Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[None]

...buh?

[MorleyDev]

See, it's hard for me to take your accusation of strawmanning seriously when you're very much pushing an "all or nothing" idea that to me seems to fall down as soon as it encounters...the necessities of the existence of human society?

[Maximum Spin]

See, it's hard for me to take your accusation of strawmanning seriously when you're very much pushing an "all or nothing" idea that to me seems to fall down as soon as it encounters...the necessities of the existence of human society?

I don't even think you understand what you're arguing anymore. You seem to think you're arguing against some kind of absolutist radical anarchist theory because "we live in a society", but the "radical anarchist" line I'm "pushing" is... "it's not okay to force people to participate in an exploitative system".

Society can coexist just fine with "just stop enslaving people".

[MorleyDev]

But what I think you're saying is someone should have the right to nope out of country/government/regional society without physically separating themselves from that society? Which...isn't how that works?

[Maximum Spin]

But what I think you're saying they can nope out of society without physically separating themselves from that society?

Which...isn't how society works?

I'm saying that ­— like Frederick Douglass said of Liberia — people shouldn't have to leave their homes and homelands to not be oppressed by the government.
If the people of some neighborhood in some city — let's call it "Seattle" — want to keep the feds out of their neighborhood so they'll stop being beaten and shot, then they have the right to do just that without having to leave. Everyone has the right to opt out.

[nenjin]

You're basically talking Sovereign Citizen stuff. I agree with MorleyDev, it's not a standard you can uphold. If your government is mistreating you, you reform your government. You don't nope out of it.

[MorleyDev]

What I'm saying is there's a scale of oppression you can fight physically or flee from, and a scale you can fight democratically, and the right for the former doesn't mean you also have the right to apply that to the things in the latter scale?

And yes there's surely examples you can come up with of blurry lines and arbitrary distinctions because that's how all lines and distinctions always work. But it's not a universally applicable response you have the right to respond with to every inconvenience.

[Maximum Spin]

What I'm saying is there's a scale of oppression you can fight physically or flee from, and a scale you can fight democratically, and the right for the former doesn't mean you also have the right to apply that to the things in the latter scale?

It's not a universally applicable response you have the right to respond with to every inconvenience.

Who decides what the scale is, though? Who are you to decide whether another person is oppressed enough for your liking?

You're basically talking Sovereign Citizen stuff. I agree with MorleyDev, it's not a standard you can uphold. If your government is mistreating you, you reform your government. You don't nope out of it.

Uh, Sovereign Citizens believe that the US government was secretly replaced by a corporation that also secretly replaces all the people with corporations with the same name in CAPITAL LETTERS, and something about admiralty courts. They don't have a monopoly on the philosophical concept of individual sovereignty, which is also, like, the founding principle of the entire United States, the founders of which did in fact nope out of their previous government. And explicitly wrote in the Declaration of Independence that this is a universal right.

[McTraveller]

So... "safeguards on rights" are orthogonal to democracy.  Democracy really is just rule by voting, it doesn't say anything about the merits of that rule.  It's literally just a mechanism of rule, not the "content" of the rule.

Taking too broad a definition for words like "democracy" or "socialism" or "capitalism" dilutes them and makes discussion difficult.

[MorleyDev]

"who decides it", who said anybody explicitly decides it? There's such a thing as an "emergent property", if you want someone to tell you these things explicitly go read the Bible. Everything else is figured out over time from consensus, precedent and the slow inexorable march of time on the advancement of human morality.

Also the USA wasn't setup on individual sovereignty, it was very much a "we don't like you so we'll all make our own, with black jack and hookers" version of existing governments.

[MorleyDev]

So... "safeguards on rights" are orthogonal to democracy.  Democracy really is just rule by voting, it doesn't say anything about the merits of that rule.  It's literally just a mechanism of rule, not the "content" of the rule.

Taking too broad a definition for words like "democracy" or "socialism" or "capitalism" dilutes them and makes discussion difficult.

I figured "functional democracy" was enough to convey the meaning of "the setup and arrangement of a government that includes the individual right of it's citizens who are inside that society to vote on the arrangement of a government as a key principle alongside other safeguards via the organization of it's internal institutions" because that's a lot more to type?

[Maximum Spin]

Also the USA wasn't setup on individual sovereignty, it was very much a "we don't like you so we'll all make our own, with black jack and hookers" version of existing governments.

I really don't understand why you would think those are different.
That's literally the right I'm arguing for here.

[nenjin]

Uh, Sovereign Citizens believe that the US government was secretly replaced by a corporation that also secretly replaces all the people with corporations with the same name in CAPITAL LETTERS, and something about admiralty courts. They don't have a monopoly on the philosophical concept of individual sovereignty, which is also, like, the founding principle of the entire United States, the founders of which did in fact nope out of their previous government. And explicitly wrote in the Declaration of Independence that this is a universal right.

Yeah. But they did it on an entirely new landmass. They didn't try that in England. They also formed a new government. Which isn't the same as a guy going "I don't like this, I am a government unto myself. That still uses roadways and services built and paid for by the government I say I don't like."

[MorleyDev]

It wasn't one dude deciding, it was an entire region of a LOT of people declaring independence at a significant enough scale to matter because the government they were under wasn't including them inside it's democratic functions. The whole "no taxation without representation" issue is what drove the USA to declare independence.

You don't place a pebble and declare it a beach.

[EuchreJack]

Okay? I mean, you're frankly going into far end anarchic philosophy there. Frankly it's what I'd call "Intellectual masturbation", and if you want to go down that philosophy then at the end of the day, only the dead have true freedom. We all have shackles, can't have society without them, and can't have humanity without society. Just need to make sure they're not too uncomfortable.

I'm literally just asking for the right of exit, though. You can have all the shackles you want as long as you let people have the keys. Then the question of whether the shackles are comfortable enough resolves itself, since people can take them off if they aren't. This isn't a hard concept, and retreating into a strawman isn't helping.

International Law doesn't allow the Right to Exit for very good reasons. No matter how your current government is oppressing you, they will at a minimum protect you from other governments outright killing you.
If you have no country, under current international law, you have no rights. I'm not saying that is good or fair or proper, but rather that Universal Law doesn't exist yet. There is no floor if you depart your government: It's basically a geopolitical death sentence.