There are a handful of statements/questions that most of us who wake up to the reality that government is simply a monopoly on violence hear quite often. Besides the ever-asked "but who will build the roads," one of the most common is the statement that "If you don't like it (the government, taxes, surveillance), you can just leave."
Today, I'd like to examine how ridiculous and untrue that statement is, from two different angles:
- First, looking at the morality of the theft, extortion, kidnapping, and murder that government commits. Does that fact that some can theoretically escape from a violator somehow make the violation less immoral?
- Second, looking at the practicality of the statement. In a world where governments have claimed every inch of land, where exactly is it that we can leave to? Even if that completely free zone existed somewhere on the planet, how many imaginary government lines would one have to cross to get there, each time being subjected to different extortions, searches, and the requirements for permission papers.
This conversation started (in my head) while listening to an episode of Marc Stevens' No State Project, where he was speaking with a law professor about the lack of any evidence that a given government's laws apply to someone simply because they are physically in the territory that government claims domain over.
If you enjoyed this, you may enjoy some of these highlights of my blog:
