I know that my spelling of “countrie’s” is incorrect, thanks for caring though
Anybody with legal expertise:
Ignore for a moment the impractical implications of the question, but is there an official way that countries claim to have the right to impose their rights on us?
For example, I was born in Canada. Without ever signing a document agreeing to the laws of the land, I have been bound to them, whatever they might be.
Do I have any sort of a right to divorce myself from my country’ policies (both beneficial and detrimental) but to still live on the ground which they claim belongs to them? Because I can claim that that patch of earth belongs as much to me as it does them - the only difference is that they can use force to limit my freedom or end my life, while my ability to impose my will on them is more limited.
The country does provide a pretty safe and comfortable place for me to life, and I do, for the most part, find its laws reasonable. I therefore have no reason to want to end our relationship at this point, but I am irked by the way their will is imposed on me without my consent, and I don’t think that they would admit that the reason why I should accept their rule is because they can put a bullet through my head.
You can claim that “that patch of earth belongs to me as much as it does to them”, but then the question arises just how do you enforce that claim? This goes back to the founding principle of all government: control of territory or sovereignty. Basically, the sovereign of a territory is whoever has the muscle to prevent someone else from taking it away. You may still maintain that someone has a “right” to autonomy or control of their personal space, but who is going to uphold that right- angels out of heaven bearing flaming swords?
In a feudal system whoever is the sovereign of a territory is not just it’s political ruler but literally its owner. As a practical matter a sovereign might turn over day-to-day administration of a part of his territory to a vassal: someone granted partial rights to his piece of territory in exchange for certain duties or responsibilities to his overlord. The overlord, or suzerain is still the sovereign of the territory because when push comes to shove he is the only one who can guarantee control of the territory. When a kingdom becomes stable and established enough that a distinction arises between the king in his own person and the “crown”, then feudalism is gradually replaced by the state model.
In the state model, the role of sovereign is assumed by the state, the government of which is responsible for protecting the country against invasion or foreign domination by maintaining a national army, a system of taxation, and the administration necessary for both. The state grants “title” to land in exchange for the payment of yearly tribute- taxes, that is- but reserves the right to place limitations on the use of the land (zoning laws, etc.) and if necessary to revoke title altogether (with compensation) for some absolute necessity.
As to why you are born subject to a government, it is presumed that you are a dependent of your parents (themselves subject to the government) until you reach the age of majority. Most people don’t question this because along with the duties of citizenship come the rights and privileges. I don’t know how this is actually handled but my wild-a***d guess is that if you formally repudiated your citizenship and were taken seriously, you would then legally be a resident alien, and one with a sufficient strike against you already that the government would probably consider you persona non grata, to be deported to any country that would take you or imprisoned as an illegal alien.
frostythesnomn, is this in response to any particular Staff Report? If so, a link to the report would be appreciated, so we can know which report you are discussing.
DSYoungEsq, I was trying to find a way to move this to general questions, but I couldn’t see a way to do so, and I don’t know how to contact a moderator…
And Lumpy, does the law say something along the lines of “you have to follow these rules because we can kick your ass” somewhere?
Citizenship is typically obtained by being born within a country. That country’s laws apply to you just as they apply to everyone else who’s there. If you choose not to obey the laws, you may be prosecuted. If you do not wish to remain a citizen, most countries will permit you to repudiate your citizenship. You’d better have somewhere else to go, though, because as Lumpy said, you might then become subject to deportation. The laws of the United States apply to everyone here because they are based on the U.S. Constitution, which was adopted by “We the People” and, as amended, it remains in full force and effect today. I presume a similar legal theory applies to the more amorphous Canadian constitution: Constitution of Canada - Wikipedia
As did sociologist Max Weber in Politics as a Vocation, which work discusses a lot of what the OP seems to be getting at, and which work I recommend the OP give a read.
The reason you accept their rule is practicality. When you’re born, you’re not old enough to give informed consent, so your parents gave implied consent to you being subject to the laws of Canada.
Once you reached the age of majority in Canada, you were free to accept the Canadian social contract (by remaining in Canada), or to reject it (by leaving Canada). Since you did not leave, it can be assumed that you assent to be ruled by the laws of Canada and/or your province, county, municipality, homeowners’ association, and what have you.
Fact is, you only own your patch of earth in a certain sense- you have property rights, but in order for your property rights to be enforced, you need a government. One of the things you need to establish a government is sovereignty- which basically says that whether or not Patch Of Canadian Territory X is directly owned by the government, it still has jurisdiction over it.
I’m curious whether you think this is actually what happened when he reached the age of majority or whether you use it as a myth, like the Greeks of antiquity thought Helios carted the sun across the sky each day. If it is the former, what do you think explains the extraordinary fact that nobody has ever, upon reaching majority, opted out of consenting to the “social contract” and that furthermore, nobody has the first idea of how you would go about manifesting this refusal of consent.
Kimmy_Gibbler, as long as the government operates by thug logic, I don’t think that it really matters whether or not there is an official contract. Plus, most people are probably too dependent on government supplied goodies by the time they reach the age of majority to even consider renouncing their recognition of the government’s right to rule them.
I find it disturbing that there is almost nowhere on earth that you can go and feel like you actually own the soil on which you stand, with the right to rule it as you please. I suppose that that way of life became impractical as soon as people started forming clusters big enough to brush aside any individual opposition which stood in the way of things which they wanted.
And panache45, I am now starting to realize how fortunate I am to live in a country with such a low population density; I always took it for granted that I could just build a cabin in the wilderness if society became tiresome, and live the rest of my life on my own terms. I wonder if the outlook of a person from India or some other densely populated region is radically different as a result - If they feel more resigned to their fate as an individual subject to a ruling party’s will…
The problem, ** frostythesnomn**, is that it boils down to “Hell is other people”. Just what relationship does one maintain with the ~7 billion other bipedal primates out there? If any of them, or a bunch of them, want what’s yours, what do you do? Societies and governments are the least lousy solution anyone’s come up with.
The thing is, even if you were to do that, you’d still be subject to the laws. Even if you were to move to someplace like the Queen Elizabeth Islands, you’d still be subject to the law. It’s one of those inescapable things…every piece of land is claimed by some government or another, and they all try to impose their laws on the inhabitants.
It isn’t all that difficult. It’s called sovereignty. The government that controls the territory where you reside has full rights to make you a subject of its laws whether you like it or not. If you don’t like it, you can leave – if your government allows you to. There is no consent necessary. Sovereignty isn’t a contract.
The idea of governmental sovereignty has been around for a few thousands of years. The ancient Greeks debated it, and you can find extensive arguments about it in the Talmud. Basically, a community (through its government) has a right to enforce a certain set of rules that everyone must follow. If people could exempt themselves from taxes, could they also exempt themselves from drug laws? How about other criminal matters?
The question whether a people can force their government to change and whether people do have certain rights that a government cannot take away were debated in the latter 16th century and 17th century ending in the famous case of Washington v. Cornwallis in 1781. The question of whether people can declare themselves sovereign from their country was settled in the famous case of Grant v. Lee in 1865.
Actually, the American Declaration of Independence is an extremely interesting document in this respect. It couldn’t simply say “Britain sucks! We rule!”. It spends quite a bit of time making a legal argument that the American colonies actually had a right to declare their independence, and once it makes the case they have the right, it makes a case why they can exercise that right. In a certain sense, it was a revolutionary document in that it was one of the first documents that questioned a government’s complete right national sovereignty.
But how do you get to make the case that you “actually own the soil on which you stand”, without a government? If there’s no government, there’s no law of property.
You can say that you own the piece of soil, but when the two or three guys who want your particular piece of soil come along, you’re on your own. You could of course arm yourself, and try to defend your particular piece of soil. In other words, “thug logic.”
Or, you could have a government that passes laws that protects your claim to that particular piece of soil, and has courts that enforce your claim, and police that protect your from the three guys who want your soil.
I came here to say that. Essentially frostythesnomn is sounds as if you’d prefer your thug logic over someone else’s thug logic. At the end of the day, the whole concept of land ownership is artificial, there’s nothing inherently natural or ‘fair’ about it.
