Coercion Is Death

By B.R. Merrick.
 
Exclusive to STR
 
 
We all hold opinions. That's one of the many, many things that set us apart from the rest of the animal world. There's nothing wrong, in my opinion, with having an opinion. Hell, I've got plenty. Let's just take one opinion as an example:
 
I believe that the three greatest composers who ever lived are Johann Sebastian Bach, Ludwig van Beethoven, and Igor Stravinsky. I have a hard time placing one above the other. They each have certain strengths due to their genius, but each has weaknesses, mostly due to the times into which they were born, and the differing circumstances of their musical careers.
 
I'm pretty sure I'm the only man alive who holds this opinion, but it is not a factual conclusion. There's an important difference. I can assemble facts about each one of these men and their music; the more facts I assemble, and the way in which I relate those facts to one another, may or may not lend greater weight and force behind my opinion. Given my musical training, I am quite certain that I can defend that opinion in just about any debate, but whether or not I win does not make the opinion any more factual.
 
The purpose of this article is not to go on over the cuff about Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring" (my "desert island" piece, if you will); or to talk about how at Beethoven's insistence, the piano, violin, and symphony were permanently changed; or about how Bach wrote approximately 6,000 pieces of music, each of them mathematically sound; but to merely indulge myself in a little whimsical revelry, before getting down to the far nastier business of laying out my reasons for the title of this article, and the truth I put behind it.
 
The difference between opinion and truth is factual conclusion. I have facts about three composers, but the conclusion I have drawn is based on what I value as an individual. What I am going to discuss for the rest of the article does not have to do with what I value, nor what anyone else values. In order to understand what I propose as truth, not opinion, it will be necessary to take as fact the following phenomena:
 
1. Individuality exists, and collective does not; "in" meaning "not," "-divi-" meaning "divisible," and "-dual" meaning "two parts." I am incapable of being divided in two. Of course, someone could chop off my legs, which would effectively divide my body in two, but unless the legs are sewn back on, they do not become two more individuals; they will rot and turn to dust. The rest of my body, however, continues to display all the traits of an individual, albeit a newly paraplegic individual. If any scientist actually attempted to divide me in two in any more complicated fashion, he would only succeed in killing me.
 
Collectives are useful groupings for practical and theoretical reasons, but only ever dependent on the values sought out of the grouping. I prefer the company of like-minded men, so I will put a label on our group as a collective. However, this label is abstract only; it does not exist. Collectives are also abstract ideas, made from the values held in individual minds. Occasionally, a warped individual will attempt to make the collective real, and murder those who disagree, like Josef Stalin. He failed to grasp the first fact.
 
2. Volition exists. As an individual, I am aware of my own ability to take in information from the five senses, subject it to differentiation and abstract thought, build abstract thought upon abstract thought, emote, and draw conclusions, much like I have with my ears, listening to the above three composers, and with my eyes, studying the scores for their magnificent music. I am also aware of other individuals' ability to do all of this, and to spend countless hours planning so far distant into the future as to boggle the mind. No other animals do this. (Dogs don't lie there panting, thinking about having puppies someday.) Volition sets us apart, and it is factual.
 
3. Death happens. There are many varied causes, but we live in a world with a phenomenon that many of us don't care to think about. Death is factual, and real. How it comes about, sadly, is often up to individuals. (See the comment about Stalin above.)
 
4. Coercion, like death, also exists. We have all been victims of this phenomenon on a regular basis. We don't even know all the ways, but coercion, one individual's will for another individual's actions, surrounds us.
 
So far, I have given you indisputable facts. Now, however, I am going to venture into an area that many of you may not have considered too greatly, if at all. If it has been traversed elsewhere by others, I would love to hear about authors, philosophers, even political leaders who have mentioned these conclusions as well. However, I need to emphasize once again that, unlike my thoughts about three great composers, what I am about to explain and conclude is not my opinion, but a factual conclusion that is unassailable from any other angle. Are you ready? Then let us begin.
 
Coercion is death. I propose that this statement is entirely factual. But first, I need to explain why I use the word "death."
 
Take facts 1 and 2 from above. When coercion is used against you as an individual, what happens? Your volition is violated. Think about that. Without your volition, what sort of individual are you? My computer remembers a lot more than I do, but when I punch the keys, it has to do what I say. Computers are far cruder than the human brain. Tell a computer to start composing, and sit J.S. Bach down next to it. Which would you rather listen to? (Pardon this digression, but buy that track I linked to immediately!) Without your volition, you cannot truly be called an individual any longer. If coercion is only temporary, such as a mother holding her child in a seat where he doesn't wish to be, or a weekend in prison, individuality does not completely die, but the temporary death of volition forces the individual to come face to face with his own demise, a death of the spirit, if you will. Therefore, as I see it now, there are four factual deaths when coercion is initiated:
 
1. The Death of Volition.
 
As explained above, this is no small matter, as it happens immediately when coercion is initiated, which is why I say that coercion is death. But enough has been said about that, so on to the second death.
 
2. The Death of Relationships.
 
The first relationship to die is the one between the coercive individual and the victim. When the individual whose volition has died, however temporarily, recognizes that this has happened, he wonders how he got to this point where his plans have been hijacked. If he realizes that it is because of the actions of another whose intention was to halt his efforts, what sort of relationship can continue to exist? Human relationships are built on trust and mutual benefit. A coercive individual shows that he cannot be completely trusted, and that volition could die at any time, under certain circumstances, if the coercive individual finds out and is able to kill volition, a killing which is of no benefit to the victim. Therefore, a child may stop asking for permission and go sneaking around behind the back of a parent. A homeowner, quite rightly afraid of greater death, shoots a burglar who proves himself to be deceitful and dangerous. A bunch of men in wigs and buckled shoes throw off an emperor because he steals their money in a way they don't like, and has proven that his future actions are not quite predictable, but will most likely be even more onerous. In each example, the victims of coercion are logically and sensibly afraid of the anti-volitional consequences and the lack of trust in death-oriented relationships.
 
This death is also not insignificant, as much of your individuality is expressed only in relation to other individuals. You don't know how funny you are until someone laughs at your jokes. You don't know how good a lover you are until you kiss the sweet lips of a particularly attractive individual. You don't know how you measure up to other guys until you go to the gym where they have congregated and start lifting alongside them. You don't know your capacity for love until you give birth and spend time with the infant. Imagine killing off these experiences through forcing coercion into the relationship. Now give me a single example of a relationship that benefits from the initiation of coercion. (As an aside, I do not count pulling a two-year-old out of the way of a moving vehicle, any more than I would deny that you should pull a deaf woman out of harm's way when she doesn't see the van heading toward her. The driver in both instances is the unwitting "initiator" of coercion. You are preventing the unintended initiation by going on the defensive on behalf of the unintended victim.)
 
3. The Death of Wealth.
 
When I say "wealth," I mean everything. Not just your money. Not just your accumulation of valuable goods. Everything.
 
Your wealth is perhaps limitless: your relationships (carried over from the second death), your individuality (carried over from the first), your mind, your skills, your abilities, your opportunities, your body, your sex life, your kids, your memories, your accomplishments, your achievements, your plans, your goals, your imagination, your creation, your marriage, your pain, your stress, your wisdom, your loss, your gain, your victories and defeats. All of it makes up who you are. All of it comes from your individuality, your volition, and your relationships. When coercion goes on long enough, when enough relationships are poisoned, you will witness the death of your wealth, and like 1 and 2, this will not be easy to deal with when it happens. Lacking medical insurance, I always just pay cash when I go to the doctor, even for unexpected visits. The doctor is very accommodating, and a really nice guy. Most doctors are. I can afford medical care all by myself. My relationship with my doctor, and the wealth we have created together, will shortly die once socialized medicine is put into practice, at the point of a gun.
 
4. The Death of the Individual.
 
It needn't be deliberate, like a lynching. When enough of an individual's volition, relationships, and the resultant wealth have been effectively destroyed by the direct control of another, the toll on one's health may be sufficient to end the suffering with no victory. Again, when medicine is finally socialized, those with the least wealth at the back of the queue will physically die. Indeed, the individual may even determine that his mind should initiate coercion against his body, which is always, up until the moment of death, a life-oriented entity (evidenced by the beating heart).
 
I propose to you that these four deaths are not only factual, but are always experienced in the same order, unless coercion brings about the fourth death immediately through a gunshot, for instance. In such a scenario, all four deaths are simultaneous, but not out of the order I have described. Before I continue, you may wish to pause and determine whether what I have thus far said about the four deaths is factually correct, and not opinion, or any other sort of self-valuing argument. We're a long way off from talking about classical music now, aren't we? Therefore, I submit to you that my conclusion that coercion is death, since it leads directly and immediately to the first death, is a factual conclusion, and that no other conclusion about coercion may be reached.
 
Now think about government. What is the nature of every government known to mankind, from the ancient Jewish system of judges, to the former Soviet Union, to the current corporate-militarist state of America, to the British Empire hundreds of years old; every caliphate, every monarchy, every republic, every democracy, every dictatorship, every parliament, every sheriff, every census taker, every social worker? What is the one thing in common?
 
This: All governments exist upon the initiation of coercion. Each government that is or ever was has basically said, "We are here to protect you, to watch over you, to provide for you, to coordinate you, to rule over you. You have no choice in the matter. This is for our collective posterity. You are free to disagree and to do so as loudly as you wish, but you will obey." Name a single earthly government that does not, in essence, say this. You may find greater financial freedom in Singapore, but you can be whacked with a cane if you cross them.
 
If coercion is death, and governments factually initiate coercion without fail, then it logically follows that government is death. To embrace a governmental solution, to any extent, is to be death-oriented. Again, I must reiterate that I am proposing these conclusions to you as irrefutable facts, not opinion. Notice that I didn't say that you are "evil," or even that you are "wrong." Such terms, while bandied about by everyone, including me, are entirely subjective. Death, being one of the facts established above, is not subjective. You either live or die. If, therefore, coercion and government are death, then your participation in any system of coercion, of which government is one, is death-oriented. You wanted something to die, so you joined in the chorus. Did it die? What was the end result?
 
In my comment on an article posted here a few days ago, I gave my thoughts on a scenario that the author wrote about, where a mother and son were having tremendous difficulty over homework, which I referred to as "prison work," as schools are not buildings that children are permitted to leave until the coercive individuals in charge relent. Just listen to this mother deal with her son, an individual who did not ask to be born:
 
Coercive mother: "One... Two..."
Victimized son: "I have to get it to the part and then pause it."
Coercive mother: "No, you do that after you do your homework."
Victimized son: "It’s not going to take that long!"
Coercive mother: "I’m telling you no. You’re not hearing me. I will not let you watch this now... No. I will not have this."
Victimized son: "I’m not watching it. I’m putting it on pause!"
Coercive mother: "I want you to do your homework. You are not."
Victimized son: "I know. I’m going to pause it!"
Coercive mother: "No, you’re not. You’re still not listening!"
Victimized son: "Yes I am!"
Coercive mother: "No, you’re not!"
 
This is an abbreviation of the videotaped altercation between mother and son that the author watched, and I have left out the actions, many of which, as you might have guessed, were violative of volition, killing it "softly" a little at a time. This is an ugly, everyday episode. God, read it again. Listen to the mother. Does she sound one wit more intelligent than a small child? Replace "Coercive mother" with "Bossy older sister." What words would you change? It could have been entirely avoided if the mother, not steeped in coercion herself, were to trust her son, his mind, his volition, and watch him grow all by himself. Nobody drilled him in walking and talking. I'll bet he wasn't even drilled in reading, just had it explained. But now he gets thoroughly drilled, so much that he has to escape into electronic entertainment for a simulation of the life his mother has helped to kill.
 
Would you like an opinion to go with all of these facts? Fine. I find the above scenario repulsive. Regardless, it is not my opinion that this episode is death-oriented; it is factually, literally death-oriented, in every sense of the word "death."
 
We rail against government here at STR, and I'm right there with you, but this is not the only system of coercion. I have read numerous libertarian thinkers talking about how certain things that the government now takes charge of could be very easily handled by families, universities, churches, and voluntary organizations, many of which could be easily used as substitute systems of coercion, leading to similar deaths, at least, that is what is implied. Libertarians, it seems, are not immune.
 
As I've mentioned before, nobody came after me when I gave up my church, but if I gave up government, my life could potentially be taken away. I do not equate institutionalized religion, or institutionalized anything-else, with government. However, my church, in retrospect, was quite oppressive and coercive in its own way. When you throw your whole life into an organization, it can be quite painful to be forced to leave it behind should that organization coerce you out of the collective. When you believe the lie that there is an all-powerful being just waiting for you to step out of line, virtually anyone is capable of coercing you into anything.
 
The same goes for the mother and son whose argument glares at me from above. The mother has developed a system of coercion, where the boy has to guess when and what and why his mom is going to get mad. Her boundaries are arbitrary and threatening. Their relationship, along with his volition, is dying off. It will ultimately lead to the death of greater and greater amounts of wealth, as year after year goes by in this increasingly difficult relationship. How is mom going to handle it when he's a foot taller, 75 pounds heavier, and still doesn't want to do "prison work"?
 
To be an anarchist is to be life-oriented, to walk away from all systems of coercion, all of which are by nature, and quite factually, death-oriented. The choice is yours. Form opinions about what has been written here if you like, but be certain that your life's decisions are based on truth. Otherwise, death awaits you.
 

7.5
Your rating: None Average: 7.5 (4 votes)
B.R. Merrick's picture
Columns on STR: 35

B.R. Merrick writes for "Strike The Root" and "A Voice for Men," is  proud to be a classical music reviewer at Amazon.com and iTunes, and in spite of the poisonous nature of television, God Himself will have to pry his DVDs of “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” out of his cold, dead hands, under threat of eternal damnation.

Comments

B.R. Merrick's picture

No sooner was my latest article published, but I read this gem from The Freeman, by its late founder, Leonard Reed:

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/fee-timely-classic/conscience-on-the-bat...

It's a wonderful read, but even here I can spot the logical error:

"While governments limited to keeping the peace and invoking a common justice are necessary for mortal beings..."

And there it is again. Unless, of course, what I have written above is logical fallacy, the nature of government is to initiate coercion, even a "limited" government that keeps "peace" and provides "justice." How does a body that initiates coercion, that makes the initial threat, provide peace?

I wonder if Leonard Reed would still think this way if he were alive, or if he would have progressed as far in his thinking as I believe I have. Either way, it is on important work like this that my thoughts on coercion are largely based. I highly recommend it.

tzo's picture

The very same logical glitch embedded in the Declaration of Independence. I am with you in that it is not possible for a person to hold onto conflicting beliefs (the desire for human freedom and the necessity of government) and also be consistent. And if one is logically inconsistent, then he is obviously wrong about something.

Coercion is always wrong. Except when it isn't. [-1]

Suverans2's picture

COERCION, n. Restraint, check, particularly by law or authority... ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

COERCE, 1. To restrain by force; to keep from acting, or transgressing, particularly by moral force, as by law or authority; to repress. (Ibid.)

What if a government was truly instituted among men for the sole purpose of securing to them their natural, and thus inalienable, rights, and its “just powers” were to be used only to "restrain by force", if necessary, any man or group of men who were violating or attempting to violate the natural rights of its consenting members, would this be a good example of, “Except when it isn't”? And, is this not, at the least seemingly, what they were attempting to create, for perhaps the first time in the history of man, with the foundational document commonly called the Declaration of Independence? And, since it was the first time, would it not be necessary to “spell out in writing” the details?

Yes, they unarguably failed, but should we throw the baby out with the bath water, or should we learn from it and correct the errors and establish a protectorate that can be controlled?

PROTECT'ORATE, n. Government by a protector. (Ibid.)

tzo's picture

Governments are funded by taxes. Period. Government monopolizes the protection market. Period. Competition among multiple security agencies with voluntary funding is not government. Create whatever you want, but don't force anyone in. If you do this, there is no doubt others will do the same. Now you have a free market. Now you have no government.

The DOI declares the intention of creating a government monopoly funded by taxes. The land area they would eventually claim as theirs to control was taken aggressively through force of arms. I see no way to excuse these typical actions of government as being an ethical way to organize society, no matter how stirring and noble-sounding the words on parchment may be.

Suverans2's picture

Governments have always been funded by taxes, they therefore can never be funded any other way. Period. [i.e. end of discussion!]
Governments have always monopolized the protection market, therefore it can never be any other way. Period. [i.e. end of discussion!]

"Create whatever you want, but don't force anyone in." ~ tzo

Maybe you didn't see this, brother, "What if a government was truly instituted among men for the sole purpose of securing to them their natural, and thus inalienable, rights, and its “just powers” were to be used only to "restrain by force", if necessary, any man or group of men who were violating or attempting to violate the natural rights of its consenting members, would this be a good example of, “Except when it isn't”?"

"The DOI declares the intention of creating a government monopoly funded by taxes." ~ tzo

Strange, I can't find that in the DOI. I can only find this reference to taxes in the DOI, "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent", as one of the several reasons for seceding.

"I see no way to excuse these typical actions of government as being an ethical way to organize society..." ~ tzo

And, I don't recall trying to "excuse these typical actions of government as being an ethical way to organize society...", my friend, so I certainly wouldn't ask you to. Perhaps you didn't see this, "Yes, they unarguably failed..."

tzo's picture

Governments have always been funded by taxes, they therefore can never be funded any other way. Period. [i.e. end of discussion!]

Governments have always monopolized the protection market, therefore it can never be any other way. Period. [i.e. end of discussion!]

***

Sorry to sound so trenchant, but those are the defining characteristics of government. That and ruling over a land area that exceeds the just land claims of all its individual members. No other type of organization can get away with this, and if government didn't do this then they would be behaving like other organizations, which we do not label as government.

Yes, organizations claim to have presidents and governors and other governmental labels, but this only serves to muddy the waters. Words are meant to communicate ideas, and if a word means seven different things depending upon who you talk to, then it is very difficult to exchange ideas in a coherent fashion. Dogs do not fly, and governments do not exist without coercion.

***

"Create whatever you want, but don't force anyone in." ~ tzo

Maybe you didn't see this, brother, "What if a government was truly instituted among men for the sole purpose of securing to them their natural, and thus inalienable, rights, and its “just powers” were to be used only to "restrain by force", if necessary, any man or group of men who were violating or attempting to violate the natural rights of its consenting members, would this be a good example of, “Except when it isn't”?"

***

What you are defining is a voluntary organization whose jurisdiction does not extend beyond the private property of its participants. No organization of this type has ever claimed to be, or has ever been considered to be, a government. If you say a government could exist under these conditions, then every company, family, baseball team, and school can be called a government. You have just eliminated a concept by changing its definition to something else. How can one discuss the concept that is government if it can mean voluntary organizations? Defining dogs as cats makes it difficult to talk about either coherently.

***

"The DOI declares the intention of creating a government monopoly funded by taxes." ~ tzo
Strange, I can't find that in the DOI. I can only find this reference to taxes in the DOI, "For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent", as one of the several reasons for seceding.

***

"...and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do."

Every Independent State in existence before the DOI was written taxed its subjects. That last little clause states that the new nation would claim the right to tax, since that is one of the Acts and Things that all other Independent States had the right to do.

***

"I see no way to excuse these typical actions of government as being an ethical way to organize society..." ~ tzo

And, I don't recall trying to "excuse these typical actions of government as being an ethical way to organize society...", my friend, so I certainly wouldn't ask you to. Perhaps you didn't see this, "Yes, they unarguably failed..."

***

I understand your point, but I cannot get past using the word government to explain what you envision. What you are describing is anarchy, or voluntaryism.

B.R. Merrick's picture

If ever there was a MUST READ comment...

Mitrik_Spanner's picture

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

I like the Declaration. Rightly understood it calls for the right of secession for all and can be understood to refer to voluntary government, as in mutual association. That sounds good to me.

Suverans2's picture

I agree Mitrik Spanner, Rightly understood, it calls for the right of secession for every individual, which is what I think you intended anyway. Correct me if I am wrong.

"The right of self-government rests on the right [of the individual] to withdraw consent from an oppressive government. That is the only really effective restriction on power, in the last analysis." – Clyde Wilson, Secession: The Last, Best Bulwark of Our Liberties [Bracketed information added]

B.R. Merrick's picture

So, to paraphrase the quote I made up in my article, you are saying that the Declaration provides for a government that says, "We are here to protect you, to watch over you, to provide for you, to coordinate you, to rule over you, only if you consent. You have a choice in the matter. We believe this is for our collective posterity. You are free to disagree and to do so as loudly as you wish, and you do not have to obey. Furthermore, we will not steal your money, but will rely on private donations. Those who do not pay us must not expect to receive any benefit from our services; you're on your own."

What have I just described other than a private business, advertising its services? The government that speaks in the hypothetical manner I have just used is certainly much more agreeable, but since they have not initiated coercion against anyone who does not wish to participate and who himself has not initiated coercion, what separates this "government" from voluntary organizations? Why should it be called a government? To soothe people who freak out at the word "anarchy"?

Suverans2's picture

“...you are saying that the Declaration provides for a government that says, "We are here to protect you, to watch over you, to provide for you, to coordinate you, to rule over you, only if you consent.” ~ B.R. Merrick

Strange I don't remember saying that, I recall saying, “What if a government was truly instituted among men for the sole purpose of securing to them their natural, and thus inalienable, rights...” just like the Declaration states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that [is to say] they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these [unalienable] rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...”

tzo's picture

I disagree. What other voluntary organization has to spell out that its participants have the right to quit the organization? That goes without saying in any organization one voluntarily joins. Government is a different animal. Even when they spell out in writing that everyone has the right to quit it, they use force to prevent it from happening.

That's why it's called government. If people could join and drop out at will, then it would be something else.

Suverans2's picture

They were spelling out the reasons, for the world to see, why they had the lawful right to peacefully secede from the de facto government that was claiming rule over them, brother, because, in the history of the world, it had never been done before. They had finally come to the realization that they had voluntarily joined King George's organization, because if an individual doesn't secede, once he knows he rightfully can, it can be said that he voluntarily consents to be a member. And, because he voluntarily chooses to retain his membership, knowing full well that he will be a "taxpayer" if he does, then it can be rightfully deduced that the income tax is voluntary. Why? Because membership is voluntary! This is why no one here can show me a U.S. law criminalizing individual secession in particular. Oh, and, even if someone could, it would not be worth the paper it was written on, because it would not be in conformity with the Natural Law (of Man), so save that minuscule effort, (that virtually no one was going to expend anyway), for a more worthy cause.

"The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other[1]. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it." ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9

The foregoing reasoning was spelled out two weeks and two days ago here http://www.strike-the-root.com/taxation-is-theft#comment-723 with the author knowing full well that he would most likely need a "fast horse...to escape on" for doing so. Why? because regardless of all their bitching and complaining, the vast majority of people love their government entitlements, benefits, privileges, their so-called civil rights, and will not voluntarily choose to give up the "ruler's dainties", their only real complaint seems to be that they must pay for them.

Now it is I who must apologize for sounding so “trenchant”, brother.

“Those who seek the truth are more than friends. They are brothers.” – Sir Leigh Teabing in The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown

[1] Quod prius est verius est; et quod prius est tempore potius est jure. What is first is truest; and what comes first in time, is best in law. Co. Litt. 347. ~ Bouveir's 1856 Law Dictionary [Emphasis added]

Paul's picture

Hmmm. This one might be stretching things a bit. I get that coercion is slavery, but not (usually) that it is death. Yes, many die as a result of government action; you can reasonably talk about government being death if the subject at hand is the invasion of Iraq, for example. But I wouldn't want to trivialize the significance of those deaths by saying paying a parking ticket is also death. One is death, the other is slavery.

Is one's death the ultimate end of every coercion, if one resists? Yes. But the same is true for slaves who resist. So again, slavery seems a more reasonable description of what governments are about.

Or maybe I just don't get the point.

B.R. Merrick's picture

I mention four deaths in succession, and use the word "death" instead of "slavery" (although that's a good one), because death happens immediately with the death of volition. As volition is inseparable from individuality, paying a parking ticket is a minor death of volition (temporarily), any possible relationship with the ticket issuer (death of trust), and an obvious death of wealth. You are correct that physical death, the fourth death, only happens if coercion is taken to its end.

I used the word "death" because these things are vital to our understanding of ourselves. When we are kept from understanding our true selves (like being subjected to government schooling), a part of us dies. We need our volition, relationships, and wealth not only to enjoy life, but to learn and grow. I know for certain that parts of me are permanently dead, not only from government schooling, but personal relationships where coercion was used. This is called scarring, because some of the deaths I mention are irreversible.

To the other commenters, The Declaration of Independence, as radical and important a historical document that it is, essentially says that a government needs to initiate coercion on behalf of those whom it coerces. Theoretically, it may state that individuals can secede, but that was never possible nor permissible.

Suverans2's picture

Permissible? One does not need permission to secede from the governments of men any more than one needs permission to quit his job at Whole Foods.

Secession. The act of withdrawing from membership in a group. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1351

Is secession unlawful, i.e. is it wrong? In a word, no, especially when those you have made a political compact or confederacy with are the first to breach the contract. According to the U.S. Government's own most foundational document, governments are instituted among men to secure to them their inalienable rights, i.e. their natural rights, the right to life, liberty and justly acquired property. This is government's only lawful duty, and whenever it steps beyond this duty to secure to an individual or group one iota more than this, it must necessarily infringe on someone else's inalienable rights in order to do so.

NL.1.3.3
Certainly no man can rightfully be required to join, or support, an association whose protection he does not desire. Nor can any man be reasonably or rightfully expected to join, or support, any association whose plans, or method of proceeding, he does not approve, as likely to accomplish its professed purpose of maintaining justice, and at the same time itself avoid doing injustice. To join, or support, one that would, in his opinion, be inefficient, would be absurd. To join or support one that, in his opinion, would itself do injustice, would be criminal. He must, therefore, be left at the same liberty to join, or not to join, an association for this purpose, as for any other, according as his own interest, discretion, or conscience shall dictate. ~ Lysander Spooner

Does secession violate international law? Apparently not.

“It cannot seriously be argued today that international law prohibits secession. It cannot seriously be denied that international law permits secession. There is a privilege of secession recognized in international law and the law imposes no duty on any people not to secede.” – Thomas Franck, (one of the five international law experts), as quoted in Suzanne Lalonde, Determining Boundaries in a Conflicted World: The Role of UIT POSSIDETIS 209 (2002) [Emphasis added]

Omnes licentiam habere his quae pro se indulta sunt, renunciare. [It is a rule of the ancient law that] all persons shall have liberty to renounce those privileges which have been conferred for their benefit. Cod. 1, 3, 51 ; Id. 2, 3, 29 ; Broom, Max 699. ~ (Maxim of Law) A Law Dictionary, (Black's 2nd c.1910), page 851

Is secession against the man-made laws of the U.S.? Again, it appears not.

“The wisdom of secession, particularly from December of 1860 to February of 1861, can be criticized in the most vehement of terms, without substantive objection. The legality of that secession, however, is beyond dispute.” ~ A Brief Examination of the Legality of Secession in the United States, Did the Southern States Have the Right to Secede from the Union During the Antebellum Period? by Kenneth S. Imbriale [Emphasis added]

I challenge anyone to show us a U.S. statute criminalizing secession, in general, and individual secession, in particular. This does not mean that an individual will not be persecuted for choosing to secede from the political corporation. As Voltaire noted, “It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong”. Notwithstanding he certainly has the natural right to do so.

As for, "that was never possible"? I am here to say that it was and is!! I strike the root by "withdrawing from membership", I am an Individual Secessionist!!

B.R. Merrick's picture

Suverans2: "This does not mean that an individual will not be persecuted for choosing to secede from the political corporation."

Yes, and that is the point I'm trying to make. That is the nature of government, whether or not it is the government Jefferson intended or believed in. That is what governments do. I can secede all I want, but if I completely secede in every way I wish to, they will come after me and ruin my life. I'm still getting census reminders, you know.

Suverans2: "As for, 'that was never possible'? I am here to say that it was and is!! I strike the root by 'withdrawing from membership', I am an Individual Secessionist!!"

Indeed, it is possible in the way you describe. In fact, you brought up one of my three criteria for a successful revolution, one of which applies to individual revolution. I was referring to the death-oriented government's view of secession.

B.R. Merrick's picture

Ah! More food for thought. From "Spiegel Online International":

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448747,00.html

Apparently, individual communities in Europe are experimenting with the elimination of coercive street signs. The result?

"'The many rules strip us of the most important thing: the ability to be considerate. We're losing our capacity for socially responsible behavior,' says Dutch traffic guru Hans Monderman, one of the project's co-founders. 'The greater the number of prescriptions, the more people's sense of personal responsibility dwindles.'"

The "dwindling," or death, of personal responsibility. That would go under wealth.

Paul's picture

"Government's own most foundational document, governments are instituted among men to secure to them their inalienable rights, i.e. their natural rights, the right to life, liberty and justly acquired property."

No government was ever instituted for that purpose.

Oh, potential governments certainly claim that purpose, and we peons might be placated by that bit of propaganda. But that was never the purpose of any government.

Anyway, there are no such things as rights - which makes the claim even more preposterous.