid solution unless others agreed to change policy?

Conversely, consider someone who as they grew up they realized that the attributes of their country did not support their principles -- perhaps the taxes are overbearing or the laws restrict rights such as free speech. They never chose to live in that land; they just happened to be born and raised there. In such cases, the individual did not make any willful agreements, so perhaps this situation can be different.

The second issue to contend with is the attributes of the grievances themselves. In doing this one must answer, what is needed to resolve the grievance and how does resolving it affect others? All grievances can be classified into one of two categories: resolving the grievance requires other peoples time and/or their resources to resolve or they don't.

For example, if the grievance is "I should be provided with a new car", that would require others' time, effort and resources, since the car has to be designed and built by other people. If the grievance is "I don't want to pay taxes for things I don't use", that is not something that would require time, effort and/or resources from others, since none of these elements are inherently needed for the individual to not pay taxes for things they don't use. The ability to do something or not do something that does not infringe on others or their property can be considered a “natural right”.

While understanding the solution for some of these cases is straightforward, what do you do about someone who never agreed to some restriction that imposes on their perceived natural rights -- are they just out of luck, or can something be done? If nothing is done, what is the end result? What if there is a large minority just like them? If legitimate grievances are ignored, won’t that lead to problems within society?


Upholding natural rights with a Free State
While trying to resolve all grievances can seem like an impossible mess, there is a guiding solution: the free state. In a free state, all individuals have their natural rights upheld such that the state and its apparatuses do not infringe on individuals. While there can be no singular or perfect construct of a free state, it is the basis of what the United States is supposed to be under the Constitution, inclusive of the Bill of Rights.

A free state does not mean society is a complete free-for-all, however, as mutual agreements can be made that create sub-jurisdictions which can regulate undesirable behavior, impose taxes, provide desired services and the like.

Unfortunately, the United States federal government has been permitted to drift so far from the limited, enumerated powers allowed to it (as defined in the Constitution) that the country no longer has much resemblance to a free state; there is an endless array of federal taxes and regulations that everyone must contend with and more. There is always a justification to trample natural rights to solve some new problem. America has simply lost its way.

In a critically-driven free state, one would never say "just leave" to individuals with grievances relating to natural rights. In America today, however, one should seriously consider what others are saying before making the "just leave" statement, as doing otherwise can easily put them on the wrong side of the freedom equation.

The following videos are suggested viewing which will help one better understand if they are on the wrong side of freedom:


The Philosophy of Liberty



Overview of America

[Bryan]

It took a bit longer than expected to get this done, but still par for the course. My original draft, geared towards activists like part one was largely tossed in favor of this version which is aimed towards big state supporters. With that, some planned content was not covered.

[HVACTech]

Is it fair to say “If you don't like it, just leave"?

I think so. I champion the Founders original intent.
failure to understand the Founders intent or words. does NOT make me the bad guy.

the "Original Intent" is just as valid today, as the day it was enshrined.
asking me what the "Original Intent" was, is just fine by me. disparaging it... is NOT.

at that point, a person is attacking me on my home turf.

[osan]

I will not respond to this in my usual line-by-line fashion because I'm tired and had a miserable day.

If we accept the Cardinal Postulate, "All men hold equal just claims to life", the answer to the question becomes clear. If our claims are equal, then no man may master another against his will. It is pretty plain and clear. Therefore, no man or group of men, however constituted or labeled, may impress upon another his will.

Then there is the notion of the "social contract" which, of course, is a flying nonsense. A contract has six elements, the absence of any single one reducing whatever it is one may have said or written to the status of a non-contract. Therefore, there exists no contractual obligation to do as you are told.

The only obligation we hold toward one another is to refrain from trespassing because no man holds the moral authority to do so where no crime has been committed.

To those who suggest I leave if I don't like it here, I recommend they go home and get bent.

[Cabal]

It's akin to telling a victim of anything--robbery, assault, rape, murder, etc--"if you don't like it, just leave."

The State is the aggressor. No one should have to leave, or do much of anything, to be free from State aggression. That's missing the point. The State has no right to anything, or to do anything, let alone to aggress against individuals, or groups of individuals.

[HVACTech]

I will not respond to this in my usual line-by-line fashion because I'm tired and had a miserable day.

If we accept the Cardinal Postulate, "All men hold equal just claims to life", the answer to the question becomes clear. If our claims are equal, then no man may master another against his will. It is pretty plain and clear. Therefore, no man or group of men, however constituted or labeled, may impress upon another his will.

Then there is the notion of the "social contract" which, of course, is a flying nonsense. A contract has six elements, the absence of any single one reducing whatever it is one may have said or written to the status of a non-contract. Therefore, there exists no contractual obligation to do as you are told.

The only obligation we hold toward one another is to refrain from trespassing because no man holds the moral authority to do so where no crime has been committed.

To those who suggest I leave if I don't like it here, I recommend they go home and get bent.

what. do you find confusing about the original intent?

how is this NOT in line with your viewpoint!



PLEASE show me SOMETHING... ANYTHING in our "rule of law" (constitution) that applies to YOU or to the people in general.
can you find it?

"our" rule of law is laser focused.
why should someone ask you to sign something... that does NOT apply to you?

[The Gold Standard]

There is no such thing as a free state where all natural rights are upheld. Unless, of course, this state is voluntarily funded, and people can voluntary choose to acknowledge their jurisdiction, at which point it really isn't a state anymore.

[HVACTech]

There is no such thing as a free state where all natural rights are upheld. Unless, of course, this state is voluntarily funded, and people can voluntary choose to acknowledge their jurisdiction, at which point it really isn't a state anymore.

true that.

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

full text.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

yes! taxes ARE theft. so, if you HAVE to do it... how can you do it fairly?

[Bryan]

There is no such thing as a free state where all natural rights are upheld. Unless, of course, this state is voluntarily funded, and people can voluntary choose to acknowledge their jurisdiction, at which point it really isn't a state anymore.

Absolutely in a free state you are not forced to fund it. I'm not following your complete statement on "voluntary choose to acknowledge their jurisdiction" nor why that is a requirement for a "state". Could you provide the criteria for what you consider is needed to be a state?

Otherwise, it is entirely possible for one to not have to acknowledge a states jurisdiction and for the state to still exist. In a free state, you can come and go and do as you please so long as you do not infringe on others rights. The state can still exist, and the point of the state is that if you violate others rights that it will come after you, like it or not. That does not make the state un-free, and it certainly does exist.

Thanks!

[KCIndy]

The problem with "going somewhere else" is that eventually one runs out of places to go.

[Bryan]

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

yes! taxes ARE theft. so, if you HAVE to do it... how can you do it fairly?

There are many logical problems with the U.S. Constitution, this is one of the biggest ones but at the same time the granting of power does not mean it has to be implemented- obviously that sounds pretty silly for us now on this issue but it's also why I wasn't completely direct in my defense of the Constitution saying "it is the basis of what the United States is supposed to be under the Constitution". Getting into these details would have made the piece way too long and outside the scope and interest of the target reader.... but yes, you are on target.

[Bryan]

The problem with "going somewhere else" is that eventually one runs out of places to go.

Exactly, hence the need for free states. My first draft on this covered this issue but it gets way too complex to do it complete justice.

[The Gold Standard]

Absolutely in a free state you are not forced to fund it. I'm not following your complete statement on "voluntary choose to acknowledge their jurisdiction" nor why that is a requirement for a "state". Could you provide the criteria for what you consider is needed to be a state?

Otherwise, it is entirely possible for one to not have to acknowledge a states jurisdiction and for the state to still exist. In a free state, you can come and go and do as you please so long as you do not infringe on others rights. The state can still exist, and the point of the state is that if you violate others rights that it will come after you, like it or not. That does not make the state un-free, and it certainly does exist.

Thanks!

I suppose it is possible if individual secession is an option, but it would also depend on the implementation. Say today I were allowed to secede. I would no longer have a license to drive on state roads. But by definition of property rights a state can not own property. A group of people can own property with a specific, detailed contract, but they can't just claim ownership and operate that way. Since these roads have no owner, and I have the right to travel on unowned land, how do they reconcile sovereigns traveling through their state without the proper licensing? Because they would certainly have no right to stop me.

Just details like that. I suppose in theory you could be right if that stuff is worked out.

[Bryan]

I suppose it is possible if individual secession is an option, but it would also depend on the implementation. Say today I were allowed to secede. I would no longer have a license to drive on state roads. But by definition of property rights a state can not own property. A group of people can own property with a specific, detailed contract, but they can't just claim ownership and operate that way. Since these roads have no owner, and I have the right to travel on unowned land, how do they reconcile sovereigns traveling through their state without the proper licensing? Because they would certainly have no right to stop me.

Just details like that. I suppose in theory you could be right if that stuff is worked out.

Thanks. There are certainly a lot of issues wrt the right to travel. It's agreed that unowned land is open for travel. A free state could certainly have roads open to travel by all with no licenses needed and so long as they did not infringe upon others there's no problems.

In another construct, say that you owned a massive parcel of land and decided to secede to form your own state. After formation, you then sold off small lots of your land to others and made roadway land jointly owned by all land owners in your state. As part of this gift you could require that the roads could only be used by land owners and their family / guests. This is a match equivalent of state own land and roads that restrict others use and could still fit within the scope of a free state.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I tell the other person to leave. People too often let others monopolize these things. They let sunshine patriots define what the flag is all about. They let evangelicals define what Christianity is all about. They let police define what good deeds are all about.

The people who try to monopolize these things are often the worst offenders. They are usually the ones perverting the idea, while being cloaked in their false banners.

Me leave? No, you leave.

[BV2]

Of course it isn't fair. But I think it is fair to say that anyone that honestly feels that way is beyond reasoning with. I don't want to say that the term can only be believed by ignorant people, but I believe that to be the truth. That isn't to say that very intelligent people do not capitalize on the term, because they do, but their loyalty has never been to here in the first place. Just "me" and "us". Meus.

Everyone is borne free, most are led and soon begin to forget that.

[idiom]

"If you don't like the voluntary government you have chosen, then leave" is exactly the same as "If you don't like a state then leave"

The only difference is that the first caters to the petulant childlike demand that people who were here before you re-arrange the world because of where you happened to be born.

There are 300+ states in the world, and plenty of state free areas. For most of them, leaving and joining is voluntary if slightly arduous. How big a market do you need to find something that fits you? But no, you demand the government you want to come to you or you are going to sit in your basement and pout and not vote.

Grow up.

The entire free state project is premised on the notion of voting with your feet.

I picked the state I live in based on it providing a lot more freedom than anywhere else including USA.

People moving to the USA are moving from less free places. As soon as the USA moves far enough down the freedom food chain the flow will reverse, as it has done through out history.

Generations for millennia have migrated for freedom. Why are you so special and entitled?

[otherone]

There is no such thing as a free state where all natural rights are upheld. Unless, of course, this state is voluntarily funded, and people can voluntary choose to acknowledge their jurisdiction, at which point it really isn't a state anymore.

I've heard this before:
-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
.
The difference between freedom and tyranny is consent.

But no, you demand the government you want to come to you or you are going to sit in your basement and pout and not vote.
Grow up.

[osan]

what. do you find confusing about the original intent?

how is this NOT in line with your viewpoint!



PLEASE show me SOMETHING... ANYTHING in our "rule of law" (constitution) that applies to YOU or to the people in general.
can you find it?

"our" rule of law is laser focused.
why should someone ask you to sign something... that does NOT apply to you?

Forgive me, but I can make no sense of anything you have written... as in I have no idea of that which you write.

[ClydeCoulter]

Forgive me, but I can make no sense of anything you have written... as in I have no idea of that which you write.

I think that what @HVATech is saying is that, the Constitution is a contract with the states to create the federal government, therefore is not a contract on you, but one that limits that federal government (edit: and is not necessary to any citizen to sign).

But, yes, that thinking would say that the contract is one sided in it's cage, in that it cages the federal government at no expense or consequence to you.

[osan]

There is no such thing as a free state where all natural rights are upheld.

There is no such thing as a "state", period.

A "state" does not exist in sé. It exists purely as a concept. In material terms, "state" does not exist. Physical and procedural arrangements pursuant to the architectures proposed by any specific example of the conceptual notion of "state" are not "state". They are naught but arrangements. Many people fail to comprehend the difference, which is a terrible thing. I suspect many of those do not want to comprehend it, for the fraud exposed would be so bottomlessly outrageous to even their dull and self-serving sensibilities that they would then be called upon by everything they hold sacred, such as those things may be, to act, which in turn implies the assumption of responsibility for one's circumstance. That is the one thing most Americans would murder your infant children by the millions to avoid.

[osan]

I think that what @HVATech is saying is that, the Constitution is a contract with the states to create the federal government, therefore is not a contract on you, but one that limits that federal government.

Wow... how'd I miss THAT?

What you say is agreeable, but is only half of the coin. The other side of that contract places restrictions on the states. The Second Amendment is a clear example of this. It has been suggested in the past that the 2A circumscribes the feds only. This interpretation is shown to be pure nonsense under even the least level of scrutiny.

The constitution is a contract-like arrangement between "states" and the feds and amongst each other. It is not a contract in the strict sense because most of us are not signatory parties to it. But let us leave that argument for another time. Taking it as a contract just for lubrication's sake, the stipulations are clearly applicable to either states, the fedgov, or both. 2A applies to both as it recognizes and guarantees a preexistent right to keep and bear arms.

Some provisions apply only to the feds: "Congress shall make no law..." 1A, e.g.

3A applies to both.

10A to the states.... and so forth.

[osan]

"If you don't like the voluntary government you have chosen, then leave" is exactly the same as "If you don't like a state then leave"

The only difference is that the first caters to the petulant childlike demand that people who were here before you re-arrange the world because of where you happened to be born.

There are 300+ states in the world, and plenty of state free areas. For most of them, leaving and joining is voluntary if slightly arduous. How big a market do you need to find something that fits you? But no, you demand the government you want to come to you or you are going to sit in your basement and pout and not vote.

Grow up.

The entire free state project is premised on the notion of voting with your feet.

I picked the state I live in based on it providing a lot more freedom than anywhere else including USA.

People moving to the USA are moving from less free places. As soon as the USA moves far enough down the freedom food chain the flow will reverse, as it has done through out history.

Generations for millennia have migrated for freedom. Why are you so special and entitled?

The global trend is toward tyranny and not the other way. The main difference between today and ages past is that the tyrannies are converging on a common standard. Call it "Common Core for Tyrants". NZ is not a free state by any means. It is only a prettier cage than the USA, in some respects. Whoopdee doo. If that satisfies you, then I am glad. It might not do for me... but then, I don't really know as I've yet to go there. But more generally speaking for myself, I do not like the notion of a gilt cage. I am not afraid of the dangers out there to the extent that I would sell my sphincter to the ones who tell me the prettiest lies about how they will keep me safe and prosperous.

It doesn't matter how close to actual freedom you may actually stand; you are still not free. If you are not free by some vanishingly small epsilon, then in principle there is nothing to stop someone from growing that epsilon. Once that is established, the sky is the limit. 100 years ago, the liberties that government now routinely takes with us could barely be imagined. Today, they are the daily bread as cops murder their ways through the years and politicians swindle us and continue to constrict our movements.

So long as "the state" is accepted as real and authoritative, humans are slaves to it in one manner or another, and to one degree or another. You may feel that if you are 99.9% there, what's to complain about? What, indeed. Times change. Beliefs change. What never changes is the lust of the tyrant to control what you think and do, no matter how trivial the degree or innocuous seeming the nature. And they work from whatever tiny toehold they may purchase to ever expand their false authorities over you. The history of Empire is nothing else but this and this alone. It is the very definition of Empire and all extant states are built on this model, including NZ.

[Ronin Truth]

Rarely is one answer fair/reasonable/correct for all situations, unless you're perfect. It depends on how egregious and destructive the unwanted behavior really is.

[idiom]

The global trend is toward tyranny and not the other way. The main difference between today and ages past is that the tyrannies are converging on a common standard. Call it "Common Core for Tyrants". NZ is not a free state by any means. It is only a prettier cage than the USA, in some respects. Whoopdee doo. If that satisfies you, then I am glad. It might not do for me... but then, I don't really know as I've yet to go there. But more generally speaking for myself, I do not like the notion of a gilt cage. I am not afraid of the dangers out there to the extent that I would sell my sphincter to the ones who tell me the prettiest lies about how they will keep me safe and prosperous.

It doesn't matter how close to actual freedom you may actually stand; you are still not free. If you are not free by some vanishingly small epsilon, then in principle there is nothing to stop someone from growing that epsilon. Once that is established, the sky is the limit. 100 years ago, the liberties that government now routinely takes with us could barely be imagined. Today, they are the daily bread as cops murder their ways through the years and politicians swindle us and continue to constrict our movements.

So long as "the state" is accepted as real and authoritative, humans are slaves to it in one manner or another, and to one degree or another. You may feel that if you are 99.9% there, what's to complain about? What, indeed. Times change. Beliefs change. What never changes is the lust of the tyrant to control what you think and do, no matter how trivial the degree or innocuous seeming the nature. And they work from whatever tiny toehold they may purchase to ever expand their false authorities over you. The history of Empire is nothing else but this and this alone. It is the very definition of Empire and all extant states are built on this model, including NZ.

And having a State be 'borderless' will magically change this?

Refusal to go to locations where the state is less authoritarian basically underlines the point. You want freedom to come to you.

Because you deserve it or something.

"I am not going to vote, I am not going to move, I am not going to defend my self with fire arms, I am just going to whine on the internet about how I am entitled to freedom"

Most of the alternatives proposed are also logical fallacies.

"Its not a state if it doesn't have a geographical definition" - The main goal of this argument it to allow one to change government without leaving home.

"Its not a state if it doesn't levy taxes. Taxes are user fees that only apply to members of that government, but not a voluntary government because arbitrary." Seeing as we already established that you are voluntarily remaining in the USA, it is your personal choice to remain within the jurisdiction of that regime.

You are an adult, you can choose where to live. You choose a location with a particular regime, instead of one with one, it is still voluntary. If you left America and revoked your citizenship nobody would stop you. Ergo it is voluntary to remain.

Stop trying to weasel out of the consequences of your own choices.

[Matt McGuire]

[Mr Tansill]

I suppose it is possible if individual secession is an option, but it would also depend on the implementation. Say today I were allowed to secede. I would no longer have a license to drive on state roads. But by definition of property rights a state can not own property. A group of people can own property with a specific, detailed contract, but they can't just claim ownership and operate that way. Since these roads have no owner, and I have the right to travel on unowned land, how do they reconcile sovereigns traveling through their state without the proper licensing? Because they would certainly have no right to stop me.

Just details like that. I suppose in theory you could be right if that stuff is worked out.

What do you mean that a state can't own property? That seems like the exact definition of a state to me: a group of people (citizens) who have a legal stake or claim to a geographic area that supersedes all others - think the United States - or any other country in the world.

In most municipalities, it is the state, county, or city that "owns" the roadways, "owns" responsibility for keeping the maintained, and "owns" the responsibility to ensure that they are safe for people to utilize. The "state" (in quotes) if you like, is the natural extension of the individual. The state is the legal embodiment of our collective will, and in that sense, yes, if you don't like it, you are free to leave. No one is forcing you to stay here. On the flip side, no one cares if you petition to (peacefully) change it.

The have every right to stop you from traveling on their roads if you're not a "member" of the society. Why do you think we have boarders? To prevent those who don't pay to play from playing.

[Mr Tansill]

There is no such thing as a "state", period.

A "state" does not exist in sé. It exists purely as a concept. In material terms, "state" does not exist. Physical and procedural arrangements pursuant to the architectures proposed by any specific example of the conceptual notion of "state" are not "state". They are naught but arrangements. Many people fail to comprehend the difference, which is a terrible thing. I suspect many of those do not want to comprehend it, for the fraud exposed would be so bottomlessly outrageous to even their dull and self-serving sensibilities that they would then be called upon by everything they hold sacred, such as those things may be, to act, which in turn implies the assumption of responsibility for one's circumstance. That is the one thing most Americans would murder your infant children by the millions to avoid.

Nor do rights, per sé, that doesn't make them any less valid of a concept or contract.

[HVACTech]

Forgive me, but I can make no sense of anything you have written... as in I have no idea of that which you write.

what. do you find confusing about the original intent?

I suppose, that first we need to agree on what the "original Intent" was.
the first ten amendments. make the original intent very clear.
each and every one of them can be seen as a "thou shalt not" clearly intended to limit the size, scope and reach of the Fedgov.

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

— Patrick Henry (1736-1799) Patriot, Lawyer and Orator

"It has been said that all Government is an evil. It would be more proper to say that the necessity of any Government is a misfortune. This necessity however exists; and the problem to be solved is, not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect."

— James Madison (1751-1836) Father of the Constitution, 4th President of the United States

I am in no way shape or form, trying to defend what we have today. I am trying to restore my heritage.
peace.

[heavenlyboy34]

And having a State be 'borderless' will magically change this?

Refusal to go to locations where the state is less authoritarian basically underlines the point. You want freedom to come to you.

Because you deserve it or something.

"I am not going to vote, I am not going to move, I am not going to defend my self with fire arms, I am just going to whine on the internet about how I am entitled to freedom"

Most of the alternatives proposed are also logical fallacies.

"Its not a state if it doesn't have a geographical definition" - The main goal of this argument it to allow one to change government without leaving home.

"Its not a state if it doesn't levy taxes. Taxes are user fees that only apply to members of that government, but not a voluntary government because arbitrary." Seeing as we already established that you are voluntarily remaining in the USA, it is your personal choice to remain within the jurisdiction of that regime.

You are an adult, you can choose where to live. You choose a location with a particular regime, instead of one with one, it is still voluntary. If you left America and revoked your citizenship nobody would stop you. Ergo it is voluntary to remain.

Stop trying to weasel out of the consequences of your own choices.

Fallacy fallacy. :P Wanna dismiss everything fallacious? Then you have to dismiss all the arguments for Constitutionalism.