?

Log in

Nov. 25th, 2015 @ 12:26 am "You don't like it? You Can Always Leave--- but God Help You if You Try."
A pro-statist will argue that by living in a society, you agree to the social contract-- "and if you don't like it you can always leave." Many of conservative or libertarian leanings seem to be stumped for an anwer to this, or meander about with periphable questions I would like to say that there is a much simpler reply to that rather condescending statement--- one that will bring them to a stone dead halt:

"Can we?"

One of the first things states do is begin to restrict efforts to leave the state. What was the American Revolution but a British Empire trying to punish those who tried to leave it? They sent an armada across an ocean to

And the American Civil War--- the Union didn't give a damn that the South owned slaves Until the South tried to take itself and its land and leave the Union. Then the Union sent down soldiers and started KILLING people. Back then people still understood freedom, and this act was shocking enough that it induced at least two fence-sitting states to leave the Union in horror at such a crime.

Red China, the Soviet Union, Cuba and North Korea routinely murder anyone who attempts to flee their loving embrace. In North Korea it is illegal for citizens to leave the country even temporarily: at public exhibitions the "North Korean" audience is made up of Chinese hired by the government to fill the bleachers.

And theocracies are the same--- Islam calls those who leave the faith "infidels" and demands their beheading.

Even less oppressive societies such as America, Great Britain, Canada, etc. incline towards this. They throw heavy bureaucratic obstacles in the path of taxpayers (especially ones with deep pockets) who attempt to leave their control, and if you succeed in departing they will use any pretense that you "owe" them something to send agents of their revenue service to pursue you and take your money, or even drag you back in chains.

Any serious attempts to secede--- to depart the "social contract" with your property in the form of land still in your possession-- are effectively impossible; the state will implement violence to prevent it. In fact it's "common knowledge" in the United States of America that you "don't have any right" to do so. In America, the country whose very existence as a sovereign State makes this a lie.

Those who say "If you don't like it, leave," are really saying "If you leave your land, your homes, your properties, and your wealth behind we might-- just might-- let you escape with your lives." And that's if the State holding you at gunpoint is one of the more benevolent ones. Many will just shoot you.

In the argument about Statism and individual liberty, "You can always leave" is a lie.
About this Entry
pestering
[User Picture Icon]
From:deckardcanine
Date:November 25th, 2015 03:45 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Even putting aside the question of oppression, I never liked the "You can always leave" attitude, because moving, especially to another country, isn't easy. And if you really want to leave your current homeland, there's a good chance you're far from rich.
[User Picture Icon]
From:nefaria
Date:November 26th, 2015 03:48 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
I've never felt bound by any sort of contract that I've never read and never signed. I'd also like to mention that approximately 50% of the US population has no contractual obligations whatsoever, which makes the ever-increasing burdens on the other 50% seem unjust to me.

I've sometimes thought about renouncing my citizenship and leaving the USA (I don't think we'll ever see a Republican president again, and extrapolating 20 years forward with single-party government is not a pretty picture), but I can't think of another country that would be more welcoming to those of a libertarian persuasion. Singapore maybe? Ah, but they have an autocratic government that could demolish their free market at will.

From:Jon Carey
Date:November 26th, 2015 07:58 am (UTC)

For a great argument you start off on the wrong foot

(Permanent Link)
While the gist of your argument is spot-on the opening reeks of Neo-Confederate history revisionism to the point it becomes a 1000-pound pink gorilla in the room: rather impossible to ignore no matter how much one wants to.

The vast majority of the people in the Union did not give a sparrow's fart if the South left, figuring it would be a minor inconvenience at most in exchange for letting them keep the society they'd deliberately modeled after English aristocracy. Even AFTER Sumter was shelled this didn't change much - the popular view was "Well then! If they have the gumption to go do a thing like that, they deserve their own 'nation'."

But when they attacked a military installation, Lincoln knew that to back down from that act would not only be a direct dereliction of his duty but shatter the Union's credibility with foreign nations and throw the door open to the Old World barging in on the continent our forefathers spent so much blood kicking them out of. And let's not forget the consequences of leaving literally half the nation to regress to a topheavy aristocracy run on cruelty and depending on a single cash crop. So he had to go along with Northern racist views and promises of easy victory just to not have the draft result in mass riots, and his successor had to squash domestic terrorist squads after the war was won.

The funny thing is that had there not been compromises during the era of the original 13 colonies for the sake of bringing the proto-South along - "slavery will die out soon on its own, anyway" was the argument - we might well have avoided the whole mess.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rhjunior
Date:November 26th, 2015 09:50 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Historical fact is not "revisionism."

http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/southernsidecondensed.htm

The standard textbook answer to this question is that the South obviously started the war because it “fired the first shot” by attacking Fort Sumter, which was located in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina. Most textbooks don’t mention several facts that put the attack in proper perspective. For example, after the Fort Sumter incident, the Confederacy continued to express its desire for peaceful relations with the North. Not a single federal soldier was killed in the attack. The Confederates allowed the federal troops at the fort to return to the North in peace after they surrendered. South Carolina and then the Confederacy offered to pay compensation for the fort. Lincoln later admitted he deliberately provoked the attack so he could use it as justification for an invasion. The Confederates only attacked the fort after they learned that Lincoln had sent an armed naval convoy to resupply the federal garrison at the fort. The sending of the convoy violated the repeated promises of Lincoln’s secretary of state, William Seward, that the fort would be evacuated. Seward continued to promise the Confederacy that the fort would be evacuated even after he knew that Lincoln had decided to send the convoy. Major John Anderson, the Union officer who commanded the federal garrison at the fort, opposed the sending of the convoy, because he felt it would violate the assurances that the fort would be evacuated, because he knew it would be viewed as a hostile act, and because he did not want war. Several weeks before the Fort Sumter incident, Lincoln virtually declared war on the South in his inaugural address, even though he knew the Confederacy wanted peaceful relations.


Just for STARTERS.

FActs are pestiferous things, aren't they?
From:Jon Carey
Date:November 26th, 2015 06:49 pm (UTC)

Pernicious

(Permanent Link)
Yes, and you're about as familiar with them as you are with the concepts of nuclear physics.

Strip away all the excuses and details and what it boils down to is this: an armed force of a foreign nation (the Confederacy) attacked a federal military installation with military-grade weapons. Doesn't matter who you are or what your motive is or what flag you wave, that is cause for war with a capital C and W. That is an action that the standing President is OBLIGATED to respond to by military force.

Now granted, by that point it had become a matter of 'when and where' rather than 'if'.

Incidentally, if Lincoln HAD just played the French defense, tell me how well off would the USA be with half the nation reduced to arrogant slave-beaters dependent on cotton for their entire economy's wellbeing (ask the Irish how well that went with potatoes), the North's growth stunted, and the threat of war *every time a new state wanted to join one side or the other?*
[User Picture Icon]
From:rhjunior
Date:November 27th, 2015 05:44 am (UTC)

Re: Pernicious

(Permanent Link)
Awww. Did the mean old historical facts trigger you?
[User Picture Icon]
From:tomyironmane
Date:November 30th, 2015 04:42 am (UTC)

Re: Pernicious

(Permanent Link)
Correct me if I am wrong here... but from a strategic perspective... how is maintaining a fortified artillery position in the throat of a busy, nominally foreign harbor anything but an attempt to control that foreign power? I mean, really, you're essentially saying "we posses and wish to maintain the capability to shut down your port any time we feel the need."

Another little known fact: The south attempted to sue for peace, and was prepared to offer terms and conditions to include the emancipation of all persons living as chattel in the confederacy. This rarely makes the history books because Lincoln refused to even acknowledge the emissaries sent by the confederate government.

Also unknown outside the state is the fact that Lincoln essentially locked Maryland down under hard Martial Law for the duration of the conflict. The Army of the Potomac served a dual purpose; protect the capital, and make sure Maryland toed the line.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rhjunior
Date:December 1st, 2015 08:16 am (UTC)

Re: Pernicious

(Permanent Link)
Indeed, Lincoln stomped all over the constitution while he waged his war.
From:JJ Grey
Date:December 13th, 2015 05:43 pm (UTC)

Re: Leaving the state

(Permanent Link)
Whether the civil war was justified or not, it is still a clear indication of a change in attitude for the USA.
The right to leave is the only right really worth anything, even the right to self defense is implies that someone is blocking your ability to leave.
The right to free speech is matched by your right to walk away from the speaker.
The right to a fair jury trial is matched by your right to leave that area after you are found innocent.
The right to remain silent is matched by the right to leave if you are not arrested or to face trial instead.
The USA has now increased the cost for rescinding your citizenship by over 5 fold, plus has begun considering various other penalties.
And yet our government allows corporations to divide themselves in a manner that allows them to have separate 'companies' in different nations and place their profits in those companies to avoid US income taxes.
This tells us that the US is run by corporations not individuals. And that we individual human persons have less rights that the corporations.
My response is to form multiple companies *it is fairly cheap to form an LLC, on the order of $50/year* and seek multiple citizenship's as international law makes it so that you cant keep out a citizen of your nation and the USA is the only nation that cares how much money one earns outside the country (and only for individuals not for corporations- Huh, interesting, no?).
[User Picture Icon]
From:rhjunior
Date:December 13th, 2015 07:51 pm (UTC)

Re: Leaving the state

(Permanent Link)
Does a blackmailing victim "rule" the blackmailer?

The corporation-bashing is a red herring, I'm afraid. You know what happens to corporations that don't play nice with Congressmen? Take Bill Gates. Originally Microsoft donated to NO politicians, whether on principle or not is unknown--- and the Clinton administration sicced the government on him with endless hearings trying to convict him and his company.

If you are a corporation in the USA, you have three choices: pour money down the greedy gullets of politicians in the hopes they MIGHT protect your interests when they wield the almighty pen, take the bulk of your business out of the country to try and protect it from their greed--- or stay the course and be raped for everything you own, while they "spread the wealth around" (mostly spreading it into their own pockets.)

You damn these companies for playing the game, yet who made the game, who set the rules?
From:auron3991
Date:December 16th, 2015 06:39 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Well, there was a bit more of a mess prior to the Civil War than that. There was a couple of decades of buildup there, with arguments over allowing more states in the US, economic issues, and an anti-slavery sentiment was rising (the strength of the Republican party at the time attests to as much). True, Lincoln (and the political class) didn't care until the attempt to secede, but the people clearly did.
[User Picture Icon]
From:rhjunior
Date:December 16th, 2015 11:09 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
Factoid: the South attempted to sue for peace--- and offered to end all chattel slavery as part of the agreement. Lincoln wouldn't even meet with them.

It wasn't about freeing the slaves. It was about asserting Washington's ownership of the South and its people.
From:auron3991
Date:December 17th, 2015 04:09 am (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
For Lincoln and the political class it was about controlling the South, wasn't arguing that point.

But that wasn't what roused the average rank and file person to join.
[User Picture Icon]
From:Ralph Hayes Jr.
Date:February 27th, 2016 07:59 pm (UTC)
(Permanent Link)
"propaganda": Getting gullible people to do stupid things for made-up reasons.