21–30 of 170 posts
This is a rather poor attempt at philosophy that basically rides on yesterday's blog (the pendulum one) remark about Life-as-a-Service. If anything it should teach people about how to keep the blog audience interested. I was pretty sure I could down-vote by now but apparently I can't downvote articles. I guess I should just upvote everything else on the page...
Can't you simply renounce your citizenship at 18?
One would think that if one was to renounce its citizenship, waiting for a predefined age set by whom you will be renouncing would be rather odd.
The essence of the (flawed) argument Jacques is making is in his passport section I need permission from my government if I want to leave the country. Oddly, that's not true. A passport is necessary to get into a country, not leave one. The distinction is subtle but important. You can if you wish as an adult, leave the country you are in, and if they will let you in, enter another with a different set of obligations.…
You need a passport to leave Australia. Australia has immigration on exit. Though, that is the only place I've seen this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One would think that if one was to renounce its citizenship, waiting for a predefined age set by whom you will be renouncing would be rather odd.
Defacto your legal guardians have signed you up to this until the age of majority. That seems pretty reasonable, under any jurisdiction.
(just continuing OPs direction of thought)
Except that there's no (current, easy) way of excluding you from various public goods that are paid by taxes. Examples include national defense, public spaces like parks, public highways, fire protection (if you live in shared housing or simply close enough to others such that we can't take the risk of letting your house burn down), etc...
That's why these goods are called "non-excludable." See:
I think "Life as a Slave" would have been more suitable.
I guess that is what bugs me the most about this article: the idea that seems to underlie it that humans are all rational beings that are somehow unconnected to society. Or at least the idea that it is morally desirable for this to be the case.
I do not agree with this. It is individualism taken too far, beyond where the idea of individualism is meaningful. Human beings need social conditioning as much as they need food and drink to survive. Anarchism is a nice theory (much like pure communism or capitalism) but it disregards the nature of human beings, who need to be embedded in society with all its rules, norms and conditioning mechanisms to function.
If you want a different society, go into politics, change things for the better. Don't sit on the couch complaining that the "service" is not as good as you like.
p.s. Life is life (nanananana)
The essence of the (flawed) argument Jacques is making is in his passport section I need permission from my government if I want to leave the country. Oddly, that's not true. A passport is necessary to get into a country, not leave one. The distinction is subtle but important. You can if you wish as an adult, leave the country you are in, and if they will let you in, enter another with a different set of obligations.…