
Life as a Service - emwa
http://jacquesmattheij.com/life-as-a-service
======
confluence
I've made up my own law of selfish libertarianism - if you'll indulge me:

> _It's only a liability or an entitlement until you yourself need it - then
> it's a fucking right._

For example being a young white male born into a middle class western family
affords you the ability to state "all I need is contract law - everything else
is just impinging on my rights and forcing me to take on obligations I don't
appear to benefit from - I deserve what I earn."

No health problems + family and state support + faulty logic + short
sightedness + sex/race advantages = libertarianism.

Contract law is no more a right than free health care is. But one definitely
serves your self interests better. Rights should be based on the veil of
ignorance principle - the weak should be protected and the strong should pay
for they are one car crash away from welfare.

The lense people should be looking through is that of the weakest in society -
not having a geek hissy fit and fantasizing of going Galt because you feel
others are holding you back.

If you don't like it - leave. Somalia is lovely this time of year I hear.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Rights should be based on the veil of ignorance principle - the weak should
be protected and the strong should pay for they are one car crash away from
welfare._

Your moral values seems to hold that individuals have few rights, and that
collectively we should operate from the principle of infinite risk aversion
(i.e., the Rawlsian veil of ignorance). Great - we all agree that if these are
your values, Libertarianism is not the political philosophy for you.

It's amusing that while mocking Rand, you make the exact same fallacy she
makes in Atlas Shrugged: "anyone who disagrees with me must be evil and
selfish, with no moral values."

 _If you don't like it - leave. Somalia is lovely this time of year I hear._

I'm constantly confused when those who oppose libertarianism bring up Somalia.
What is the relevance?

~~~
jmcqk6
Somalia is, or at least was, a land without a government. If libertarians or
randians are correct, it should be a land flowing with milk and honey. Of
course, this is not the case. At least, that is how the argument goes.

I'm a former libertarian of the anarcho-capatilist-rand flavor, and I think
there are _much_ better arguments against that stance than somalia.

~~~
endersshadow
Libertarianism is not anarchism, nor does it ever purport to be. In fact,
libertarianism holds that a government _should_ be in place, and that its job
is to protect the rights (defined by libertarianism--most often, the Bill of
Rights is pointed to) of its citizens.

~~~
jmcqk6
Libertarians do overlap quite a bit with anarcho-capatilism and randism. _You_
might not define libertarianism that way, but many do. The best you might say
is something like, 'libertarianism, as espoused by [X], hold that a government
should be in place.' As a counter example, I can easily find self-identified
libertarians who are anarchists.

edit: grammar and clarification.

------
msluyter
_"Even so, I’d be a lot happier paying taxes if there had been a moment where
I was given the choice: pay taxes and have these benefits or be left to your
own devices."_

Except that there's no (current, easy) way of excluding you from various
public goods that are paid by taxes. Examples include national defense, public
spaces like parks, public highways, fire protection (if you live in shared
housing or simply close enough to others such that we can't take the risk of
letting your house burn down), etc...

That's why these goods are called "non-excludable." See:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excludability>

~~~
mibbitier
One thing I've never understood, is why a seemingly large number of Americans
don't seem to see the similarity between public fire protection, and a public
health service.

Aren't these two things pretty essential for civilisation?

~~~
po
In some places, fire protection is apparently up for debate. This family had
their house burn down because they failed to pay the $75 tax. It's only fair
after all:

[http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/tennessee-family-
home-b...](http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/tennessee-family-home-burns-
while-firefighters-watch-191241763.html)

I think it's even been given the unfortunate name 'pay to spray'. Fire
prevention is just as much up for debate amongst people of a certain
ideological bent as healthcare. It's the next logical step. Of course, most
people don't want to live in that world which is why we have compulsory
payments. Those who see them as a positive thing will probably always have to
tolerate those who complain about how unfair they are.

~~~
gaius
Flip it around tho', they were asking firefighters to quite literally risk
their lives for them, when they weren't even community-spirited enough to
contribute towards the common good. Unless you have the plague, a doctor
doesn't take nearly the same personal risk as a firefighter.

~~~
po
Sure, that's true and I think people who don't pay the taxes that support the
firemen should be ashamed of themselves and forced to pay. Similarly, I think
firemen should be trained well and paid for the risk they are taking on.

That being said, humans are not very good at reasoning about risk. Fire is a
life-destroying event disproportionate to the perceived risk. It can wipe a
family out and has secondary impacts to the community in general. I think we
should accept that. We don't have to periodically let someone's home burn to
the ground to serve as a lesson to others.

------
Grunnt
Life is not a service. You did not sign a contract. Not everything is a
business agreement. Individualism is not the ultimate value.

I guess that is what bugs me the most about this article: the idea that seems
to underlie it that humans are all rational beings that are somehow
unconnected to society. Or at least the idea that it is morally desirable for
this to be the case.

I do not agree with this. It is individualism taken too far, beyond where the
idea of individualism is meaningful. Human beings need social conditioning as
much as they need food and drink to survive. Anarchism is a nice theory (much
like pure communism or capitalism) but it disregards the nature of human
beings, who need to be embedded in society with all its rules, norms and
conditioning mechanisms to function.

If you want a different society, go into politics, change things for the
better. Don't sit on the couch complaining that the "service" is not as good
as you like.

p.s. Life is life (nanananana)

~~~
elemenohpee
s/anarchism/libertarianism/

While there are certainly strains of individualist anarchism, the dominant
tradition has been that of socialism, which stresses the importance of
community and social relations. You seem to be confusing the maxim of "no
rulers" with "no rules".

------
lifeisstillgood
The essence of the (flawed) argument Jacques is making is in his passport
section

    
    
      I need permission from my government if I want to leave
      the country.
      

Oddly, that's not true. A passport is necessary to get _into_ a country, not
leave one. The distinction is subtle but important. You can if you wish as an
adult, leave the country you are in, and if they will let you in, enter
another with a different set of obligations. At worst you can just bob around
the Atlantic in a bath tub for a bit.

The whole set of complaints boil down to, are there other countries which have
a better setup than the country I am in? Can I go now?

The answer for anyone in the West is of course, not such that you would
notice. And yes, no-one is stopping you. (But I would not recommend the
bathtub option)

Edit: I just realised that it could read as "well if you dont like it F off."
It honestly was not meant like that - but its hard to reword the whole comment
now.

~~~
fingerprinter
You need a passport to leave Australia. Australia has immigration on exit.
Though, that is the only place I've seen this.

~~~
mynegation
For me, it is the other way around: US and Canada don't check your passport at
exit and when that happened to me for the first time I had to ask airport
employee just to make sure I did not take a wrong turn or something. All of
EU, All Latin America countries I've been to, Russia and Ukraine check
passports and there were and still are countries that you cannot leave without
explicit permission from governement (eg North Kirea and Kuba).

------
jonathanleane
I had the good fortune of being born Australian. Through sheer dumb luck I'm
entitled to:

\- Free healthcare \- Free education \- Free roads and parks \- Free safety
and security (i.e. a relatively well functioning police force that will
protect me from violence)

These entitlements are far from perfect, and come with the caveat that if and
when I start earning money, some of it will be taken from me (by threat of
force, if necessary) to go into a communal fund to provide other Australians
with these benefits.

That sucks a bit, but on the other hand I have a legal right to decide, along
with other citizens, on the proportion of my income that is taken, as well as
on the people in charge of managing these communal funds.

Perhaps more importantly, I get to live in a society where other people get
these things too. I'm not saying this from a touchy-feely standpoint - there
are huge benefits to the individual living in such a system.

Because virtually everyone in my country has food in their stomach, a roof
over their head, and a shot at improving their situation through hard work, I
rarely feel unsafe. From a purely selfish standpoint, I am extremely grateful
that most of the people in my country feel they have more to gain by defending
'the system' than by attacking it.

As a business owner, I also have access to a large pool of highly educated
people to work with and millions of (relatively) wealthy people to sell my
products and services to.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I quite liked the article and often
think about how silly and arbitrary things like nationalism and citizenship
are.

And yet...

Sure it sucks that I never really had the opportunity to opt out of the
system, but on the other hand - boy am I lucky that it was opt in by default.

------
Anderkent
While some of the complaints are fair, the conclusion is absurd. The rights
already clearly outweigh the obligations, which the author confirms himself by
stating that "given the option I probably would/should have signed it [the
contract".

It seems to me the author takes many benefits of having the "Life as a
Service" subscription for granted, and thus believes they are not part of the
service - that they would persist even if there was no overseeing
organization. Just to provide an example, the right to own property is only
enforced by the service - without it, you only have the 'right' to own
whatever you can defend yourself (or convince someone to defend for you).

Thus in the 'LaaS' you have to pay taxes, or your property will be
confiscated. Without 'LaaS' you have to be ready to fight for whatever you
own, or your property will be confiscated. Seems like a win for me.

~~~
flyinRyan
But keep in mind; he doesn't seem to be a fan of property rights anyway, so he
probably isn't sympathetic to a position of "defending your land".

------
nagnatron
This hits very close and I guess you only realize it if at some point of your
life you live where you'd rather not but have no way to get out.

    
    
        I need permission from my government if I want to leave
        the country. Being given a passport is apparently not a
        right. Oh and they cost quite a bit of money and are 
        valid only 5 years. That works out to a certain amount of 
        money per day just to be able to exist outside the
        borders of the country I was born in. Good thing it
        doubles as an ID card, I can save a bit there. Now I’ve
        never done anything from the list of offenses that would
        stop me from receiving a passport but I really wonder who 
        gave who the right to stop anybody from going where they
        wanted to go. It makes very little sense to me, all these 
        countries each with their own set of laws, borders,
        border guards to keep people out of one place, border
        guards to keep people in another place and so on. It
        feels as though they’re all prisons, just large enough
        that you can’t see the fences on the edge. But the fences
        are definitely there. And you can only buy your way out.
        Never mind that to go somewhere else you are also going
        to have to buy your way in.

~~~
jschuur
I challenge the 'quite a bit of money' part. Fees for a Dutch passport amount
to about US $100 at the UK embassy e.g. (I'm Dutch, but live in the UK):

<http://www.dutchembassyuk.org/page/index.php?i=158>

Sure, $100 sounds low for many people, even though it's a fortune for some.
However, spread across a 5 year period, it's a little more than 5 cents a day.

~~~
rheide
It's tax for living. It's bad.

~~~
jschuur
It's no such thing. You're not forced to get a passport. Plenty of people live
quite happily in the same country or region they were born. People should
travel, and experience other cultures, but they're not being forced to pay for
a passport if they don't want to.

I see $100 as an administrative fee that covers the process of applying for a
document, the issuing agency reviewing the credentials of the person applying
and then manufacturing it based on the current security standards. If it were
free, it would still come out of tax payers money somehow (FWIW, I'm not a
Dutch taxpayer, since I don't live there).

The fact is, we live in a world with different cultures, different economies,
different norms, and some have chosen to place limitations on who may
enter/visit/move to them. Having documentation to meet another country's
requirements is basic cost of living if I want to participate in a global
society.

It's simply impractical to erase all border controls and have anyone be able
to enter any country without an ID. Poorer populations would seek to better
their lot quicker by moving to a richer country, rather than stimulating the
economy where they're from. It's not ideal, but we can't live in a world where
the entire third world can just decide to move to the industrial world because
they don't impose immigration standards. And in order for them to do so,
passports are needed.

If you can't afford $100 every 5 years, how can you afford to travel to
another country?

------
mbrock
Furthermore, why must I live inside this sack of greasy skin, with all these
disgusting organs?

------
unreal37
Ah Jacques. You've posted some brilliant articles, Three Roads to the Top of
the Mountain[1] is among the best articles I've read on starting a business.
In fact, I will go and read it again after posting this. And seek out some
other good startup/business related articles you have written.

But this Life as a Service article is just incomprehensible to me coming from
you. How selfish! How can the same person who posted the Top of the Mountain
post write this? Not sure how life in the Netherlands is so much different
from here in Canada, but the article is full of things that are either not
true, or overblown. It's depressing to read, and a sad attempt to tear up the
social contract we all must be a part of.

"I have no problem paying taxes, but I wish I had a choice about it."

You can't give people a choice about it. You can't have a society supported by
some people with loads of people refusing to support it. (Too poor to support
it is different.) And how can you complain about that AND complain that the
rich and royalty are above the law? You're arguing both sides!

Maybe you want to go find a remote outpost in the Northern tip of your country
that you truly get no government services provided to you - no roads, no
police, no hospitals, no ID required, no electricity, no internet, or phone
service... go do that. But if you are part of society, you must be part of the
social contract. Better to accept that and go on to do (or write) something
productive that adds value..

[1][http://jacquesmattheij.com/three+roads+to+the+top+of+the+mou...](http://jacquesmattheij.com/three+roads+to+the+top+of+the+mountain)

------
potatolicious
Given how often libertarianism comes up around and here and some of the
attitudes that are repeated demonstrated, it's pretty clear that a large
segment of HN's population has never been in a disadvantaged situation in
life, either in economics, geography, or race.

~~~
AngrySkillzz
I'm not sure that this article is advocating libertarianism per-se, more that
it is pointing out oddities in our current system. It doesn't make the claim
that life would be better off with less support or regulation.

~~~
forensic
They're only oddities to well-off straight white able-bodied males with no
perspective. These "oddities" exist for good practical reasons and the
government is there for all people not just the nerd faction who decide they
only want the government functions that benefit them personally.

------
edanm
A few of these points are interesting, because things don't have to be that
way (e.g. various government-granted monopolies).

But most of these points are uninteresting, in the sense that I cannot easily
imagine alternatives. Public goods are a simple example - there's an economic
reason it is not possible to let people opt-out of public goods: you can't
_not_ protect some people, so it is in their interest to opt-out and receive
protection anyway. So everyone will opt-out.

I have a lot of respect for jacquesmattheij, and I love posts that make us
reconsider basic assumptions of our society and decide whether they're good or
not. Even as a philsophical exercise and without a practical angle, it's
interesting. But most of the complaints here don't come with an alternative,
so what are we supposed to do with them?

~~~
snitko
May I refer you to David D. Friedman and Murray Rothbard for explanations of
how public property would be so much better off as private property and how
protection can be both private and optional? I mean you can disagree after
reading it, but at least you wouldn't say there's no alternative.

~~~
edanm
Sure, and thanks. I'm not very well-read in economy but am working on it.

Do you have anything specific of theirs in mind?

~~~
snitko
"For a New Liberty" by Murray Rothbard and "The Machinery Of Freedom" by David
D. Friedman.

------
eckyptang
Some thoughts on this:

You have no obligation to conform to these laws at all. You are not born into
a contract. A contract is a piece of paper which you can use to wipe your bum
with if you wish.

You can in theory do what the hell you like. People regularly do. You can kill
people, not pay tax, walk over the border of any country and urinate anywhere
you like.

The only downside is that someone who does subscribe to the rules will
probably throw you in jail or kill you without respecting your choice.

Fear of the above is the only reason that the law works at all.

When the law becomes bad for the population, which it really is under many
common ethical principles these days and it is getting worse, we need to have
a revolution to reset the badness.

There is no happy solution to adding legislation other than resetting it
completely occasionally.

Dying and emigrating just bring their own legal problems.

~~~
flyinRyan
But if you think about it, doesn't this seem crazy? I mean, obviously I
shouldn't kill people, but if I don't do the things the implicit contract
expects me to, some crazy person will come up and put me in a cage.

For example, if I happen to grow a plant that will grow on its own without my
help, and happen to store a lot of these plants for the winter, I could get
locked up by someone for being a drug dealer.

~~~
eckyptang
It's all crazy. Absolutely batshit crazy. People hide behind it all the time
and defend it as well.

In your example, it is why people buy the plants from someone else. It is
purely risk mitigation. It allows them to break the implicit contract without
risking severe punishment. The drug dealers are willing to take a larger risk
as there is a high probability of financial gain or a higher risk of getting
killed by their importer/pusher.

------
davidkatz
There's a serious discussion here which seems ignored. It is: "what are the
pros and cons of government forced 'terms of life'". Without that discussion,
it seems to me that most of the complaints in the article remain a curiosity.

~~~
zerostar07
The underlying idea is that you have silently agreed to a social contract by
participating in the society. Of course, children are not likely to understand
the reasons why this is a good idea for most people. One can freely choose to
live like an outlaw or outside of society, with all the pros and cons that
come with it.

This kind of nostalgia is similar to
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weltschmerz>

------
fierarul
This is a rather poor attempt at philosophy that basically rides on
yesterday's blog (the pendulum one) remark about Life-as-a-Service.

If anything it should teach people about how to keep the blog audience
interested.

I was pretty sure I could down-vote by now but apparently I can't downvote
articles. I guess I should just upvote everything else on the page...

~~~
icebraining
It's not possibly to downvote articles, only upvote or flag.

------
gws
This article leaves me uneasy. We need to separate the process that societies
use to determine laws and customs from the outcomes themselves. I'm also
against many of the outcomes described in the article but the process used to
get there in the countries where Jacques and I live in it's the best process
we know of. OK, maybe the least worst is more appropriate but I can't really
think anything else I would like to replace Democracy with.

------
h2s
The unordered list is an overused and inadequate replacement for properly
structured prose.

------
eloisant
Well, it sounds like a really consumerist way to interpret things.

While it is true that some countries will not let you leave your country and
will impose obligations even if you don't live in the country, in most western
democracies (and in particular the author's country): * You can leave freely *
As soon as you're not resident, you pretty much have no obligation toward your
origin country - hell, you can even get a citizenship from a different country
and be done with it.

I think among western democracies, only US imposes taxes on non-residents
citizens.

Most of the complains are irrelevant - of course they are rules you have to
follow, and you didn't decide at some point to "agree" with them. The rules
are usually for the benefit of the group, i.e. not being able to use a land
you buy for anything you want prevent you to build a chemistry factory in the
middle of a residential area.

------
rglover
This article is brilliant. Each and every point Jacques makes is spot-on. I'm
sure many will disagree with his stance, but he makes an excellent point.
Irrespective of our personal preference, we are effectively locked in to and
subordinate of our government and its policies. Any self-respecting human who
has contemplated this should be sick to their stomach.

Realize this: _we're floating in space._ Not one soul on this planet knows why
we're here, where we're going, or how we should conduct ourselves. In essence
we've been handed our own "Gary's Mod" and yet we've resolved to have infinite
and mostly useless structure. I'm not praising anarchy, but like what was
mentioned in this piece, I should have a _choice._

~~~
infinite8s
Why should you have a choice? Taking this article to it's logical conclusion,
no obligations nor rights should be granted to you. As another commenter above
mentioned so brilliantly, individuals don't have rights. Rights only arise in
groups of individuals.

~~~
rglover
We should all have a choice because we're all exactly the same. We're made of
the exact same stuff that's floating out in the universe. There is no
universal code that says one group of humans (or individual) should
control/rule another. It's all made up by humans and it's going to kill us in
the long run.

------
adrianscott
"I spent some time researching the emigration options. A lot of time actually.
And I’ve found out that the place where I live is in spite of all of the above
probably one of the best places on earth to be living at the moment. It’s
shocking! Half the world or more of it would be more than happy just to trade
with me, and they’d be absolutely right."

If you can earn a first-world nation without having to live there, something
quite possible in tech, there are a number of countries where many folks can
be quite happy and more free. And remember you don't have to just stay in one
country, you can travel around a bit and sample countries also.

I made the move and it was the right decision to me, imho.

~~~
jonathanleane
Curious as to which countries you were considering, and which one you
eventually decided on?

------
olalonde
> But it could be so much better if we really tried.

For anyone interested in alternative ways to improve government, check out:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_city>

"A charter city is a city in which the governing system is defined by the
city's own charter document rather than by state, provincial, regional or
national laws."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading>

"Seasteading is the concept of creating permanent dwellings at sea, called
seasteads, outside the territory claimed by the government of any standing
nation."

------
tzaman
Great analogy, it seems like you live right next door :)

------
adaml_623
I think the OP's point that we are surrounded by established monopolies is
very noticeable nowadays. Copyright agency, Lawyers, Medical practitioners,
etc.

~~~
a-priori
s/monopolies/professionals/

You picked a strange list of examples. None of them are monopolies, they're
usually individual professionals or small practices.

~~~
anonymoushn
People are artificially prevented from entering these professions in the
United States. A person who spends several years in a library learning about
the interpretation and application of the law, and who would be capable of
passing a bar exam, is not allowed to take the exam. In all but 2 states, to
gain the privilege of taking the exam, he or she must first pay hundreds of
thousands of dollars to a law school. In the remaining 2 states, if he or she
is old enough (23 or 25, if I recall correctly), it would suffice to instead
work for a judge for a couple years.

This keeps the supply of professionals low and allows the organizations that
sell proffesion-practicing certifications to collect a rent. It's a good scam,
and I would prefer to be on the other side of it. As I probably won't be able
to achieve this, my close second preference would be for the scam to not
exist.

------
mhd
My gist of that: society and economy are weird. (Although a few points are,
well, a bit silly)

Welcome to the human condition, _geworfenheit_ etc.

------
Paul_S
Shop around for a country to live in. I wish countries were more accommodating
about this.

In my dream world like minded people live in the same country. Just think of
how great it would be if you didn't have to compromise because everyone in the
country were on the same side of (for example) the liberal/conservative
divide.

~~~
sdoering
Interesting idea. But I believe, that countries as a whole a too big to be
really manageable. I imagine a society living in smaller regions (but big
enough for natural resources, et al.) and these regions are part of a bigger
structure. Like cells in a body. OK, Germany or the US do have a similar way
of organizing, but I would love for these "cells" to be more autonomous, so
that like-minded people could "just" switch cells, so that ideologies or
political principles would be voted for by feet.

Something along these lines. sitting @work, this rough sketch is everything I
can offer. And I know, a lot of detail is missing.

~~~
innguest
I have come to the same conclusion. I don't understand why we keep voting with
ballots and not feet.

Does anyone here remember those vertical cities (they were effectively cities)
in SimCity 2000 (3000?)? I can't find a picture (EDIT: found it:
<http://imgur.com/MBAzs>) but ever since I first played that game, that tiny
pixelated picture has given me many ideas.

Think of a large building with everything you need inside - all big box
stores, small businesses, and residences. But in order to live there you need
to share a lot in common with the philosophy that building was made for. So
there would be one for liberals who are for abortion and for legalizing pot
and so on and so forth; there would also be a separate building for all of the
tiny variations, and those buildings would literally undergo a kind of natural
selection (people would choose where to live) and the least popular ones would
keep fine tuning their philosophy to try and attract more people.

That way we would all live with like minded people, there would be a lot less
of the problems there are in today's society (basically all the proselytizing
and wanting others to do as you think is right for them).

I'll stop here because I'm saving this stuff for a book or a long article, but
Jacques article and your comments here have just alerted me to the fact that
there might be other people who think the same as I do. To be frank, I'd much
rather have a beer with you all than waste my time typing this crap. We could
all do that if we lived in one of those vertical charter cities. :)

~~~
innguest
Just for the sake of completeness, after much googling I came to learn that
what I was trying to describe already has a name, and it's Arcology:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcology>

So I mean that we should use arcologies (am I using this word correctly?) to
experiment with finding the best political systems for each person, by
allowing each person to choose where to live, and fine tuning the laws of the
least popular arcologies to try and attract more people.

------
praptak
The author has not really gone beyond stating that we are subject to the
social contract (no shit sherlock) and that we should try harder to make this
contract much better (ditto.) Go read the Wikipedia article on social
contract, it has a much better value per seconds of your attention.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Yeah, well, this is what you get when you cut out all the political philosophy
and liberal arts from the education system: a bunch of libertarian programmers
who think they've discovered something really new.

------
jofo25
> And if a substantial number of them would opt-out that would be a much
> clearer sign than any elections ever could give that that society was on the
> wrong track.

I think this is a pretty interesting comment. It sparked the idea of a 'tax-
free' zone in each country in my head. Like a area of each country with no
government infrastructure or intervention. The proportion of population living
in these zones would really give a good indicator of how the countries are
treating it's citizens. People would be free to cross this fence whenever they
wanted.

But in reality I don't think any country would want to give up land for such
means.

~~~
gordonguthrie
The US has run this experiment with the frontier. What happened? The
communities beyond the frontier organised themselves and asked to be accepted
as States of the Union.

You can freely move to Liberia now and do this. Buy magically nobody does.

------
flyinRyan
The worst part is: if you're a US citizen you're still "opted in" to paying
taxes even after you don't live there and no longer use any of the services.
In some cases, even if you've never lived there at all or even speak the
language (hint: you can get american citizenship from being born on the soil
or having a single biological parent who was).

~~~
infinite8s
There's an easy solution to that - renounce your citizenship. What's that? You
want to keep your American citizenship? Then you must abide by the social
contract underlying that grant of citizenship, which comes with certain
benefits/obligations no matter where you are in the world.

~~~
flyinRyan
Nonsense. First of all, I am giving up my citizenship. But the US and North
Korea are the only countries on this planet stupid enough to think people who
don't live there anymore owe them money.

------
clneagu
I'm not seeing anyone complain about the lack of competition for The State. If
nothing else why would anyone defend the monopoly of the state? I don't see
anyone defending any other monopoly.

Why should I be forced to move elsewhere for better service?

I understand that for now we don't have a better solution but stop defending
the fucking monopoly.

~~~
lmm
I'll defend anything that I see people criticise without offering a better
solution.

------
cafard
According to Henry Sumner Maine, the development of law in the west was one of
movement from status to contract. According to Mr. Mattheij, it hasn't gone
far enough, I gather.

------
peteretep
Can't you simply renounce your citizenship at 18?

~~~
vasco
One would think that if one was to renounce its citizenship, waiting for a
predefined age set by whom you will be renouncing would be rather odd.

~~~
peteretep
Defacto your legal guardians have signed you up to this until the age of
majority. That seems pretty reasonable, under any jurisdiction.

~~~
adaml_623
'legal guardians' AND 'jurisdiction'. These are concepts that weren't
negotiated when signing up for the L-a-a-S.

(just continuing OPs direction of thought)

~~~
peteretep
This reduces to absurdity pretty quickly, when you start complaining that
babies don't sign up for any of the decisions their parents make on their
behalf. No shit. Almost everything your parents sign you up for can be undone
at an age that's almost universally close to 18 from the perspective of the
state.

Compare and contrast that with Islamic or Scientological interpretation of
apostacy if you're really looking for a service your parents signed you up for
and you can't easily get out of...

------
fghh45sdfhr3
Holland right? Is that the place he is talking about? I wonder how he feels
about Switzerland, or say Canada?

------
marklindhout
If this guy isn't Dutch, I'm the pope.

These are quite literally exactly the reasons why I'm emigrating.

------
_pferreir_
I think "Life as a Slave" would have been more suitable.

~~~
phn
Have you read anything at all about slavery? Compared to that, being a citizen
with rights as well as obligations is a huge blessing.

~~~
_pferreir_
I have read about slavery of course, and I'm aware of what the word means. I
obviously didn't meant "slave" in the traditional, historical sense.

Actually, the OED defines "slave" as "One who is the property of, and entirely
subject to, another person, whether by capture, purchase, or birth". That's
quite a broad definition, isn't it?

Yes, I know I am really fortunate by comparison with most of the world's
population, but that's not enough for me, I am sorry. I tend not to look to
whatever I have as "blessings", I guess I'm one of the "half-empty" guys.

~~~
phn
Yeah, I understand that. I actually think is important to find what bothers us
despite our "blessings" and try to make it better, we'd be stuck in the past
if we didn't.

I just found "slavery" a strong word, and that a little perspective on these
matters is also very important.

------
Buzaga
I've thought about this some times, it's a hard thing to wrap logic around,
definitely...

but here's two things that are a bit unsettling to me on this topic:

\- life is paid, you can't just go to some abandoned place, raise chicken and
plants and live off of it and if you can't pay for your life you either turn
yourself into a slave(living to pay to be alive) or you're made into the worst
thing possible, with all your dignity taken from you(be a bum and face
everything that's left when you can't pay for a life, even the ones created by
the system itself)

\- why can't there be competition? it made me remember this article:
[http://www.fastcoexist.com/1678720/former-seasteaders-
come-a...](http://www.fastcoexist.com/1678720/former-seasteaders-come-ashore-
to-start-libertarian-utopias-in-honduran-jungle) what would happen if
different state models were allowed to exist and they proved to be less
corrupt, safer, fairer, happier and people just started migrating to this
better states(from what I took they'd still live in capitalism)? I'm almost
sure other governments wouldn't let it happen, and this takes me to another
unsettling thought that is how, as much as people wan't freedom and dignity,
governments want the power, they're barely ever accountable and they don't
have competition, they own the game.

Well, just thoughts..

