Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Ok here's one interesting thing that I think could actually be a discussion rather than just silliness.
One of the basic premises of this whole movement, once you strip away all the legal silliness and mumbo jumbo of contracts and admiralty and names IN ALL UPPER CASE, is that they didn't consent to be governed. The idea that they didn't agree to have Canada (or whoever) govern and set the laws and all that stuff, so they simply opt-out.
That's not the way it works of course, but I think it's an interesting point at least. You can always say "well leave then" but there really isn't anywhere else to go where you basically don't have the same thing in a different form.
Now I don't really see any strength behind the argument, you were born into this society and the society is what it is, too bad. Kind of like arguing that you didn't choose to be born a human, so you opt out of humanity and become a cat.
But I can at least see the idea, someone didn't choose to be born into Canada, so should they be subject to its laws?
|
The basic problem with their argument is, it's not their land they drive on and not their roads. You can't drive on government built roads and then say I don't ascribe to the government so I don't need a license. If they want to go buy a plot of land and build roads on it and drive around there, they can do that no problem.
Opting out, ideally, should be an option. But practically, it's not as in order for society to function it must govern everyone. The opt out idea in government is best used as leverage over government, as in government stems from the people, so people's rights should be of paramount importance to the government.