People can refuse the State

People can refuse the State by living in communes... Will Society retract into isolated communes?

Is there any reason a person should not be allowed to refuse the State? Many argue that since it is impossible for you to be prevented from benefiting from the State, then you should contribute... Also that you must abide by rules agreed on by the wider community.

But just because a benefit has (perhaps) been conferred to you does not imply an obligation to pay. Without the request how can there be an obligation to pay?

And does being among a population oblige a person to abide by collective rules? The only justification would be a requirement to have the ability to eject a person who is a disturbance... Does the Society have the right to exclude such a person? Then it would be possible for the individuals affected by the behaviour to take responsive action. They could protect themselves in some way.

Presently membership of the community is assumed but perhaps it should be easier for Society to exclude those who are troublesome? The difference would be, rather than prisons (to exclude people) groups would retract and form isolated city-States.

Perhaps this type of selection is preferable?

4th January 2009


Addendum1: Money is only useful if people won't share

Money has a use only in acquiring goods that the person in possession would otherwise not give up.

The desire for money is predicated on the assumption that those with the opportunity to satisfy your need will not do so without being compensated. It is based on the assumption that the things you need are provided unwillingly by those who have them.

The feeling that we are surrounded by those who wish us ill will heighten the need for money... Without this fear the motivation for money will be lacking. (10th Jan09)

Addendum2: It (the State) rests on the need to remove troublesome people... There is no need to do so, let them carry on and see what happens to them. (10th Jan09)

Addendum3: The State has no legitimacy

To be a legitimate influence on someone else's life one must have been invited to do so. The only justification for coercive involvement is if the ends justify the means and it has rarely (if ever) been shown that there are sufficiently pressing needs. Indeed, the means are an indication of the righteousness of their aims...

It is better, if you want to help someone to offer your assistance rather than force yourself upon them "for their own good". Unless you state that you seek to impose yourself on someone not to protect them, but to protect yourself, you are being a hypocrite.

30th January 2009