Consent Withdrawn
25th June 2009, 15:21
Individual secession is another way of marginalizing the state and the entire capitalist machine that is both its benefactor and its primary beneficiary. Since anarchism and socialism rejects all compulsory associations, the anarchist and socialist is morally justified to secede from the state and refuse participation.
Justification for state power rests on a tenuous thread and it is therefore essential to project the illusion of power through a finely tuned propaganda machine which includes the media, the myth of justice for all, and the public maligning of all who attempt to expose this illusion. State power is based on the social contract theory developed and advocated by Hobbes Locke, and Rousseau. But this theory while idealistically positive has a fatal flaw in actual implementation. All contracts in order to be legally binding require the expressed written consent of all parties involved as well as a compete understanding of the terms and conditions. Additionally, though perhaps not necessarily, the terms should be mutually beneficial to all parties involved. As it stands, few of us have given expressed consent to be governed by the state. Perhaps naturalized citizens, military personnel, civil servants and ironically politicians are an exception as they swore an oath. However, an oath is hardly a written contract. Additionally, contracts generally have a temporal effectiveness. In other words, when the terms of the contract are satisfied, it is voided. The social contract has no such specifications as to when its terms are fulfilled and is therefore vague as to when it can be deemed satisfied. Finally, it is clear that the social contract is not being fulfilled to the mutual benefit of all involved but only a select few. All of these reasons would be satisfactory and acceptable to deem the contract null and void if it was a legitimate contract to begin with, which it is not.
And is a contract based government, however binding it may be, really the type of government one would prefer anyway? Is not a government of free and non-coercive association preferable? Indeed one could still argue that this is a contractual agreement because one would have expectations of the government, namely to function as the protector of individual rights and to distribute fairly the resources required to exercise those freedoms. But it would no longer be the government performing these tasks but the people themselves in a spirit of mutual free association.
Until the situation described above can be achieved, individual secession is an attractive alternative for the dissident and disenfranchised. Indeed not being bound by the social contract and the unwillingness of the government to put the needs and best interests of ALL people in the forefront of policy makes individual secession not just an attractive alternative but a moral imperative!
Justification for state power rests on a tenuous thread and it is therefore essential to project the illusion of power through a finely tuned propaganda machine which includes the media, the myth of justice for all, and the public maligning of all who attempt to expose this illusion. State power is based on the social contract theory developed and advocated by Hobbes Locke, and Rousseau. But this theory while idealistically positive has a fatal flaw in actual implementation. All contracts in order to be legally binding require the expressed written consent of all parties involved as well as a compete understanding of the terms and conditions. Additionally, though perhaps not necessarily, the terms should be mutually beneficial to all parties involved. As it stands, few of us have given expressed consent to be governed by the state. Perhaps naturalized citizens, military personnel, civil servants and ironically politicians are an exception as they swore an oath. However, an oath is hardly a written contract. Additionally, contracts generally have a temporal effectiveness. In other words, when the terms of the contract are satisfied, it is voided. The social contract has no such specifications as to when its terms are fulfilled and is therefore vague as to when it can be deemed satisfied. Finally, it is clear that the social contract is not being fulfilled to the mutual benefit of all involved but only a select few. All of these reasons would be satisfactory and acceptable to deem the contract null and void if it was a legitimate contract to begin with, which it is not.
And is a contract based government, however binding it may be, really the type of government one would prefer anyway? Is not a government of free and non-coercive association preferable? Indeed one could still argue that this is a contractual agreement because one would have expectations of the government, namely to function as the protector of individual rights and to distribute fairly the resources required to exercise those freedoms. But it would no longer be the government performing these tasks but the people themselves in a spirit of mutual free association.
Until the situation described above can be achieved, individual secession is an attractive alternative for the dissident and disenfranchised. Indeed not being bound by the social contract and the unwillingness of the government to put the needs and best interests of ALL people in the forefront of policy makes individual secession not just an attractive alternative but a moral imperative!