If you don’t like it, you can leave
This sort of argument has presented itself to me in different ways. I come along, stating some thought that goes against an individual’s point of view, or that of a group, and then some individual says “if you don’t like what we do or how we live, then you can get out and leave.” And by “leave,” they mean leave the country.
And I can “trample” on different values or discuss different concepts to evoke someone to emote or speak out in concert to this theme. Someone who believes in a concept of some social contract will say that by residing in a landmass, a person is implicitly agreeing to certain terms and values, and thus if you disagree with those values, you should leave that landmass. Some say if you “disrespect” a flag, you should leave. Some say if you choose to take “taxpayer’s money” or use services funded by taxpayers money, there is a supposed obligation on you or expectation of you to silence any disgruntlement you may have about the social system or the societal values or politician edicts (called “laws” or “acts” or “legislation” but is normally just the edicts of a politician), because should you speak out such disgruntlement in just the right ways, you’ll leave yourself open to the same invitation to leave the society, to leave the landmass.
Again, it’s important to differentiate fact from opinion.
The non-existent contract
So the claim is that by residing in a place, a society, a person implicitly agrees to be bound to the stipulations and laws of that society and of its government. The claim is that there is some social contract that a person, without overt and express words of consent, is bound to.
What is the fact? A person is residing at a certain location. That’s it! After that people start imposing opinions. And it is only opinion because there is literally no such contract. There is no evidence of something authoritative that says “if you live in place x, then you must live under this government’s claim of authority or that of the society.” People make the claim that their values or a document of their choice or a government of their choice is authoritative over anybody and everybody in a physical location chosen by them, but there is no evidence upon which to base that claim (except the force they are happy to see imposed upon those that go against the “authority” of their choice).
I think what could have happened is that it was observed that a ruling class exists, and that people tended to submit to the orders and edicts of that ruling class. But the question came up, what was the basis of that authority? Was there a valid basis for it? So someone speculated that there was something akin to a contract between the rulers and the people. That’s why this is known as the “social contract theory” in many places. There was never the literal existence of such a contract. It was just theorized to be so, and, as with so many things, the speculation seems to have become “fact” in the minds of so many people.
Some claim that there is an implicit agreement, in a similar manner to a restaurant, where there is no explicit contract, yet there is still an agreement. But the important difference is that with a restaurant, you can opt out of the services and any agreement. The owner is likely to have a valid claim on the property and it’s his or her choice to ask you to leave. But at least you can say “no,” that you don’t want the services and they can’t be forced on you. There is an opt out clause. If you stuck in an “agreement” no matter what, if there is no real opt out clause, and if there is no choice, then there is no real contractual agreement, there’s no real contract. Plus if there’s one constant with government it’s its failure to keep up its end of the so-called terms. Citizens are “citizens” under some belief that the government has a duty to protect those citizens. Yet when it fails to protect the “citizens”, amazingly (but not surprisingly) the so-called contract isn’t rendered void. When it is explicitly shown that a government has no such duty to protect the inhabitants of the land, therefore nullifying its end of the bargain, yet the so called “contract” remains. The citizen is still punished for “disobedience” and the government and the so-called “contract” remains. Even when the government itself tells you that there is no such duty, the “contract” remains. The government has many times changed the terms, the laws, an act that should render any other contract void. Yet the so-called “contract” still remains. A person doesn’t need to have knowledge of all the terms of this “social contract” and give informed consent to it in order for it to be binding. Even in the absence of informed consent, a meeting of the minds, true consideration and acceptance, this “contract” still remains. You see, things that would make a contract a real consentual agreement is strangely absent from this so-called contract. The fact of the matter is that this “contract” only has these terms: “do what we say, or we’ll hurt you.” This is the sort of contract you can expect from a gang or a robber. “Hey, this is my turf. You consented to getting robbed and mistreated by being here.” Of course, that’s crap! Why? For two main reasons: 1) anyone with any sense knows that there is nothing contractual at all; and 2) gangs and robbers are more honest than those who believe in the social contract speculation in that they don’t use the pretense of some contract when they kill and rob people.
I’ve seen some prone to referring to their law code as a contract, be it UK law for the Brits or the constitution for the Yanks or whatever law code a person puts their faith in. But again, it’s back to the same old real terms of this “contract”: “do what the politicians say or they’ll hurt you!” Nothing gives the writers of these law codes the authority to put an individual into a contract. The individual is not their property to do with as they please. The writers of these documents cannot logically be representatives of strangers. So there is no basis for this contract. Also by imposing upon an individual a choice that he or she hasn’t made, the person imposing this contract is saying that someone else owns that individual. If I say “I do not give my consent to this so-called agreement with your societal values or your government”, and then you or some government official says “well, I say you’re part of this ‘agreement’ anyway”, then this person has claimed ownership over me. My will doesn’t matter. My choice doesn’t matter. Whether I like it or not, I’m under their power or that of the god/government or their choice.
Personal opinion (as if the rest of what I’ve said isn’t mainly composed of that sort of opinion): I think this social contract notion has multiple deceptive purposes or uses. It is a comfort blanket, a justification for those who don’t want to see the fact that their support of this social system we are trapped in is the source of so much theft, murder, extortion, destruction, injustice and immorality. This social contract speculation is a way for people to comfort themselves with words like “well, this dissenter had it coming because he/she didn’t bow to the will of the politicians or values I choose.” It also helps the psychopathic politicians retain their control over the populace by pushing this collectivist myth of some sort of agreement. This ensures the populace becomes the unpaid police and state indoctrinators.
To be blunt, there is no contract. There is just a one-sided bully sort of tyranny that says “do what we say, or we’ll hurt you!” It just attempts to impose upon a person a choice, an informed choice, that that individual hasn’t made. So it’s just more imposition. The services a person is essentially forced to use does not lead to consent to the whole system. This whole “social contract” idea is just an imaginary story to justify one person wanting to impose their views on others and to justify the tyranny of the politicians or ruling class.
So when a person says to me, based on this “social contract” notion, that I must live by or agree with their values and politician edicts or leave, I just take it for what it is: a threat of coercion, whether they mean to or not. And it’s a pretty baseless threat at that (except for the immorality they support), maybe even a deceptive one. And it’s a pretty empty threat in that this person is essentially saying that might makes right, whether it be from the majority or it be from the ruling class.
“It’s my country”
Some of the people who willingly allow their government to rob them – they term it as “paying taxes” – seem to feel as if they have a claim on the country and everything they think the government uses its pilfered resources on. I heard this most recently from a respected colleague of mine. Once a person goes against what people see hold as values, they feel the right to demand that person leave with claims like “I pay my taxes, I don’t want people with such a view in my schools!” or “These people speak against our law code or don’t respect the flag, so they should leave!” Also if an individual works for the government, a claim that often comes out of the mouth of such individuals is that a certain location belongs to them. I’ve seen a significant amount of videos where a cop or a judge will say things like “this is my court” or “get out of my town”.
I was told something that I’ve found to be more and more true. Government is not reason. Government is not truth. Morality doesn’t even seem to be a necessary part of government. Government is just force. It’s coercion. And those that suck up the same mentality of imposing their will on others to say “if you don’t agree with my values, you can get out of my country and my schools or whatever” just become an arm, an extension of that same government, of that same coercive force that just demands and claims the right to command. Now it’s the claim of “do what I say or else, if I don’t hurt you, I won’t give a damn if the government hurts you.” To boil that down, it’s again “do what I say or else I’ll hurt you!”
But the problem is even deeper than this. Think about it. When some random person says “get out of the country” then the question that should be asked is this: what gives that person ownership of that landmass? In other words “do you own this landmass?” If it is a voter or a supporter of the immorality called modern government that is demanding that you leave, then the question is this: “does your support of immorality somehow make you the owner of this landmass?” When this serf claims such ownership to dictate to someone else where they can or can’t reside, a reality check is needed. That “law-abiding taxpayer” (translation: the willing aider and abettor of government coercion) doesn’t own the country any more than the slaves owned the fields of the slave-driver. In much the same way, the government employee, the drones who enforce the will of the politicians, whether it be the cop or the judge, don’t own the courts or the streets or a town.
But again, it’s all just puppet-speak. It’s almost like golems given life and words by the government, they are just extensions of that same mindless force, that same imposition, that same “do what I say, or else I’ll hurt you.” Or as someone else said so well, “you know, I could just kill you.” And they have proved this over and over with the amount of kidnapping and murder done by “law-enforcers” (those who enforce the politicians’ will) and judges (lawyers) and other employees of government. When a self-proclaimed “taxpayer” states that services and buildings belong to him or her because that person pays taxes, it would be interesting to see them test this belief by asking for the keys of a bus paid for with their taxes. “Hey, I own this bus. I pay my taxes. Give me the damn keys!” Or “Hey, I own this school, although none of my children attend it (heck, I may not even have kids). Give me some of your books. I own it because I pay my taxes.” Why doesn’t the taxpayer You start to see how immature such a claim of ownership is. The “taxpayer” isn’t an owner. He or she is the “money cow.” He or she is part of the herd. In exchange for the funds expropriated, is the “taxpayer” given ownership of the landmass to give ultimatums for someone else to comply with their values or leave? Hell no! Even if I were to spit on a flag, use it as toilet paper and then burn it, that still doesn’t give any person justification or authority to offer ultimatums about where I can live.
It’s a shame to see people become so invested in the manmade edifice that it becomes something personal. Neither the law codes of modern countries nor their constitutions claim to come from God. It’s just someone imposing themselves on someone else. And as yet, I’ve seen no firm basis for this. Think about it when it comes to a flag, which is just than a colourful cloth. Yet people invest so much into that clothe, as if it is synonymous to certain positive values, when what it represents is very subjective. To one person it can represents positive values. To another it can represent negative qualities. But in essence, it’s just coloured cloth. To imply that someone should leave the area or the landmass because they don’t use the coloured cloth as you wish is a bit much, to say the least. This is especially true with the person claiming that someone else should leave a landmass or area doesn’t even own the landmass or area.
This is equally true for so many values that people hold. Again, we are not talking about God’s law. This is mainly about the hold that certain politicians or political stances have over the minds of many. “I think your education system stinks.” Response: “well you should leave the country.” “I think your government is immoral and should be razed from the planet.” Response: “well, if you don’t like it, you can leave!” Response: “There’s a lot of empty babble and celebrity worship in this country!” Response: “If you don’t like it, then you can leave!” Staying in a place with distasteful aspects doesn’t lead logically to consent nor to some obligation to stay quiet about the distasteful things.
And when a person who respects the Jewish Bible makes such a comment, it’s even more laughable. I would love to see what they say to the biblical prophets who complained against the actions of the people and the injustice system in Israel. “If you don’t like it, you can leave!”
I think, for the most, this blogpost is over.
There are insidious ways that imposition and arrogance takes a hold of people. To me, this “social contract” theory and this belief that one can dictate to others where they can or cannot reside based on accordance to one’s own values are two of them. Both ways of thinking give strength to notions that coincide with idolatry, such as nationalism, patriotism and statism. I personally have seen no good reason to believe that such arrogant imposition has any validity. Again, it’s disappointing that people who are otherwise good and decent adopt such harmful ideas.
I would appreciate more honesty. It’s not gonna happen, but I can say it anyway. What’s the point in pretending someone’s given consent when it hasn’t been expressly given? Just be honest! Some people believe that the government owns its citizens … actually that’s wrong. Let me correct myself. Some people believe that the government owns anyone within what it defines as its borders and has the right to do with them as it wants. There’s no agreement. It’s just a one-sided affair: the bully says, and the people do … or else!
Why act as if a landmass or an area is yours? Why tell a person to do something when you have no authority to dictate such a thing? Just be honest! The person dictating such a thing wants to control other people or impose their values on them through a threat: “get out or else!” I mean, think about this last claim. “I don’t like what you’re doing, my values reflect the (ideal) society, so if you don’t like these values, you should leave.” In my mind, I think “or what? what if I don’t?” The response may be “well you’ll face the consequences.” If I say, “yes I’m prepared for that” then there is nothing more to be said. In fact, nothing needed to be said in the first place.