Another great post by Roger Young, this one in the spirit of Lysander Spooner:
US Loyalists will argue that I “consent” to governance by their state due to the fact I:
1) obey laws I disagree with (and therefore give consent by default) and
2) remain living within the state’s claimed jurisdiction (instead of finding some other place to live).
“Consent” is surely a meaningless formality when a gun is put to your head with the instructions, “Obey” or be locked in a cage or be forced to surreptitiously make your way “across zee border.” When a robber sticks a firearm in your face and demands your wallet, does your obedience to this demand imply that you have agreed to be governed by him? If you don't agree, should you not resist but instead move yourself to a location where he can no longer find you and rob you again?
I always marvel at the “you have the freedom to leave” argument. Why should I leave just because some organization (whose creation precedes my birth) claims a monopoly of power over my life and property?
Read the rest