Does the fact that you can leave a country and go somewhere that government will not bother you (e.g. deserted island), or effectively remove yourself from the grid in a country (e.g. move to a mountain shack and hunt), mean that by staying in society you consent to it's social structure?
No, this begs the question. Why can legitimately rule you on your property in the first place?
Does the fact that a slave doesn't run away mean the slave consents to being a slave?
scinearm, homesteading? The government was in place before you were born.
Knight_of_BAAWA, the slave does not run out of fear of being caught and punished. Most governments of the world don't punish for leaving.
You're still presuming that governments can own anything in the first place (invalid assumption), and it's entirely irrelevant that most governments don't punish for leaving (though they do make it difficult).
Knight_of_BAAWA:Does the fact that a slave doesn't run away mean the slave consents to being a slave?
Yes.
If a slave did not consent, that slave would do everything in their power to escape slavery, up to and including death. This is an extension of the phrase, "actions speak louder than words".
If I say I want a turkey burger, but end up eating a hamburger, I must have really wanted a hamburger. Economics 101, right?
Nonsense. A slave may simply have not found the opportunity or ability to escape. Not escaping IS NOT in any way any sort of assent or consent to being a slave.
The state never homesteaded anything.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Nonsense. A slave may simply have not found the opportunity or ability to escape. Not escaping IS NOT in any way any sort of assent or consent to being a slave.
I disagree.
A slave may seek an escape route while still consenting, in the interim, to be a slave. They can disagree with their situation, but they are still consenting to it. The moment a slave discontinues their consent is the moment they break away. No sooner.
Nonsense. Since they are in a situation where force is initiated against them, this isn't even a question of "consent". Does a person consent to be beaten by staying in an abusive relationship? No, of course not.
Think before you post.
Daniel Waite: Knight_of_BAAWA: Nonsense. A slave may simply have not found the opportunity or ability to escape. Not escaping IS NOT in any way any sort of assent or consent to being a slave. I disagree. A slave may seek an escape route while still consenting, in the interim, to be a slave. They can disagree with their situation, but they are still consenting to it. The moment a slave discontinues their consent is the moment they break away. No sooner.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Nonsense. A slave may simply have not found the opportunity or ability to escape. Not escaping IS NOT in any way any sort of assent or consent to being a slave.
Consent can not co-exist with fraud or violence.
Complying with the demands of a mugger is not the same thing as consenting to be deprived of your property.
This line of thinking is still common in more primitive societies where, for example, any woman who does choose being murdered over being raped is considered to have consented to adultery.
KoB, I agree with you, but I think Daniel has a point.
Yes, there is force being initiated against them, but what you are saying if I understand you correctly, is that because force is present, then there is no longer a choice.
So for instance, resistance to force is not a choice. Leaving is not a choice. Escaping is not a choice.
If the person in the abusive relationship knows it is abusive, and does not withdraw or resist, then they are consenting to abuse.
We can't divorce decisions and action from consequences.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
liberty student: KoB, I agree with you, but I think Daniel has a point. Yes, there is force being initiated against them, but what you are saying if I understand you correctly, is that because force is present, then there is no longer a choice. So for instance, resistance to force is not a choice. Leaving is not a choice. Escaping is not a choice. If the person in the abusive relationship knows it is abusive, and does not withdraw or resist, then they are consenting to abuse. We can't divorce decisions and action from consequences.
Obviously, none of that is a legal defense.
JonBostwick:Obviously, none of that is a legal defense.
Perhaps not. IANAL. But it is a common sense one.
liberty student: JonBostwick:Obviously, none of that is a legal defense. Perhaps not. IANAL. But it is a common sense one.
Only the victim has legal standing to prosecute so the criminal is safe so long as the victim chooses to not hold the criminal accountable.
This means that many "private" crimes would never enter the legal system, domestic violence for example.
But just because a slaves does not choose to try to escape does not mean they would not use the legal system (or personal violence) against their master if the chance arose.
In other words, many people have never had sex with Carmen Electra, but this is not evidence that they do not want to.
JonBostwick:In other words, many people have never had sex with Carmen Electra, but this is not evidence that they do not want to.
I don't understand how this is relevant at all. And I'm really not into a legal argument.
If I say, give me $10 or I will hit you, you do indeed have a choice to make. You can give me the $10, dare me to hit you, leave, resist etc. If you choose to give me the $10, we have made a trade, which means you think you are better off giving me $10 than getting hit. It's entirely your choice how you respond.
The notion that the initiation of force negates free will seems silly to me.
Or maybe I am just not understanding this properly.
The government was in place before you were born.
Irrelevant.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
Jon Irenicus: The government was in place before you were born. Irrelevant. -Jon
Agreed, although in the sense that by definition something that is in place before one is born is unchosen, it is totally relevant.
Trianglechoke7: Does the fact that you can leave a country and go somewhere that government will not bother you (e.g. deserted island), or effectively remove yourself from the grid in a country (e.g. move to a mountain shack and hunt), mean that by staying in society you consent to it's social structure?
Begging the question. The very issue we are discussing is whether the government's authority is legitimate or not. This line of thinking assumes that the government's authority indeed is legitimate. Of course, the opposite is true.
LibertarianAnarchy.com - Government is immoral, unnecessary, and doesn't work!
liberty student:Yes, there is force being initiated against them, but what you are saying if I understand you correctly, is that because force is present, then there is no longer a choice. So for instance, resistance to force is not a choice. Leaving is not a choice. Escaping is not a choice. If the person in the abusive relationship knows it is abusive, and does not withdraw or resist, then they are consenting to abuse. We can't divorce decisions and action from consequences.
Thank you.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Nonsense. Since they are in a situation where force is initiated against them, this isn't even a question of "consent". Does a person consent to be beaten by staying in an abusive relationship? No, of course not.
It is fruitless to describe a situation under the constraint of force without context:
The only time you cannot give consent is when you have no physical or mental ability to choose. For example, being completely physicaly restrained from escaping does not constitute your consent to being a slave. However, the moment you are free to act on your own volition, and you do nothing to change your situation, you again give consent.
In other words, I am saying simply that, in the context of being a slave, there have historically been periods of time (of whatever length) in which physical force is not in the equation. It is at those times, when a person can choose, and they choose to stay, they give consent.
I am very much for people being repsonsible for their situations in life. Situations can arise (as in slavery) where available options are few, but there are options nonetheless.
Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death.". Sometimes, as undesirable as it may be, those are our only options.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap