cross-posted from: https://kbin.earth/m/[email protected]/t/2771990
As data centers are shut down by angry mobs and AI surveillance cameras are ripped from their poles, the world’s tech billionaires and CEOs are waking up to the reality that the masses are, broadly speaking, not on board with their plan to automate the world with AI.
I’m not proposing a solution to all conflict. There would still be tensions between countries just like there are today, and some of them will try to do bad things like they already do. Children would also be under the authority of their parents/guardians just like they already are, which leads to problems if the parents/guardians are bad. I can’t control how countries or parents will behave, I can only offer suggestions on how those situations might be handled. It is of course subjective whether a government has lost its legitimacy by harming other countries, harming its own people, or enabling evil within its borders. Country A may see country B as evil and illegitimate because it aborts babies and decide to wage war. Other countries might see this as unjustified aggression and help defend B. But this isn’t really any different to what happens already. Only currently the wars are waged by unaccountable governments who often have very different views from the population and the wars aren’t usually about ideology but power. Wars for power should be less frequent if an individual right to secession is widely accepted because any people or lands that are captured must have a right to break away or the government will look illegitimate.
I’m not saying the system I propose will lead to the best outcome. I’m saying it’s more just and I think it will lead to better outcomes than current systems. But the emphasis is on being more just. Trying to get the best outcome is impossible because people don’t agree on what that is, and the utilitarian pursuit of better outcomes could enable all kinds of atrocities as an alleged means to that end. Giving people more freedom can lead to bad outcomes because they might use that freedom to self-harm, but it’s far more just than restricting everyone’s freedom and in any case it probably will lead to better outcomes too because the power to restrict freedoms tends to be abused.
I’m saying people can form any kind of society they want. It can be communist, fascist, open borders, closed borders, just don’t expect to be treated nicely by neighboring countries if you’re harming them or they think you’re doing heinous things within your own borders. And I think not allowing people to leave your country should be seen as a heinous restriction on freedom. Is it possible that some people will want a system of government that doesn’t let people leave? I suppose a retarded or malevolent majority could want that, but the minority who don’t want that should be allowed to leave and the fact that they aren’t would make the government illegitimate to my mind.
I feel like I’m failing to communicate the issues I’m seeing here.
You are proposing that anyone should be able to simply associate with who they want and then, with those people, form harmonious societies/countries/states. Am I misunderstanding this?
Lets say my parents were in such a society. In this society, they are theocratic and Christian. They punish anyone caught committing a “homosexual act”. Now imagine I am caught kissing someone of my own gender in, I don’t know, middle school, and I’m punished harshly. How is this society any more just for me just because my parents were able to consent to it? I am born into this society - I did not choose it or consent to its governance. Can I, as a middle school kid, just… go to another society before I’m able to explore who I am? Where do the resources come from? Who cares for me while I travel and after I get there?
Now imagine I’m someone else. I join that same theocratic society and later realize I’m bisexual and want to leave for a different society that is more accepting and tolerant of my sexuality. Am I guaranteed the resources to find that new society?
But you are proposing a more “just” starting point (inside each society) which, within a generation, may be almost indistinguishable from our current situation. How does the previous generation having consented make it a more legitimate government for the following generation?
You are also more or less hand waving the problem of international conflict by assuming it will be in most countries best interests to police each other… but only to the extent that it doesn’t disrupt each society’s ability to be what they want to be? Of course, there will be some clear line that most countries will recognize as the point at which it becomes justifiable to suppress that freedom should the citizens of another country cross it…yeah, again, this sounds more less like just hitting some magic reset button and watching everything go bad to what it is now but with all the assholes concentrated together and everyone else divided by nuanced opinions that they may or may not share with the younger generations…?
Look, I get it. Things suck and it would be great if people who be who they want to be, do what they want to do, and everyone would more or less get along. Unfortunately, we are stuck trying to collectively figure it out something that we hope works for as many people as possible and might suck for some other people. Part of that is taxes.
While everything is kind of fucked right now, I still don’t think it’s good to set the precedent of “If I don’t like what the government is doing I don’t have to pay my taxes.”
No that is correct.
This is my own opinion, but children (the specific age we’re talking about depends on the subject and the culture) aren’t generally competent enough to make important choices like moving to another country and therefore it’s usually in the child’s best interest to have their parents determine things for them like where they live. It also seems part of the natural order that the parents/guardians of a child get to determine how they are raised, including what moral values they are taught. While I may not agree with someone teaching their child to be Muslim, who am I to deprive them of the right to raise their children according to their values?
Some societies might decide to give children rights to autonomy, and I’m inclined to think that a society should be allowed to try that, although it will end in disaster sooner or later and other countries might in my opinion have a moral obligation to step in eventually.
No I’m not proposing a starting point. I’m proposing that at any time someone should be able to decide they don’t like the country they’re in and either move to another country that will accept them or take some land and secede to form a new country or join to an existing one that will accept them. So every competent person once they reach adulthood (however that is defined by the country of residence) will have the opportunity to leave their country, or do so later in life. This means at any point in time the country is comprised of people (and their children and mentally incompetent dependents) who consent to be under that system. That’s what makes the government legitimate at all times and not just for the first generation.
But why are we stuck in this situation? Why couldn’t we have people separate into groups that agree on things like they naturally want to? Why are we forced to make some compromise between the group A that wants X to be illegal and group B that wants X to be legal? And then either group A is forced to violate their consciences supporting and paying taxes for what they consider evil or group B is punished for what they think is fine or even a moral duty? That just makes groups A and B constantly fight each other and form cliques and the country is divided and inefficient. Why? I think the reason is obvious. Because those who rule the country do not want to give up their power, most of which they would do by allowing secession. But things don’t need to be this way. With enough public recognition of the right to individual secession it would have to be allowed. And once one country allows it many will want to move there and other countries would be pressured to uphold the right.
But how do can you deny the argument that taxation is theft to those who never consented to their government? It’s just taking people’s money under threat of force and using it however the illegitimate government wishes. Even if the money was only used for the most upright causes with maximal efficiency it would still be theft because it lacks consent. Charities can’t take my money unless I made an agreement with them, and in the same way governments can’t unless I made an agreement without coercion.
You ignored a massive point that i repeated in both my examples.
Relocating is not a trivial task and, to a degree and depending on where we are moving to, we have the freedom to do that already. The vast, vast majority of societies don’t forbid their citizens from leaving if they aren’t wanted for a crime… it’s the destination societies that place limitations on who they want to admit and how. Is that a right you want to deny to societies in this utopia? If you are free to associate with who you want, why can’t you limit who can associate with you?
It’s also not trivial to find land to start a new society. Most land is claimed at this point. If one society or another has already laid claim to every piece of land, what then? Do you propose that unutilized land is unable to be claimed? Can a society that values the natural environment not claim and limit how much of it can be utilized or claimed by its citizens?
This is what I’m saying - this society assumes unlimited resources for relocation and the formation of new societies. It grants rights that, ultimately, infringe on those same rights when they might be required by others.
Where does land for new societies come from? Where do the resources to freely relocate come from? How is this so drastically different from the forces that make it difficult to relocate in most existing societies?
When resources and land are unavailable for your utopia, the core premise is removed and we’re where we are right now.