"No Thank-You"

When having a conversation on the (im)morality/(in)efficiencies of centralized state (using primarily definition of state as presented by the likes of Samuel Edward Konkin III, Hogeye Bill among others)  governments, one always encounters a great classic piece of advice hurled definitively by folks:
"If you don't like taxes/services, move to Somalia."

This award-winning gem of life-planning consultation has a cousin, some folks think it sounds more sophisticated:
"We have/live under a social contract, if you disagree with the social contract, get out."

Well, thanks, but no thanks.  Maybe you find this to be a bit hypocritical, and it's understandable that you do so, ergo let us explore these assertions/advice, their inherent implications and the underlying fallacies, and maybe this will help explain to you why this holds no water/sway/impact for the person it is intended to pwn.

In the first place. . .oh, what is the first place?...
"No"

This succinct response also has a cousin, some think it sounds more casual/relaxed:
"Nah..."

  See, for many AnCap/agorism/stateless-voluntary-systems proponents, the big gripe with statist*/centralized systems is the use of force/coercion by said systems.  One who would propose freedom from government coercion is not likely to respond well at all to you directing/ordering them to do something, and touting it as a moral/logical/ethical truism or foregone conclusion.

*So, for those that haven't/won't  read/use google to find the definition used in this blog post (and in the general modern state/less discussion, more or less.), here it is (you lazy bastards):

"1. an organization with an effective monopoly on the legitimate/legal use of force in a particular geographic area"

  Just for shins and giggles, let's go ahead and make sure we're all aware of the used definition of "force" here.


"interference with the freedom of action of another agent"

  If you need me to bold-type the definition of "agent", "freedom", and "action" then I'm sorry, I do not believe we can have any meaningful interaction/communication.

For those of you still comprehending thus far, let us proceed:

  The idea of social contract goes back to the mid-1600's (starting with Thomas Hobbes) and is used as an intellectual device to relate human groups to their governments.  As a philosophical/intellectual device, it played a key part in the development of "the consent of the governed" as an idea which grants "legitimacy" to state governments.  The problems with it are

a) The idea that children can be born into a "social contract" (infants are unable to grant consent to contracts).  My family's "social contract" involves servitude to another invisible/imaginary, self-contradictory, and tyrannical entity, but I am in no way compelled to lower myself just because "everyone else is".

b) The implied premise that governments/the majority/"the will of the people" own, rule over, or can otherwise usurp an individual's property or freedom.  The United States government (to take just one example) does not "own" all the property within the geographical region it claims sovereignty.  Individuals (and corporations, with the help of protection granted by government violence) own property.


c) If governments derive their authority by the consent of the governed, then I withhold my consent: therefore they have no authority over me.

d) Even if the constitution of the United States were a valid social contract (again, unless it was adopted with 100% of the voting population's support, it is invalid), it was written in the 1700's and has utterly failed to protect the citizen's rights.  Those present-day individuals who propose the "right candidate" for president who will return us to the constitution are relying on the immoral democracy/mob-rule scheme to solve the problems it itself is allowing (or outright creating).  Maybe the constitutional republic won't fail so tragically this time like it has every other time. . . 
For it to be a valid "social contract" then all members have to consent, else it is little (if any) better than a mafia.  Social contracts work well for clubs, where all membership and participation is voluntary and there is no violent retribution for opting-out of the club.  For populations of geographical regions, social contracts just don't work, because after all, people are different.  Get over it.


  Hence comes the inevitable backlash about moving to Somalia and/or ceasing to drive on roads.


  For one, individuals live where they live, and own property where they own property, and your "consent of the governed" leviathan has no right to demand they move.   To do so would out it as being at its core against the principles of freedom.

 Shall they stop using the roads?  Why the hell should they do that?  Forced violent monopoly has made damn sure that there are no other ways to travel throughout those regions they claim sovereignty over.
  Sure, you could put up toll booths or find other ways of deriving payment voluntarily from those that wish to fund/use the services provided, but the people that have already been robbed through taxation will probably take issue with that plan.

  See, just because the roads and other services were provided through the use of force (extracting money/tax under threat of violence) by a monopolistic entity (no, getting to choose the PR representatives every 4 years does not change the fact that the state claims/enforces a monopoly) without free market quality of service and just price does not mean that individuals who resist the violence/aggression therefore have a moral responsibility to not use them.  Those taxes that I do pay, I pay under duress. . .you see, if you don't pay taxes, armed clowns in blue costumes will come and do violence against my person/property.  Those services I do use, I use under duress. . .because this large gang arose to "provide services" and then expects me (and everyone else) to pay for their inefficiencies.  There are no other services to utilize (currently)

The internet was originally created by the U.S. military (or Al Gore), but just because people disagree with U.S. military policy does not mean they should not have email, a website, or use google+.

  So for anyone paying attention to the whole Somalia situation, it is quite obvious that the majority of the turmoil is caused as the aftershock of a failed state (the rest is caused by other states trying to "help" or assert themselves as the new regional monopoly) and is not the logical end of "anarchy".


A further note:  for each time your hackles have been raised while reading this and the inbred statist response came bubbling up out of the lizard-brain. . .check out this great website: 
http://www.giyf.com
And enter your statement ("but what about the roads?" etc.)
You'd be amazed at the ongoing discussion occurring through this great tool called the internet (itself a product of the violent monopoly, however open-source/free-market influences are having a great effect on it)

If the vision that springs to your mind when the word "anarchy" or "anarchist" comes up involves violent protest/sabotage, throwing molotov cocktails, etc. . .you would do well to read up on the history and evolution of stateless theory/practice, it might make you sound less like a redneck next time you're discussing these things, and who knows, you may actually contribute something meaningful to the conversation!