Does a Human Being Have a Right to Exist Free from Government and Society?

a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

I certainly think one of us fails to understand what government is.

I asked the OP how someone living free of all society and government would be possible. Not is it legally or ethically possible but just how it would be possible. Human being interact and as soon as people interact there is automatically society.

Society and government is not about whether people can look after themselves, it is about how people live/work/function together.

Can you describe how a model of any population greater than 1 would function without society or some from of government.

a reply to: Metallicus

Does a Human Being Have a Right to Exist Free from Government and Society? - Yes of course they do.

So long as they live by the value of 'do no harm to others.'

Note also that they do not need governments permission to do so either.

Note that we are all born as free, independent, sovereign human beings and we are born with certain unaliable rights.

Note also that we had rights long before government come along and that we will have rights long after government has gone.

Note that the obligation of government is to protect our rights to be free to live our lives as we please so long as we do so without harming others.

Note that government does not have the right to take any rights away from us.

Note that rights are not rights turned into privileges that govt can give us or take away from us. Mind you, they are doing this and getting away with it. See the rant on the infringement system. It explains how they are building walls around our rights.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

I certainly think one of us fails to understand what government is.

I asked the OP how someone living free of all society and government would be possible. Not is it legally or ethically possible but just how it would be possible. Human being interact and as soon as people interact there is automatically society.

Society and government is not about whether people can look after themselves, it is about how people live/work/function together.

Can you describe how a model of any population greater than 1 would function without society or some from of government.

We both understand what goverment is, but i also think we both understand what the OP meant

Goverment = as in someone to rule you
And society = as in THIS society

there will always be society, if there is a group of people together, sure, but maybe it could be based in different ideas than this one

we have a representive democracy, which means you vote for your ruler
A true democracy means you rule yourself, and have your OWN vote, that means NO goverment, other than yourself, and it does exist

Here is one example:
Thy Camp Denmark

ETA:
This place have about ZERO crimes, gang colours arent allowed, and they respect that. Its very peacefull
Its the older brother of the more famous freetown Christinia in copenhagen, which was founded the year after the Thy camp. This place is the exact opposite, GOVERNT by gangs, not free at all, and is mostly about drug trades

I have been both places, and the only reasons i havent moved to the Thy Camp, is because its to far away from my family and friends, and their tobacco is a little to strong for my taste, if you get my drift

As a young man I often had that very same feeling and we shared it with our whole generation. The slogan "Stop the world, I want to deboard" was heard every now and then.

Purple Schulz interpreted this mood in his song "Sehnsucht/Ich will raus" (Longing/I want to get out). Listen to it and enjoy the sad pins and needles. Maybe it gives some energy to keep on. I put a translation beneath the vid.



Longing

Rain is falling, cold wind
Sky grey, woman beats child
No nerves and so alone
This cannot be paradise
Men are coming home tiredly
The cold soul flies out
Child must weep, child must cry
Crying makes tired and child gets asleep
I have got homesickness
Wanderlust? Longing
I don't know what it is
No stars in the night
Little child has woken up
Child aks, where the stars are
Oh, what do I know, my child
Is that big skewed moon
Well inhabited by someone
Why is the sky empty
Is there nobody left up there? I have got longing
I just want to get away
Very far away
I want to get out! Why did you give birth to me
Before I was there I was lost already
Country of the hangmen, nowhere land
The paradise is burned down
I have got homesickness
Wanderlust? Longing
I don't know what it is
I just want to get away
Very far away
I want to get out!

a reply to: Metallicus

This is an excellent (and timely) subject! S&F for you.

It is an excellent topic for a couple of reasons. One, because it is a legitimate question at face value. Secondly (and possibly more importantly), because it provides an excellent window into the minds of many of the responders. If enough people respond you could theoretically capture enough metrics to determine why it is, or is not, possible.

The real answer to your question, unfortunately, is not whether it is possible, but rather whether society will allow it, hence the second point above.

It is also a timely question. A couple of posters have referenced people who live "off the grid", and this is a growing trend. However, in a number of places this trend is being met with increasing objection. Just recently in a small town in the state of Colorado this question has come to bear in a very real and legal way. As it stands right now, all of the court rulings and regulations seem to suggest the answer to your question is "No, people are not allowed to be free from government". Much of the justification behind this posture is as other posters here have stated; that people benefit from the infrastructure and services provided by the government and therefore it is essentially "unfair" to other 'citizens' to permit this lifestyle. An interesting question has come out of the Colorado discussion which is testing the validity of the official argument; "Okay, what if I'm willing to pay for what I use, and not pay for what I don't?"

The official argument quickly falls apart when you start applying the above question in a legal way. It becomes quickly apparent that government officials are more interested in protecting services which the majority don't support versus those they do.

So, fundamentally, we need to refocus some of the questions, to turn some of them around and force government, not the people, to justify why programs exist which are not supported by the majority (or anywhere near it). Government, as a whole, doesn't do very well (nor does it appreciate it) when it starts being questioned and forced to justify its actions.

Perhaps this is where we start.

At the core of the issue is that of taxes, and what these taxes pay for. So, just for fun, let's create a list of some examples and then let's make an honest assessment, put a check mark next to them if we really "need" the government to provide these things. Everyone is going to have a slightly different assessment, but this is a good thing. Programs should only be funded based on the 'people's' support of these programs. Remember, some 'services' are privatized, but still publicly regulated by government entities such as a PUC so they are still government services. So, in this context, we have to divide services into two broad categories: (1.) services which are built into property taxes, and (2.) other services which are built into other taxes like income, sales, excise and all manner of other taxes.

Some examples (and my take on them, without any major distinction of which tax group they fall into)...

- National defense - check
- Roads - check
- Police/Fire/EMS - check
- Education - nope
- Commerce - nope
- Energy (oil, gas & nuke) - nope
- Welfare - nope
- Urban development - nope
- Agriculture - nope
- Health and human services - nope
- Homeland security - check, but with some exceptions (CBP - yes, TSA - no, etc.)
- Interior - nope
- Justice - nope, not at a federal level
- Labor - nope
- State - maybe
- Transportation - FAA, yes - balance, nope
- Navy - check
- Treasury - NOPE!
- Veterans Affairs - check
- Independent agencies - NOPE! (with the exception of the US post office)
- Quasi official agencies - nope
- Private regulatory corporations - nope
- 'Government entities - nope

- Electric - check
- Gas - nope
- Phone - nope
- Trash removal - nope
- Water - nope
- Sewer - nope

Now imagine for a moment if our taxes were based on what we used / willing to pay for (all the "check" items). As I noted, all people will be different, but look at how much unnecessary fluff is in big government. There are so many areas which could be handled in a much more efficient, if even privatized way. The list above is mainly federal agencies, but a similar list could easily be developed for state and local as well.

Final tally:
check - 7-'ish'
nope - 21

Pretty compelling picture isn't it?

I don't know, I must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, but this OP is pissing me off.

Such a first world problem. Wah, wah, wah, I don't want to have to pay taxes. Wah, wah, wah, I don't want to have to wear seat belts just because the government says I have to. Wah, wah, wah, why should I have to follow any laws at all. Wah, wah, wah. Sitting there in your nice home, with your nice car, with your stomach full, and a nice bundle of savings.

Someone living in rural Africa would probably want to punch you in the face for complaining while living the life of a king compared to them.

Wah, wah, wah.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
I don't know, I must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, ...

Pretty much!

Mr. Zulu warrior you refer to also pays taxes. He pays taxes to warlords and marauders in order to be left alone. His taxes might not take the form of money, but rather crops, hides, meat, etc., but they're still taxes of a sort. So, while Mr. Zulu warrior might want to punch the OP in the face because of a better lifestyle, it has nothing to do with taxes.

So yeah, go back to bed (and get up off the other side)!

Well, I have similar sentiments about the matter.

The best solution i have found is something similar to the South African Ubuntu movement (Link to their site).

Don't fight the TPTB, undermine them by their own rules and let citizens choose the system that makes them happy. I doesn't mean there are no rules, the rules are just different and bring more contentment to the individuals participating. I for one miss the old times in our country when you knew your small town neighbor and everyone helped around when it was for instance harvest season or building of the community house. People kept their doors unlocked (even when not at home, just a broom was left leaning against the front door so people knew nobody was at home) and watched over and trusted each other.

In the Ubuntu system, you have to decide as a community member, do you want to take part or not? If you do not take part, you pay taxes for community services and products (just like in the TPTB system). If you take part, you get most services for free ( your alloted amount of all that is produced, excess is sold for money on the free market). I would gladly participate in this kind of system where you also have a personal vote on community matters. You actually see and can decide where your efforts are spent to better the community.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Yeah, Zulu has to pay taxes AND have a horrible life to boot. OP pays taxes and doesn't have to worry about finding clean water every day (unless he lives in Flint Michigan).

If I was religious, I'd say I was blessed to have been born in America, but I know it was just luck of the draw. And boy have I been lucky, with my upper middle class home in my upper middle class neighborhood and my life of leisure as a stay at home mom and my extra 30 pounds of eating too much good food. The OP is lucky too, if he would just admit it.

I'll go back to my bed on my tempurpedic mattress in my upper middle class home now, after I eat my fantastic breakfast and drink my clean, filtered water. Maybe after I get up, I'll get in my nice car and drive to... wherever I want, just because I can!

originally posted by: kaylaluv
I don't know, I must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, but this OP is pissing me off.

Such a first world problem. Wah, wah, wah, I don't want to have to pay taxes. Wah, wah, wah, I don't want to have to wear seat belts just because the government says I have to. Wah, wah, wah, why should I have to follow any laws at all. Wah, wah, wah. Sitting there in your nice home, with your nice car, with your stomach full, and a nice bundle of savings.

Someone living in rural Africa would probably want to punch you in the face for complaining while living the life of a king compared to them.

Wah, wah, wah.

Yes and someone living in rural Africa would probably want to punch YOU in the face, because you think YOUR way of living, is so much superior to anyone else...

What your saying is "Dont complain about being hit in the face, cause someone else got hit twice"

I will advice you to try to go outside your door one day, and take a good hard look at what you see!! If you really think that everybody has a nice home, car and a nice saving, your so far from reality you can be!!
Try to find a homeless man, and tell him he is so much more superior than the african people, but i warn you, YOU might get punch in the face...

Nobody can just start from scratch in the wilderness alone. Some people said : "Well if you save money and then..." Saving money from living in society, well that breaks the idea since one would need to abuse of society until they took what they wanted from it.

Self made-man is a total fallacy unless you want to die before 40 years old and during that 40 years, you won't have time to do anything else than focusing on survival. No books, no music, no arts other than yourself.

Good luck making new pairs of shoes, new clothes, new tools without society lending a hand.

I rather be a slave to a society that lives with me than being a slave of my own needs every single second. There is no one on ATS that's 100% self reliant because they just wouldn't have the time beyond focusing on their basic needs. Society as freed us from the chains of survival and we should all be glad for it.

The problem isn't the people, it's the rulers. Instead of dreaming in a total fallacy, we should be finding ways to make society better.

a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

Is the OP homeless? I seem to remember previous posts from him talking about how well off he was financially. I wonder if he would be willing to give up all his material possessions, and be homeless, accepting handouts for food. He wouldn't have to pay taxes then, would he. He is complaining about first world problems while not suffering in the least. Oh I guess he has to wear a seatbelt and obey traffic laws, he has to go through security at airports while flying to his tropical vacation destination, and he can't smoke in certain areas. Boo hoo.

It's not about being or feeling superior. It's about knowing how lucky you really are.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: NoFearsEqualsFreeMan

Is the OP homeless? I seem to remember previous posts from him talking about how well off he was financially. I wonder if he would be willing to give up all his material possessions, and be homeless, accepting handouts for food. He wouldn't have to pay taxes then, would he. He is complaining about first world problems while not suffering in the least. Oh I guess he has to wear a seatbelt and obey traffic laws, he has to go through security at airports while flying to his tropical vacation destination, and he can't smoke in certain areas. Boo hoo.

It's not about being or feeling superior. It's about knowing how lucky you really are.

Did you even read the OP??? Please point out to me where it speaks about wearing seatbelts and such

Why dont you ask the OP, if thats how he feels?? Its sounds like you know him better than himself, or are you just saying those things because you dont want to hear the truth?

Its nice for you, you found someone who is willing to pay for you, so you can "work" at home... Have you thought about, that the OP might feels bad about that we have to RAPE the african people your talking about for all their riches, in order for you to live the way you do??

Nah, forget it, its the seatbelt thing, you can go back to sleep now, without having to worry about a thing...

I feel you angst but unless and until you can find some new, unclaimed land somewhere, you're SOL. Everything is taken and so you must yield to the absurdities of whoever claims it.

Perhaps turning the question around would help... By what right does the government or society lay claim to a person.

Example: A person becomes a Natural born citizen based on laws determined by the laws that govern a given nation. Each nation is thus free to determine their own laws for citizenship. In times past, nations have removed citizenship rights of certain peoples. Because the nation as a political state is free to make their own laws are they not also free to revoke those laws and thus strip one of citizenship? In the ancient world a citizen of one nation could become a citizen of another through conquest or they could be free in one nation and a slave in another, and indeed in the very same nation citizenship has been shown to be fluid and defined generationally.

Why does this matter? Nations define citizenship based of the capriciousness of that particular nation and anyone would agree that no nation lasts forever. America has very forgiving citizenship requirement while North Korea has very demanding citizenship requirement. One is free, the other is a dictatorship and yet both agree that citizenship by birth is compulsory.

This means then that a nation claims a person by proximity to the laws of that nation.

When we consider it this way we then have to ask, by what right does a nation lay claim to the area of the globe which they control in order to then dictate that a person born in that area belongs to that nation. Divine Right? Cultural traditions? Legal precedent? Changing fashions?

Yes...a human being should be allowed to exist independently. But government has forbid it. So no...a human doesn't actually have the right, in reality.

Good question. I care not for those who criticize those who question as you. In fact, I could care less what people think or say. I've wondered the same question in the past. However, I decided I already knew the answer. I, like others, have the right to exist. Period. I also have the right to be free. I have the right to question authority. I do have the right to say what I want. I have the right to own firearms for personal security. Also, I have the right to live free with no interference of others. These are God given rights regardless of "Laws" stating otherwise.

In today's world where we are victimized by those who think otherwise, I only adhere to Laws I agree with. I.e., smoking pot. I do not however i may in the future if I believe I would benefit from smoking pot for therapeutic reasons. Hell...I may decide I want to smoke pot if for no other reason than I like smoking pot. Gov. Chris Christie can kiss my ass if he disagrees. In fact, I have low tolerance of many laws designed to curve my future behavior. Such as paying the city for a Dogs licence. # the city and the horse they ride on. I bring that up because recently I let my dog out to pee and and the animal control thugs stopped ( they just happened to be driving past the house ) to give a ticket of not having the dog on a leash. The dog was on my property and again they can kiss my ass. They saw "Rottweiler" and assumed we are criminals number one. # em.

The real problem in America is govt. over-reach. For instance, DUI Law is old and with good reason. People should not drive intoxicated. However, many news laws been enacted in the past few decades to "re-enforce the original. Now, you will be arrested and charged with a crime if you are parked in your driveway drinking beer and listening to the radio. To do so requires the key in the ignition. Hell...maybe the wife and kids got you pulling out your hair. Who knows and who cares. Yet to current Laws you are guilty of DUI. You are not driving nor are you on city, state and federal roads. If convicted you will be classified as one who was intoxicated and putting others in peril as one who was actually driving on the roads. You will be convicted for DUI although you were not doing what the law forbids. Total bull#. Such laws are nothing less that a generator of funds to the govt.

Now some will argue such laws are warranted to keep people in line. # them. That is an opinion and only a opinion. Yet my rights are curtailed and my wallet is arrested. Why is this a concern? Because in the land of the free, every state-house and other govt. officials are in the business of creating new laws. In fact, they often call such laws by the name of the legislator who dreams up the law. Anyone who studies the system knows Government = Force. They create these silly laws to get in your pocket. It is what it is and often I don't agree with the law. As far as I'm concerned if i disagree i do not participate in their dog and pony show. And for those who care, there is enough laws on the books that a any law abiding person and of high stature can no go anywhere in the country without violating a number of laws. They may not be aware yet under strict observation they committed violations to laws and or ordinances. That is the conclusion of studies by universities or professional experts.

Getting back to your question, I know I'm a free man. I make that decision. I decide. nobody else makes that decision. If I'm jailed by those who claim otherwise, they are wrong and I'm right. While in jail I'm a political prisoner and regardless of their system and their records, I decide if and when I'm guilty of breaking any laws. In other words, you are a freeman until you decide otherwise. i t's not what others may think, it's what you know and demand.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
I feel you angst but unless and until you can find some new, unclaimed land somewhere, you're SOL. Everything is taken and so you must yield to the absurdities of whoever claims it.

Sadly, your observation is both right and wrong in some respects.

For the longest time the federal government has welcomed people who will improve "unclaimed" land. Now, they want to take that land back under their administrative rule. Is it right? I'm not sure I know the answer, but it doesn't seem to square with their objective to begin with.

interesting discussion. I'm not sure if I understand why "independence", "personal accountability" and "self reliance" is now all of a sudden a bad thing.

After all...isn't this what the country was founded upon?

a reply to: Metallicus

I couldn't agree more. I thought my whole idea behind joining this forum was to find people who know what's going on, who think outside the box, etc etc. But instead I'm just finding a lot of normal people who don't know much about how anything works. I'm not saying I know it all either. But I know some. I'm a conspiracy theory buff.

but to get back to your post, you can live off grid. There's tons of info on how to start going that. You just got to get unplugged. But the problem is you can't easily completely unplug. People generally get by easier with a cc and a drivers license. thank goodness for stuff like bi-thaa- coin. and other alternatives that can help you get off grid. Like I had no idea we live in nazi germany. At least I have a better understanding of what the jews went through in ww2. Salinistic soviet russia eat your heart out ...we're in north america!!!! Just shoot me now!