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

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@RickJay

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.

Not really. They are emigrating to the U.S. or to the U.K. or similar countries. They are not joining some other state with profoundly different organizing principles.

But yes, a remote outpost in the Canadian hinterlands is about as close as one could come to pulling it off. Remarkably, all those would be Galt-goers, however, seem to prefer the conveniences of modern civilization–attended though they are by such outrages as income taxes, safety regulations or environmental protection laws–to the solitary life of the radically (so-called) free.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

Not really. They are emigrating to the U.S. or to the U.K. or similar countries. They are not joining some other state with profoundly different organizing principles.

Which suggests that despite their whining, most people are really quite happy with the social contract they’ve got- or at least not very unhappy with it.

[qazwart]

@Lumpy

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.)

It was a bit dirtier than that. The British Navy had impressment officers. If they needed able body men, they’d simply roam the streets looking for them. If you were caught, you were now in the navy.

The same thing happened on the seas too. If a captain needed a few extra bodies, he’d stop a ship and borrow a few. They were only suppose to take British citizens, but who’s going to stop them? After all, they’re the British navy and no one could challenge them.

Things started to get bad with the Napoleonic Wars and that’s when the British would roam the American coast pulling ships over right outside of port. It was one of the reasons for the War of 1812. There were other issues too: The blockade of American trade, the refusal to surrender Fort Detroit although it was suppose to be an American fort. Plus, there were many Americans who saw the idea of war as a good excuse to seize Canada.

By 1815, both sides pretty much settled. The British promised to stop impressing American citizens and searching American ships. Of course, the Napoleonic wars were also over, so there wasn’t much need for that. The British failed to capture the U.S. West to make it an Indian preserve and the Americans failed to capture Canada. The war ended in a draw.

[RickJay]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

Not really. They are emigrating to the U.S. or to the U.K. or similar countries. They are not joining some other state with profoundly different organizing principles.

So what you’re telling me is that people in free countries seem to like those organizing principles, while people in unfree kleptocracies and hell holes prefer to move to places with different organizing principles.

Well, isn’t that to be expected of people exercising their right to choose? Of course people in nice countries will be unlikely to move to crappy ones, and people in crappy ones will be in a rush to move to nice ones. How does that in any way invalidate my point?

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@RickJay

So what you’re telling me is that people in free countries seem to like those organizing principles, while people in unfree kleptocracies and hell holes prefer to move to places with different organizing principles.

I don’t think I disputed this point.

Well, isn’t that to be expected of people exercising their right to choose? Of course people in nice countries will be unlikely to move to crappy ones, and people in crappy ones will be in a rush to move to nice ones. How does that in any way invalidate my point?

When I say I don’t believe in a social contract (which view of mine is what I took your post to object to), I do not mean to suggest that I do not believe that there are any prevailing social and political institutions to which we submit. I do not even mean that these institutions are entirely exogenous–we, in part, create them just as surely as they, in part, create us. But to liken this individual-society feedback loop to, say, the contract I make when I drop my car off with the mechanic to replace my head gasket, is a gross simplification, and one that strips a lot of what is interesting of the study of societies.

[Lumpy]

@qazwart

It was a bit dirtier than that. The British Navy had impressment officers. If they needed able body men, they’d simply roam the streets looking for them. If you were caught, you were now in the navy.

The same thing happened on the seas too. If a captain needed a few extra bodies, he’d stop a ship and borrow a few. They were only suppose to take British citizens, but who’s going to stop them? After all, they’re the British navy and no one could challenge them.

Things started to get bad with the Napoleonic Wars and that’s when the British would roam the American coast pulling ships over right outside of port. It was one of the reasons for the War of 1812. There were other issues too: The blockade of American trade, the refusal to surrender Fort Detroit although it was suppose to be an American fort. Plus, there were many Americans who saw the idea of war as a good excuse to seize Canada.

By 1815, both sides pretty much settled. The British promised to stop impressing American citizens and searching American ships. Of course, the Napoleonic wars were also over, so there wasn’t much need for that. The British failed to capture the U.S. West to make it an Indian preserve and the Americans failed to capture Canada. The war ended in a draw.

What I was wondering was if this was just playing fast and loose with the law, or if official British policy was “the Treaty of Paris be damned, any strays we can carry away are British subjects”.