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

a reply to: Metallicus


I think that they should be able to for sure... but rights are usually granted by some "body" or government or organisation so I don't know if it is a right, but they absolutely should be able to and if it's not a right then it should be.

a reply to: Metallicus

Metallicus...yes, humans do have the right from birth of being un-governed and unbound by the artificial constraints of society.

With our current model...where, no, you do not.....it is no different than that of a puppy mill. Keep the bitch pregnant, breed more pups, keep watching your bank account increase in size.

I think the primary example I see of this are the localities and states that are not allowing people to live off the grid, outside of society and societal utilities.

Solar power? Wind power? Collect your own rain water? Hell no. You need to open your wallet to us. You HAVE to suckle at our teat.

You could move to the Northwest territories in Canada build a cabin and not be bothered. But I would find a group of people to go with you. Its rough in North Canada. Have you seen the movie the beach with DeCaprio? It was pretty good. But in any civilized area unless you get paid cash you will pay taxes and have to report it or go to jail. You have to have government IDs to do business and have a bank account. My uncle lived under the radar for the last 20 years. Hes a bumb. And lives in a 2000 dollar fema trailer on some bought property not his. You can do it. But if you get caught you will be jailed usually.

I think to live free of all the problems of an organized society, you have to live somewhere without the benefits of such. So no health care, no grocery stores, no modern medicine, no services, no electricity, no communication, etc. Even in modern countries, there are still places where you can disappear. Wilds of Alaska and upper Canada come to mind, as do jungles in South America or parts of Southeast Asia. It's possible to be far enough from anything, where it's usually not worth the effort for anyone to go looking for you. Resources are whatever you can manage on your own, but if knowledgable enough you can make yourself scarce while living off the land. However this may not be legal, so you'd have to "stealth-it" and you'd be on your own. Likewise you're going to be in places where you may not be #1 in the food chain, as that's how remote those places are.

Possible but not easy. Have to rough-it on your own. But again once you're in the midst of everyone, you have to play by the established rules - despite how stupid some of them may be. It's a trade-off.

I think it's sad that a lot of of comments talk about "costs" of living free. Living cost. Period. Being free on the other hand is different. It's a mental thing. Anything that interferes with being free is worth a fight. Again, as stated earlier, Freedom is declared and requires one to make it known. In other words, I am a free human being regardless of all attempts to deny it. Does it cost to live?...Yes. Do you have to be rich to be free?....No. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar and a enemy. Any government that denies freedom is criminal in nature and should be dealt with.

Every living creature on this planet has a RIGHT to live free should it so desire. It's not going to happen though because there's too many control freak evil people.

If a person wants to try their hand at living in nature nobody has any true right or authority to prevent that. That won't stop them from arresting and/or murdering any who try though, naturally.

homesteading. im seriously considering it.

a reply to: Metallicus

Yes, a human does the right to live outside of society. That human does not have the right to decide where 'society' starts and ends, however. For instance, a person can't just say, 'I'm out!', and start to live 'outside of society' while still living in his/her house, in the center of town, or attached to any developed area. You want to live outside of society, then go outside of society and start living. Have a good time. I hope you enjoy it.

a reply to: WeRpeons

You have to have some rules in society or you end up having anarchy.

The etymology of anarchy is "without rulers," not "without rules."

Your premise here implies that the only possible form of human organization that doesn't lead to chaos, is rulership by some over others.

Human beings do not need rulers to avoid chaos.

For example, if we didn't have government regulations on forming monopolies, consumers would be paying out the nose for consumer products. If we didn't have government programs like OSHA or allow organized labor, we would still have unsafe working conditions. No laws, crime would be rampant.

Government protects monopolies, in fact, government is a monopoly.

a reply to: pauljs75

I think to live free of all the problems of an organized society, you have to live somewhere without the benefits of such. So no health care, no grocery stores, no modern medicine, no services, no electricity, no communication, etc.

Why do you get to decide the associations that other people make?

If I am a baker and live in the woods, and a surgeon moves-in next to me, and we trade services/goods with one another: by our actions, what claim do you have over what rules we follow?

a reply to: TownCryer

Yes, a human does the right to live outside of society. That human does not have the right to decide where 'society' starts and ends, however.

Then why do you?

For instance, a person can't just say, 'I'm out!', and start to live 'outside of society' while still living in his/her house, in the center of town, or attached to any developed area. You want to live outside of society, then go outside of society and start living.

You have obviously endowed yourself with the authority to decide where "society starts and ends."

originally posted by: CharlestonChew
a reply to: pauljs75

I think to live free of all the problems of an organized society, you have to live somewhere without the benefits of such. So no health care, no grocery stores, no modern medicine, no services, no electricity, no communication, etc.

Why do you get to decide the associations that other people make?

If I am a baker and live in the woods, and a surgeon moves-in next to me, and we trade services/goods with one another: by our actions, what claim do you have over what rules we follow?

How do you get the yeast to bake? Do you build your own oven? Do you grow your own wheat? Where do the seeds come from? Is the surgeon self trained? Does he make his own surgical tools?

Opting out society is impossible if you want enjoy the benefits that modern society has developed.

I would argue that the heart of this debate is authority. The implication seems to be that authority is ascribed to "society."

Unfortunately, "society" is not a living, breathing entity, and by ascribing to it a thing that only real objects can possess (in this case, authority), we are committing the reification fallacy:



Ambiguity in this form is a tool, used either by the ignorant doing "good" even if their premise is naive at best, or the manipulative who strive for power over others.

Society can be defined as some arbitrary number of humans, greater than one, living in close proximity to one another. That alone does not lend itself for us to be able to deduce the derivation of authority. To do so, we have to define authority:



The first part of the definition deals with what authority is: having the absolute sole right to exact obedience from another.

But, how do we gain authority?

For instance, let us imagine that three people--person A, person B, and person C--are living within close proximity of one another.

1. If person A gives his explicit consent to person B, to allow person B to hold authority over him, does person B's authority also extend to person C?

2. If person B and person C began trading goods and services with one another, does person A automatically gain authority over 1 or both of them (or neither)?

3. Does person A, person B, or person C have some qualifying, natural characteristic that automatically ascribes the right of authority to them over the other two?

a reply to: ScepticScot

You didn't answer my question.

Why do you get to decide the associations that other people make?

If I am a baker and live in the woods, and a surgeon moves-in next to me, and we trade services/goods with one another: by our actions, what claim do you have over what rules we follow?

originally posted by: CharlestonChew
a reply to: ScepticScot

You didn't answer my question.

Why do you get to decide the associations that other people make?

If I am a baker and live in the woods, and a surgeon moves-in next to me, and we trade services/goods with one another: by our actions, what claim do you have over what rules we follow?

I have no personal say on rules you follow, society on the other hand (through whatever legal mechanism it has) can set the rules. You of course can opt not to follow them but unrealistic to expect no consequences.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I have no personal say on rules you follow, society on the other hand (through whatever legal mechanism it has) can set the rules. You of course can opt not to follow them but unrealistic to expect no consequences.

How can an abstraction be possessed with anything?

originally posted by: CharlestonChew
a reply to: ScepticScot

I have no personal say on rules you follow, society on the other hand (through whatever legal mechanism it has) can set the rules. You of course can opt not to follow them but unrealistic to expect no consequences.

How can an abstraction be possessed with anything?

I suppose that whether society is an abstraction depends on your chosen definition of society. If you prefer government, state, the people, the council or any other such term feel free its irrelevant to the point.

In real terms they can and will enforce rules that they set. Prison cells are certainly not an abstraction.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I suppose that whether society is an abstraction depends on your chosen definition of society. If you prefer government, state, the people, the council or any other such term feel free its irrelevant to the point.

In real terms they can and will enforce rules that they set. Prison cells are certainly not an abstraction.

Your claim is that society holds authority. Society is an abstraction and cannot hold authority over a thing. The same with government, state, "the people," or "the council." They are all abstractions.

One individual is not an abstraction, neither are five or one million. Those entities exist. But, only an individual can hold authority, the question being: where does his authority come from?

If you agree that Donald, Hillary, or Bernie may hold authority over you, why does your agreement extend to anyone other than yourself?

a reply to: CharlestonChew

Society, or the state as society's agent, holds authority because they can enforce it. Why they can enforce it varies from system to system but that ultimately remains true of all.

You or I can disagree that an individual or group should have authority, but ultimately if they can enforce a rule then they do have authority. That is how society (the term you seem to hate so much) works. You can try an opt out but it seems unrealistic to say least.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Society, or the state as society's agent, holds authority because they can enforce it.

You are committing the reification fallacy by claiming that either society or the state can hold authority. Neither of those things exist in the physical realm, they are only concepts, e.g., abstractions. A concept cannot hold authority, a human being can.

Individuals hold authority, not societies, states, governments, or any other abstractions.

Then you go on to claim that they have authority because they can enforce it. Which means that the truth of their authority may not even be moral, it simply becomes a contest between groups and "who has the bigger guns," or "might makes right."

Why they can enforce it varies from system to system but that ultimately remains true of all.

This is circular reasoning: "Well, they have authority, so it must be right for them to have it."

You or I can disagree that an individual or group should have authority, but ultimately if they can enforce a rule then they do have authority.

Having the ability to bully people is not evidence that your authority was gained on any moral truth. It simply means that you are attacking people without just cause.

That is how society (the term you seem to hate so much) works. You can try an opt out but it seems unrealistic to say least.

Well, we haven't decided yet how people come into authority, or if their authority is right and moral. All you have stated thus far is "some people have authority and it is right and true because they have authority."

So, if you agree that Donald, Hillary, or Bernie may hold authority over you, why does your agreement extend to anyone other than yourself?