The state claims the right to expect your participation in society as a member
who recognizes the rights of the membership at large and who is obligated to
the well being of the membership at large ... that is what humanity is.
I don't see that doctrine anywhere in the founding documents of our country, in our constitution, or anywhere. What do you base that claim on?
BTW, if that is actually a legitimate claim of government, then it follows necessarily that, for example, if you are a doctor capable of healing the sick, the government can force you to keep being a doctor and refuse to allow you to quit doctoring and become a painter. It can refuse to let a person trained as a teacher stop being a teacher and become a cabinetmaker. And on and on.
Your presumption of the state's right to obligate me to support the well being of the membership at large is a pretty overwhelming presumption.
I agree that I can voluntarily take on a very few obligations -- marriage and parenthood being the major onse. Perhaps the only ones. But if I'm not a parent or spouse, what affirmative obligation to the membership of society do I have? I have an obligation not to disrupt society in certain ways by murdering people, by stealing, etc. I have an obligation IF I choose to earn money to share part of it with the state.
But if someone lets me live on their land and I choose just to live a subsistence life, growing my own food, making everything I own, the government has no right to force me to any other lifestyle. |
