How do we become subject to a countrie's laws?

Factual Questions
21

But you can only live your life on your own terms if you never encounter another human being for the rest of your life. What happens when another human moves to the same wilderness and builds a cabin near yours? What happens if he hunts on your hunting grounds? What are you going to do about it?

You could resolve the situation by going over to visit your new neighbor, and explain that this valley is your valley, and he has to leave. But what if he doesn’t agree? What if he says that no one owns the valley and you have to share? What if he says that he owns the valley now, and YOU have to leave?

How are you going to make him leave? Use force? What if he’s bigger and stronger and a faster shot? If you are morally justified in making him leave, why isn’t he morally justified in making you leave? What gives you the right to live in this particular place and not him?

In ancient times, before governments existed, the two of you would fight, and someone would either end up dead, and then the dispute is over, or one of you would run away. And the winner would own the valley until someone else came to challenge him. But one person on their own can be defeated easily by two or three or four people. And human beings are social creatures, and live in family groups. So rather than just you living alone, it would be you and your wife, and your kids, and your brothers and sisters, and their spouses and kids, and your cousins, and your parents and grandparents and aunts and uncles and such. So when one guy came by, you’d have backup. But he’d have backup too.

And so families organize themselves into clans. Your family is related to the family in the next valley, and you agree that if some neighboring family comes by, both families will help fight them off. Eventually all the families in the area have relationships, either friendly or unfriendly. And then some formal system of resolving disputes between families arises…say, the heads of the families meet regularly to arbitrate issues. And then what happens when two clans have disputes? Why, the clans can organize themselves into larger units.

And now we have governments. All arising from the simple fact that groups of people working together are stronger than individual people, and larger groups are stronger than small groups. And if you don’t belong to a group, then in a state of nature people can do whatever they like to you, because who will stop them? You? You need other people to agree to protect you from people who would otherwise rob and kill you. If nobody will help protect you then you’re in big trouble, because there are 6 billion other humans on this planet and only one of you, you’re outnumbered.

If you say that it isn’t fair that you have to live in constant fear of other people, well, what’s your solution? Those other people aren’t going away. And those other people aren’t tame, they can be pretty crabby and aggressive. So unless you’ve got some sort of mechanism to allow them to live side-by-side–like, say, a system of laws–there’s going to be violence.

So you don’t have to recognize the authority of governments. In reality there is no such thing as a “government”, only individual humans who act in particular ways. And one of the ways they act is to cooperate with each other and make agreements. So while you’re free to realize that the cops and soldiers and judges and politicians are just damn dirty apes no better than yourself, you also need to realize that they’re organized and violent, and if you piss them off they’ll fuck you up. And you’re just the same, because you can’t live alone on this planet. So you can chose to live as an isolated human without any community any time you like, but you have to realize that most other people aren’t going to play that game, and if you annoy them they’ll cooperate against you.

22

I have no problem with thug logic, as long as I’m the ruling thug, or my goals are in line with those of the ruling thug.

I guess I was also wondering if, the US for example, claims to have their power granted to them by something other than guns (god? the people?). It’s the people, isn’t it. Damn, that’s a lame answer.

23

What other answer do you want? The laws of various countries were not handed down by the Archangel Gabriel. They were created by human beings, and are intended to benefit the people who drafted the laws. In a monarchy, that means the monarch. In a democracy, that means the people.

If you want to claim that you’re not part of the country, that’s fine. No one will stop you. You won’t get in trouble for denying that the laws apply to you, you only get in trouble for breaking them. So you can declare yourself a free sovereign on your own patch of sovereign land, and you’ll only get in trouble if you don’t pay your taxes.

If you think you should be free to act however you like on “your” patch of land, well, what makes that patch of land yours? It’s only yours because the rest of us agree to act as if it is yours. If you declare that you’re not part of the government entity that granted you the title to that land, well, why then is that title binding on us but not you?

In other words, you want lay obligations on the rest of us, but you don’t recognize our right to lay obligations on you. You claim we have an obligation to leave you alone, but why do you have the right to enforce that obligation on us? Is it a natural right? If so, then why do no humans on planet earth except you have that right? And if it is a moral claim, well, then what if we don’t agree? I guess you try to convince us to agree. But what if we listen to your arguments and still don’t agree?

24

Well, the Weberian definition of the state is the body that holds a monopoly on legitimate violence within its territory. That is, (1) the state is the only entity entitled to authorize the use of force within its territory, but (2) its use of force is “legitimate,” not, perhaps, in the sense of absolutely and incontrovertibly justified, but rather in the sense that there exists a narrative which is taken to license the state’s activities. In the United States (and, indeed, all the democracies of modern Western Civilization), the right to use force is held to issue from a government that operates at the consent of the governed and attended by such things as free elections and the right to criticize the government and the right to form associations to influence lawmakers and the electorate. I happen to believe that this narrative more or less describes how most of these governments do work (while not remaining ignorant of their historical and contemporaneous failures to quite live up to their lofty aspirations), but I don’t think any of these states deny that force constitutes the fundamental attribute that distinguishes the state from all other social institutions.

25

There is no better answer.

26

You should really read Hobbes. The most famous line in the Leviathan says that before the social contract life was “nasty, brutish and short.” You seem to be advocating reverting back to that situation.

The US Constitution was ratified by the states, and thus, indirectly the people, so we have a clearer answer to this than most places. But in any real place there will be some who do not wish to obey any rule, no matter how reasonable the rule is. Thug logic punishes murderers, not just tax evaders.

27

The U.S. traces its initial right to govern back to the charters awarded to the colonies first by the colony owners, then by the royal government. One of the reasons the founding fathers gave for having a right to declare independence was the royal government’s abrogation of the colonies’ contractual rights under the charters.

One of the things you must understand about the Revolutionary war is that there was always an established government on the colony/state level. The colonial governments were the ones who sent delegates to the first two Continental Congresses. These delegates then worked with their colonial governments to reach an agreement on the Declaration of Independence. It was the colonial government (now referred to as states and state government) that sent representatives to the Constitutional Convention. And, finally, it was the same governments that had to pass a law to hold a convention in their state to decide whether or not to ratify the new constitution based on the terms stated in the new constitution itself.

So, the United States bases its governmental rights on the rights granted by the founders of the colonies and later through royal charters. From there, they established a right to overthrow the monarchy due to its allege abrogation of the rights invested in the initial governing charter. The colonies based their right to break free from the monarchy based upon the philosophy of people like Locke and Paine.

The Founders of this country were very legal oriented in their thinking and very concerned with proving their right to govern.

28

IMHO and based in scriptures. God established authorities, the right to have power over people is part of our world in it’s sinful state. These authorities are lesser ‘gods’ who we, or our ancestors bowed down to and submitted to. Laws, in general are to take the place of personally knowing and loving God, and also loving our fellow man. Laws require no love to follow, so it is used for man who has forsaken the God of love. God gives those lesser gods the right to enforce the law with punishment. For some people coming to God through Jesus, He has set free and the person is no longer under any earthy authority, ‘who the Son sets free is free indeed’.

29

Or by being born to a citizen or citizens of a country. I’m currently residing in a country that does not grant citizenship based on birth in its territory.

30

Until the Inuit and Dene tell him to leave because he’s on their territory and they got their first. :wink:

There ain’t no unclaimed land anywhere.

31

So you’re not making a high moral claim about limited government. You’re simply saying that you want to be in charge, or allied to the one in charge, so you can impose your thug logic on everyone else.

That’s the archetype of the Hobbesian savage that other people formed societies to protect themselves from.

32

Yes. It would be the listing of all local, state, Federal laws, regulations, codes and whatnot. These are all documented in each bodies written legal documentation and endlessly debated and updated by their judicial system.

The “official claim” is that government holds a monopoly of force where they have the very practical ability to fine, prison, kill or otherwise punish you for non-compliance. What legitimizes this claim in Western cultures is that these lawmarkers are selected by a process where the people are represented and have input in selecting their representatives.

Your consent is not required. It is implied as soon as you set foot withing the jurisdiction of whatever political region you are in.

Yes and no. You have to follow the law, however, there are methods in this country for you to petition to have those laws changed.

People will often say that THEY can’t do anything to change the laws because they are only one person. To that I say they probably suck at it and not everyone can be Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Rosa Parks or a thousand other well known activists.

See above.:wink:

That’s a pretty infantile attitude.

There is also such a thing as the “social contract”. You agree to follow the laws of the land because for the most part, they ARE reasonable and they DO provide you with a safe and comfortable place to live.

33

Well, I did say “typically.” :wink:

34

No one ever asked me to sign the Constitution and by the time I was old enough to vote, this governmental public face of organized corruption was well in place and protected from any public scrutiny by “national security”.

I like the “official claim”.

35

Jus soli is actually the atypical method. Most countries require at least that one or both parents have some claim to citizenship or right of abode themselves, regardless of place of birth. It’s virtually unknown outside the Americas. Pakistan is the only major country which observes it outside North and South America.

36

In a staff reportby Bicker about citizenship

but you cannot simply asume that the system you are familiar with is typical. Many countries do not recognize jus soli.

ETA, damn, beaten to the punch

37

As I said, your consent is not required. Just your compliance.

How would society function if everyone just cherry-picked the laws they wanted to follow? It wouldn’t. No one thinks they are ignorant, selfish, evil, crazy or irrational. That’s why no one asks you.

It’s like if you step into my appartment and start smoking. I don’t need a reason to tell you to stop. You either follow the rules while in my house or you leave.

38

…

39

Correct me if I’m misremembering: I though I once read that Britain and the United States got into that brouhaha about Britain pressing American sailors into the British Navy because of how Britain regarded citizenship. The British doctrine that anyone born an “Englishman” was considered a subject for life, regardless of where they might move to or any repudiation of loyalty. So any American born before 1783 was considered fair game (or at least, even if it was illegal the British courts wouldn’t go out of their way to do anything about it.)

40

But millions do exactly that… by leaving. Millions of people leave their countries of birth every year.

Canada’s a free country. It is, in fact, a Constitutional right in Canada to leave the country. For that matter, it is a Constitutional right to move about within the country, and as has been pointed out, there are million of square kilometres of wilderness you could move to and set up a cabin where you will never be found.

If one wishes to abandon the Canadian social contract, one can do so.