Humanity's moral rituals aren't limited to consent. If they were, murderers would have to consent to be punished for their crimes. In some cases, passive acceptance of the prevailing norms serves as a suitable replacement.Why? How is your demands any different than the demands of anyone else? Why do people owe you payment for services you provide without their consent, but no one else is owed payment for services they provide people without their consent?
By your own admission, you were comfortable enough with the threat of being forced to do things without consenting to them to invest years of out of your life making a business (under the protective influence of the body politic) as opposed to simply running away or fighting it. Other members of the body politic will read those actions as a justifiable pretense to demanding services from you.
In contrast, if you had instead invested every ounce of your energy to dissolving the protective influence of the body politic and replacing it with your vision of moral social relations (in this example, presumably by peaceful means, as with most anarchists), people might still try to force you to serve -- but they would have far less justification in doing so, since the body politic was an inconvenience from which you benefited very little.
The body politic and racketeering outfits have a strong family resemblance (both organized responses to adversarial social relations). In some cases, a racketeering outfit becomes the body politic and vice versa, as with the Taliban as an example of the latter (although the Taliban is also an example of the sort of government that emerges from an anarchy). It's a slippery slope between public service and tyranny. But political society exists because successive generations of humans encountered the challenges of the world (and their own nature), challenges the body politic provided solutions for. Thus those generations were comfortable leaving the body politic intact for their children to inherit. In contrast, racketeering outfits create the problems they offer to solve, and tend to be resisted with all the legal resources a civilization can muster.All things can be aggressed upon and can be destroyed without proper protection. Let us change the argument then. Lets say I was part of a band of mercenaries and decided that I would provide my services to you and demand payment from you for this services. I never asked you if you agreed to my protection nor did I show any sort of inclination to care of any objection that you might have given. I simply decided that you will have my protection and I will have my payment in exchange for it. If you fail to pay me then I will throw you into my dungeon with other men that have been starved of female companionship for far to long. Sound familiar yet?
Any government of course creates some of the problems it tries to solve (or at least play some kind of role in creating them), but its reign remains legitimate as long as specific conditions are met. The most basic being (1) it respects the right of the body politic to make amendments to its constitution and administration and (2) does not create more problems than it solves. In the first case, nobody has a right to try and dissolve or amend it except peacefully. In the event it falls short in the second case, anybody has a right to dissolve or amend either through peace or violence, regardless of whether the body politic approves or not.
Nobody can force anarchists to be loyal, but they enjoyed their lands and possessions thanks to the protective influence of the body politic, and were allowed to benefit under the expectation that they were contributors, like everyone else. In war, the body politic has to make them contribute in some way; as an example to others, if nothing else.If you force me into your ranks you will have another gun, that much is true, but you will also have introduced an element into your ranks that doesn't care for the group and will always be looking for a chance to kill the commanding officers if the chance presents itself. It is up to you to decide if that makes you stronger or weaker.
If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.
Last edited by Muhammed; 12-04-13 at 10:46 PM.
That is a very distinct difference between the major political parties in the USA on the federal level. The Democrats have always supported slavery and the Republicans have always been opposed to it.