How Signal Walks the Line Between Anarchism and Pragmatism

Re:How Signal Walks the Line Between Anarchism and Pragmatism by anonym29 on Tuesday July 25, 2023 @10:28AM (#36862755)

You cannot choose to live outside of society. See: Waco, Rubgy Ridge, etc. You cannot even choose to renounce the citizenship that you did not want, never asked for, and never consented to, without getting another citizenship first.

The social contract is the only contract in the world that you can be legally bound to the terms of without ever having agreed to it. In this way, the government acts very much like any other organized crime group: "follow the rules we create or else".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Signal Walks the Line Between Anarchism and Pragmatism by gcanyon on Tuesday July 25, 2023 @05:20PM (#36869767)

> You cannot choose to live outside of society.

Sure you can -- just head off to https://www.thecollector.com/bir-tawil-unclaimed-land/ and enjoy your isolation!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Signal Walks the Line Between Anarchism and Pragmatism by dools on Tuesday July 25, 2023 @09:47PM (#36872174)

There are plenty of organised crime syndicates who live outside of society. They sometimes get caught by law enforcement and sometimes they get caught by rival gangs.

I didn’t say you can live outside of society peacefully in such a way that everyone will just leave you alone but a life of crime is a choice available to everyone.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Signal Walks the Line Between Anarchism and Pragmatism by soulofmischief on Wednesday July 26, 2023 @01:28PM (#36881451)

This is a naive perspective. The reality is it's not available, but gets forced upon entire classes of people as the only viable option, and leads to a lifetime of economic and emotional struggle.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Signal Walks the Line Between Anarchism and Pragmatism by dools on Wednesday July 26, 2023 @06:54PM (#36886270)

But it’s still a choice right? Like a life of crime may be the lesser of two evils but even that is a choice.

People for whom the system offers no advantages are far more likely to make that choice.

My original point is that the current state of the law is not some grand moral absolute, it’s just how things happen to have worked out based on a bunch of decisions made by a bunch of people.

You can choose how to react to that up to and including breaking the law. The degree to which you do that can determine your consequences.

Also sometimes the bear eats you and you’re just unlucky.

[ Parent | on HN ]