When collective interests take higher priority than a person’s life
One of the things that a large number of people do not perceive, thanks to intense collectivist propaganda, are the various violent nuances in laws that prioritize collective interests at the expense of individual freedom or life:
Mobilization is MANDATORY because, at all times, we must protect and die for the homeland.
Health or social insurance is MANDATORY because it is a solidarity principle that benefits society.
Taxation is MANDATORY because it is a tax for a civilized society.
All these arguments legitimize violence against an individual in pursuit of some collective goal.
Of particular gravity is compulsory mobilization, which constitutes modern (and unfortunately publicly accepted) slavery – the right of states to sacrifice the lives of their citizens to maintain their territorial integrity.
State propaganda invents all sorts of bizarre reasons why “compulsory mobilization” in times of threat is the “right thing to do”:
For example, compulsory mobilization stems from a social contract (which, of course, no one has ever seen and no one has ever signed) in which the state grants citizens some “rights” (which is an oxymoron in itself) and enforces some “obligations” in return, such as the obligation to mobilize to maintain territorial integrity.
Compulsory mobilization means that a state considers you a piece of meat to be sacrificed in its higher interest, such as maintaining its territorial integrity in times of threat.
Sorry, but by leaving your mother’s body in XYZ state, you automatically implicitly signed a social contract that the state has the right to sacrifice your body when it sees fit.
The state must be seen as an organism that wants to preserve itself at all costs. For that, it needs a regular income (from stolen taxes) and territorial integrity, where it usurps a monopoly on violence (and for that, it sometimes needs the flesh of its citizens).
The state is prepared to sacrifice the lives of its citizens, and unfortunately, no mechanism other than democracy can change this and make it more humane. Indeed, the democratic system considers itself the best and does not envisage a systemic upgrade.
It means that even if there are 40% of the people in a given state are not willing to sacrifice their lives for it, it may not help them as long as the democratic majority wants EVERYONE to die for the homeland in times of danger.
Similarly, suppose 40% of the people are anarchists who want no services or protection from the state, want to live entirely outside it, and pay no taxes. In that case, they have no chance without the approval of a democratic or parliamentary majority.
In a democratic system, any minority that voluntarily decides to do anything does not have the right to “opt-out,” i.e., to leave the majority system until the majority society accepts them.
Indeed, you are familiar with typical collectivist propaganda: “It is very irresponsible not to die for the homeland because if everyone runs away, the Russians will occupy Europe, and it will be bad.“
This argument is fundamentally the same as the argument from the slavery period: ‘It is very irresponsible to run away from a slaveholder. If you do, those who stay with him will work all the harder – even for you!”
Possibly similar to the argument: “It is very irresponsible to stop paying taxes. Because those who pay them will have to pay so much more, and there won’t be enough money for health and welfare!“
In all these cases, a vague collective interest (often determined by the ruling class) is considered significantly more important than individual rights, where it is acceptable to be enslaved, killed, or robbed.
From a moral standpoint, it is always a good idea to walk away from an involuntary relationship and not be manipulated by the collective reproaches of the slaveholders.
-
It is always a good idea to stop paying taxes while you can legally afford it.
-
It is always a good idea to flee with your family from a country where there is a threat of war and compulsory mobilization, and there is a high probability that you will die.
The argument “You can’t run forever! ” is flawed because you can realistically save your life and your family’s life by running away. And even if the conflict is global, at least you can prolong it for a few years, which is undoubtedly worth it. And it’s much less likely that a war conflict will occur in Latin America (which successfully avoided WWI and WWII).
The argument “What if they all fled?!” means, in the final analysis, that there will be no war, no one will die, and people will move to a new home. But that will never happen, just like it will never happen that most people decide not to pay taxes. Of course, that doesn’t mean the aggressor has to give in – not by a long shot!
It just means respecting everyone’s right not to take part in the conflict.
Of course, this does not mean that you do not have the right to defend your own house, village, or country with which you identify against an aggressor.
You certainly have – go ahead and fight!
Understand, however, that there are many people for whom their lives are more important than protecting their homes in some hotbed of war. You cannot force them to fight for their house, your house, or your country because those are no longer their interests. Because their interest is only to survive.
And yes, you can have a good or better quality of life in Latin America than anywhere in Europe.
But modern slavery is not just a compulsory mobilization where it is evident that the state owns your body and can sacrifice it as necessary to achieve its interests.
To usurp half of your productive life in exchange for services “provided” by the state constitutes economic slavery.
Similarly, state-enforced services by private oligopolies (compulsory health insurance, compulsory social insurance) are a form of economic slavery, especially if your state does not accept that you pay for much better global health insurance or have enough money to not pay for any insurance. I should point out that most countries do not have compulsory health/social insurance, a voluntary subject of the free market. Paraguay doesn’t even have mandatory car insurance – again, it’s voluntary.
To argue that all of the above is not slavery because you can leave at any time if you don’t like it and go anywhere else is like arguing in the days of slavery – “if you don’t like slavery with our master, you can go to someone else.”
Just as slavery was widely accepted in most of the world in the past, so modern slavery in the form of compulsory mobilization is now widely accepted.
After all, citizens must protect their countries in times of threat!
In the 21st century, we are still electing slavers – worse or better. Getting out of slavery altogether is impossible.
Fortunately, it is possible to choose a significantly better slaver. One who, in the event of conflict, will not consider you as meat to be sacrificed to protect their interests. And there are even some who ask almost no taxes from you. There are still many countries with no compulsory mobilization and whose citizenship you can buy (practically all of CARICOM, i.e., the Caribbean states). In most countries, you have no tax obligations, just as there are significantly better residences than in European ones, with territorial or no taxation.
Arguing in the manner of “I don’t have the money for plan B, I don’t want to move, I have my whole family here, I don’t want to learn a foreign language, etc.” is a sign of convenience and your tacit agreement to sacrifice your life for the collective.
And count on the fact that no one will ask you if you agree in the future.