Yuyutsu "I want to live in a voluntary society where everyone involved has agreed without coercion to be part of it."

You may want that all you like, but the states that exists all over the world are not going away.

At best, they may split into smaller states, but never with the *unanimous* support of all residents.

Citizens of the Australian colonies actually *did* vote in referendums to unite the colonies under one constitution.

Of course, Australians alive today did not vote, but the same would be true of any of your "voluntary" laws.

The population that chose a law last year would not be that exact same population alive this year.
Are we to revise every "voluntary" law whenever someone dies, emigrates or turns 18?

"the chances of having voluntary societies lie in them being significantly smaller than contemporary nations"

And significantly poorer.
It is only through large populations that economies of scale and the division of labour can produce high living standards and plentiful leisure time.

Being smaller would make them even *more* territorial, as they would have fewer resources to share with intruders.

There were much smaller nations once.
Germany, France and Italy were once dozens of smaller states.
Were they any less territorial than the now larger states?

You live in a castle in the air.
Idealism is just fluff unless it's actionable in the real world.

Sadly for you, your wishes will never be granted.
There is no point "debating" with you, as no workable solutions can ever be negotiated with Noble Ones.

Yuyutsu, animals especially dogs are subject to the laws of the state. Dogs are required to be licenced, they are required to be kept under control and if they bite someone they are likely the face the full brunt of the law. The laws of the wild, or natural laws as you might call them, still present restrictions and limitations. It just happens that the animal 'mankind' is capable of writing down, defining and enforcing its laws (love them or hate 'em) more consistently than other animals.

Likewise this place we agree to call Australia (and similarly all other nations) has defined borders that are agreed on by all other countries in the world. The government of the nation sets the laws that govern the borders. You have the right to not like the laws but you individually have no say in regard to how the borders are managed.

The 'state' has every right to regard the borders as 'our borders' with the word our meaning Australia's borders. 'Our borders' are not yours therefore you have no right to say you disapprove of the laws being applied in your name. Plus you don't recognise the state's right to make laws, so how could that state be doing so in your name?

The same as when you could not provide an example of one place in the world that applies the rules or lack of rules the way you wish the world was, when you dream up a version of the utopia you wish you could live in, its still just a dream.

The more far fetched the dream, the less likely it represents reality.

Dear Shockadelic,

Slavery has been around for millennia and was taken for granted. Only a few centuries ago, someone rose and said: "Hey, what are you doing? that's not right!" and at the time everyone else thought s/he was crazy, but within 100-200 years it all changed and slavery is now unacceptable. If someone were to claim as did the Romans: "It's impossible to have an economy without slaves", then almost every contemporary person would answer: "if so, then don't have a bloody economy!".

What I am saying is so trivial, but somehow the opposite is being taken for granted:

>>> It is not right to force your laws upon someone who never consented to have anything to do with you to begin with. <<<

One day, this will be obvious to everyone.

---

I must clarify that I never said that each and every law must be voluntary (thus constantly revised): what should be voluntary is participation in a society, any society - from then on it all depends on the specific constitution of that society.

While members-of-society are bound by law, one should be able to live in freedom without being a member-of-a-society, so long as s/he doesn't hurt or threaten its members. If s/he does then it's not a matter of law but of self-defence and the society may do what it needs to avert that threat.

<<And significantly poorer.>>

While my answer to that is "If so, then be poor!", it doesn't have to be so, just as contrary to the Roman idea, modern society can function without slaves. It's only a matter of having the goodwill to find a different and more moral model.

I'm not locked on this model or the other so long as all is voluntary, but as food-for-thought, if states are smaller, there can be voluntary networks of international agreements such as the European-Union and NATO which combine their capabilities. Also, even large states could have multi-tiered levels of citizenship, with corresponding multiple levels of both privileges and duties, so that everyone can choose their own level of engagement with society.

Dear Rhrosty,

Your interest in helping the poor in poorer countries is commendable: God bless you. However, the topic at hand is what to do about those who arrive by boat despite all efforts.

The first and foremost moral injunction is DO NO HARM. Helping others beyond that is indeed noble.

---

Dear Hippie,

Dogs are not subject to laws: dog-owners are!

<<if they bite someone they are likely the face the full brunt of the law.>>

No - they are just likely to be shot or otherwise euthanased.
Their owners may still face the full brunt of the law if indeed they accepted to be part of that society which has those laws. What the dogs face should be a practical operation to ensure they never bite anyone again. Such operations should be dictated by necessities rather than by laws.

If people who never agreed to become part of society repeatedly keep owning dogs that bite people, then as an act of self-defence it may be acceptable to shoot them along with their dogs. It is however unacceptable to bring them to court for trial, as laws and courts are an internal mechanism of a society.

---

Yes, the laws-of-the-wild present restrictions, but they are not of your own doing, you are not the restricter.

---

<<borders that are agreed on by all other countries in the world.>>

Even pirates have some code-of-honour among them (such as, "you may eat only those people you caught yourself"). Their acts may be agreeable with other pirate-ships, but not with their victims.

<<but you individually have no say in regard to how the borders are managed.>>

My life could have been easier under a dictatorship, but this is presumably a democracy, hence it's my duty to oppose wrong-doings done in my name.

<<you have no right to say you disapprove of the laws being applied in your name.>>

It's not a right, it's a duty!

Even if I happened to selfishly benefit from such immoral laws, it's still my duty to disapprove them.