Hi Yuyutsu,

I can certainly understand what you are saying there, that line could well be a legitimate argument. What if this 'B of R' was drawn up by non political eminent Australians and voted on through the democratic process, thus cutting the politicians out of the picture, not seen as being granted by the state, but by the citizens themselves, on themselves. is that acceptable?
Is it wrong to state the obvious? Or is the obvious not always that obvious to some? Could a 'B of R' act as a citizens "insurance policy" when a citizens rights are being infringed by the state.

In the link I posted both sides of the argument are put, and yes there is merit also in the anti argument, but on balance I think, done properly, a 'Bill of Rights' is a positive.

Dear Paul,

Thank you for the interesting link and I must commend your sincere attempt to sweeten the bitter pill.

Had this been a matter of personal comfort then I would probably be tempted. Why refuse such a superb insurance policy that would guarantee that I could freely graze in my paddock for the rest of my life?

Some members of this forum think of me as a lone-wolf who is uninterested in social interaction, but this is not so. I am more than happy to consider all sorts of social agreements and arrangements, including even to sacrifice some of my personal freedoms for the overall good, but there's a red line which I wouldn't cross: I will not accept, willingly participate in or support a body of people that forces itself on others against their will, not even if it forces itself only on just one other individual whom I don't even know.

So in order for me to support (and happily so) a Bill of Rights, I place just one condition: that it will include an exit-clause, whereby individuals have the freedom to opt out and disassociate themselves from the state (yet not be expelled from living on their land as a result).

An individual who opts out, will:
1. No longer be a citizen.
2. No longer be protected by the state (unless mutually agreed otherwise).
3. No longer receive any services from the state (unless mutually agreed otherwise).
4. No longer be subject to the state's laws (or taken to court if they do not follow these).
5. Not necessarily be allowed to enter or remain in public places/areas.
6. Be tolerated by the state so long as they do not harm or threaten any Australians (including visitors; but not including others who also opted out).
7. If they do harm or threaten Australians, then any measures can be applied by the state to remedy the situation (though not more than reasonably necessary), including even killing them if necessary as the last resort, but not including their subjection to the laws of Australia.

How about this?

Hi Yuyutsu,

I can see that possibly working in a few isolated cases, but how would it work out if say 2 million people in Sydney wanted to opt out?

Dear Paul,

If 2 million people are so unhappy that they are willing to forego that much, then surely something is very rotten and needs to be fixed. Hopefully it will.

It's a bit like an industrial strike: if that many workers are willing to forego their pay and lose their job-security, then it puts pressure on the work-place to change its ways.

Opting out within a city is very difficult. To begin with, it could mean that one cannot leave their home, being surrounded by public roads, or otherwise only by hopping over fences of friendly neighbours (who either opted out themselves or are sympathetic). It could also mean having no water and electricity, no access to banks and shops not honouring one's money, etc. etc.

Thinking what it would take me to make such a decision, it would have to be pretty bad, perhaps something like conscription; making religious worship illegal; or forcing people to have electronic implants or drink alcohol or eat meat (I am vegetarian and non-drinker). Things of that magnitude.

It is therefore much more likely that those city-dwellers who wish to severe their relation with the state will first recourse to exert their democratic pressure, possibly by running for local and state elections. Failing that they would rather move to the country, possibly as a group, then establish their autonomous region there - that is, in the most unlikely event where the state fails to listen to the painful plight of 2 million people, otherwise the incentive to leave will not be there.

Paul,
Could I point out that the people are the State, Politicians are just their representatives whom the majority want to represent them in governing the State.

Individual Rights cannot be clearly defined without violating another persons Right.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Are you advocating a system of self regulating communes like what existed around Nimbin NSW in the 1970's, which unfortunately seem to have gone legit to some degree over the last 40 years.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/where-have-all-the-hippies-gone-20130517-2jrvp.html

You seem to have put a number of escape clauses into your opt out plan with the "unless mutually agreed otherwise". Can it not be all or nothing?

One could become a non citizen yet still be protected by the state, receive services from the state, be allowed to enter or remain in public places/areas, be subjected to state punitive action because the state said they did harm. Not a lot of opting out there.
How does this apply to people in jail? Can they simply opt out? What happens to children of those who agree to opt out? Do they become state wards until the age of 18?