February 19, 2013
By: Kelly Diamond, Editor
When we are told to “leave” because of our views toward government, is that a cruel suggestion or sage advice?
I say, rather than leave, let me opt out!
As my frustrations with the current trajectory of the U.S. economy and overall policies mount, I was instructed, once again, to “leave” if I don’t like the government. There are so many implications tangled into such a suggestion, I think it’s worth breaking it down. It’s evidently tolerable that I would disagree with my government… but to contend that it is unnecessary warrants that I should somehow be eliminated.
I was called “treasonous” for regarding the Constitution as irrelevant and worthless. My reasoning for this is simple: it has done nothing to prevent the tyranny we have now, which means it makes allowances for it. Even if I concede the noble intent of its authors (which I do not), it failed to deliver the goods. But treason, in the U.S. is a capital crime. So, for simply speaking ill of the Constitution, I deserve death. This is indeed one way to make me “leave”.
Remember when Susan Sarandon and Johnny Depp threatened to leave if their presidential candidate didn’t get into office? They never did. Imagine what that entails: their wealth leaving the country, never to return to pay into the largess to presumably give their “fair share” to the needy. Incidentally, there are plenty who redefined where their “residence” is, simply to avoid the taxes associated with it. The Beetles came to the U.S. for our lower tax rate. Oprah only resides in California a certain number of days so as to avoid the taxes of a full resident. Tina Turner recently expatriated to Switzerland, albeit she denies American taxes as the reason for doing so.
So, those who tell us unappreciative dim-wits to leave, are essentially saying: “We don’t need the fruits of YOUR labor to support this ever-growing co-dependent population or our blood-lust for war.” Ok. But if you don’t need my wealth or participation, to the point that you could afford to entreat me to leave, then why not just let me opt out? Why this need to physically remove me in some way? How does it bother anyone that I stay at my current location, but opt not to use government services?
Those who think individuals ought to have a “right to work” (or opt-out clause) in their place of employment – where they would be absolved from paying union dues and disassociated from union activities – interestingly enough do NOT think individuals should have that same choice in their place of residence! What is even more mind-boggling is how the very rationale employed by union fanatics as to why people should NOT be allowed to opt out of the union, is identical to the one provided by those who think we should NOT be allowed to opt out of government: because we never can fully opt out. For example, while unions negotiate benefits packages and salary increases, governments provide a military and an interstate highway system. How do you opt out of such things? You really can’t. The unions will not negotiate on behalf of a select few, lest their pay-to-play scheme become totally exposed and their “we represent the proletariat” rhetoric fly out the window. And I think we all know there is a better chance of me infiltrating Fort Knox than there is of the government letting go of its monopolies over brute force and travel.
You’ll notice I used the word “allow”. As if it weren’t degrading enough that I would have to ask permission to not participate, the sorry bit is my liberty pass is repeatedly denied! But therein lies the problem: the thugs won’t let go. It’s not that I’m unwilling to go, it’s that they won’t let go. It makes no difference that I am in the fiction called “New Hampshire” or in the fiction known as “Mexico”. My location is not, and has never been, the issue. Now, I certainly see no problem with folks who find a way to globalize themselves or their assets to maximize their freedom. In fact, it’s a wise act of self-defense! But why are such measures even necessary? Why should I be a refugee from my own land or property? I presumably live in a first world country… and yet I’m being told to “flee”. Not only am I being told to flee by the statists — who see no place for my ingratitude toward my benevolent masters in high office — but I’m likewise being pulled by liberty-loving individuals to emigrate away from the “land of the free” rhetoric and into the “land of the free” lifestyle elsewhere!
Prime example is Jeff Berwick’s latest endeavors to recreate “Galt’s Gulch” in Chile. Chile certainly doesn’t taut any of the liberty oriented taglines the U.S. does. In fact, you don’t hear much from them at all unless it concerns soccer. As it turns out, while countries like Chile may not have a framework built on warm and fuzzy premises of liberty and freedom, their government also doesn’t have the means or the inclination to give a $h!t either. So maybe you do slip some guy in a costume a couple bucks… but that guy actually leaves you alone! Cops extort us here in the US, but they do everything BUT leave you alone! If you’re going to pay a man with a badge no matter what, better that the money go toward them leaving you alone, than into a bottomless pit of perpetual harassment.
I have personal reasons why I won’t leave this geography known as the United States. It has nothing to do with the politics, and I certainly feel no loyalty to this government that so eagerly seeks to subjugate me. But personal reasons aside, it is tempting to look at the world as one, big, open geography, and live borderlessly. It is worth considering moving my assets around, hiding them in small precious metals, burying them in accounts and off shore businesses… It is worth looking at innocuous third world countries where my dollar still holds some sway and living high on the hog for practically nothing. There is something to be said for taking the advice of these whiny nationalistic indentured servants. While on the one hand I ask, “Why should I leave, when I’m not the one stealing, murdering and violating people’s rights?” On the other hand, self-preservation and wealth protection is nothing to scoff at!
Ironically, while the suggestion for liberty-minded individuals to “leave” was meant to be a jibe or even a sentence of some sort, the only ones punished by us calling their bluff is the statist who is left with a bunch of panhandling patriots!