"Love It or Leave It"? Guess Again

[Autolykos]

I don't know how many times I've debated with people who end up using the "Love it or leave it" argument. Their reasoning goes like this:

1. By staying in the United States (or any other country), you agree to be subject to its laws.
2. Due to the above, if you do not wish to be subject to its laws, the only thing you can do is leave the country.

There are two ways to disprove a line of reasoning: Prove the conclusion does not follow from the premises, or prove that one or more of the premises is false (in the case of premises that claim to derive from empiricism and reality). While the conclusion presented above is obviously a non-sequitur due to its "only" restriction, I find it more interesting to attack the premise. I shall do so here.

Again, the argument is that, by living in a given country, you agree to be subject to its laws and, therefore, are subject to them. I disagree. My suspicion is that this argument is a subtle instance of the reification fallacy. Laws are not entities with their own will. Ultimately, they exist only in people's minds. Therefore, one can choose not to be subject to one or more laws.

However, the converse of this is that others may still consider that individual subject to those laws. They may compel the individual to "follow the law" (i.e. do what they want) by use or threat of violence. As a result, these others effectively become a government. Yet they have no power over the individual's personal beliefs. He may still not hold himself subject to their laws.

On the other hand, I've discovered something interesting about holding oneself subject to a law. Doing so includes agreeing to a punishment proscribed by that law. Therefore, refusing to follow a law includes resisting any and all punishments provided by it. What would be the result here? Most likely, death -- either at the hands of police or prison guards who resent your resistance and finally decide to put an end to it.

Hence, it is plain for anyone who wishes to see. "Love it or leave it" is simply another way to demand what the State always demands -- complete and total obedience, or death.

- Rob

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Autolykos I don't know how many times I've debated with people who end up using the "Love it or leave it" argument. Their reasoning goes like this: By staying in the United States (or any other country), you agree to be subject to its laws. Due to the above, if you do not wish to be subject to its laws, the only thing you can do is leave the country. There are two ways to disprove a line of reasoning: Prove the conclusion does not follow from the premises, or prove that one or more of the premises is false (in the case of premises that claim to derive from empiricism and reality). While the conclusion presented above is obviously a non-sequitur due to its "only" restriction, I find it more interesting to attack the premise. I shall do so here. Again, the argument is that, by living in a given country, you agree to be subject to its laws and, therefore, are subject to them. I disagree. My suspicion is that this argument is a subtle instance of the reification fallacy. Laws are not entities with their own will. Ultimately, they exist only in people's minds. Therefore, one can choose not to be subject to one or more laws. However, the converse of this is that others may still consider that individual subject to those laws. They may compel the individual to "follow the law" (i.e. do what they want) by use or threat of violence. As a result, these others effectively become a government. Yet they have no power over the individual's personal beliefs. He may still not hold himself subject to their laws. On the other hand, I've discovered something interesting about holding oneself subject to a law. Doing so includes agreeing to a punishment proscribed by that law. Therefore, refusing to follow a law includes resisting any and all punishments provided by it. What would be the result here? Most likely, death -- either at the hands of police or prison guards who resent your resistance and finally decide to put an end to it. Hence, it is plain for anyone who wishes to see. "Love it or leave it" is simply another way to demand what the State always demands -- complete and total obedience, or death. - Rob

But it isn't about the nation's laws, it's about the idea of America - our core values, what defines us as Americans. If someone doesn't love our core values, our collective American identity, then that person is kindly invited to go live in some other country more to his liking.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Chancellor But it isn't about the nation's laws, it's about the idea of America - our core values, what defines us as Americans. If someone doesn't love our core values, our collective American identity, then that person is kindly invited to go live in some other country more to his liking.

Although you're changing the context here, I'll go along with it for the moment.

Let me say that I don't think anything defines me as an American aside from having been born here. Americans do not have any special understanding of things that the rest of the world cannot attain. Therefore, Americans are not necessarily unique from other people in the world, except in the sense that they were born in America and other people in the world were not.

It stands to reason, then, that I may not love "our" "core values", or "our" "collective American identity". Yet I still choose to live here. What do you say to that? Would you force me to leave, if it were in your power?

- Rob

[Mr. Jaggers]

I'm leaving for the Duchy of Grand Fenwick. The laws are much better there.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Mr. Jaggers I'm leaving for the Duchy of Grand Fenwick. The laws are much better there.

You might wanna rethink that. I don't think they have a Wal-Mart there.

[Mia]

Quote by: Chancellor But it isn't about the nation's laws, it's about the idea of America - our core values, what defines us as Americans. If someone doesn't love our core values, our collective American identity, then that person is kindly invited to go live in some other country more to his liking.

And what would those be?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Chancellor But it isn't about the nation's laws, it's about the idea of America - our core values, what defines us as Americans. If someone doesn't love our core values, our collective American identity, then that person is kindly invited to go live in some other country more to his liking.

This argument isn't really defensible. You shouldn't just assume there is any absolute "American" identity that everyone must conform to. There isn't. In fact, it's an authoritarian expectation that someone should leave--politely or otherwise--because they disagree with one or more features of a system.

Grandpa h.

[Mr. Jaggers]

The army of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick under the command of Tully Bascombe invades the United States.

[Mr. Jaggers]

Tully Bascombe captures Professor Kokintz and the Q-Bomb.

[Mr. Jaggers]

Tully Bascombe and the army return to the Duchy of Grand Fenwick triumphant.

[Jack]

"Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism are all too frequently those who . . . ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism -- the right to criticize, the right to hold unpopular beliefs, the right to protest, the right of independent thought."

-Margaret Chase Smith, the first senator who spoke out about Senator Joe McCarthy's contention that anyone who criticized him was "aiding the enemy."

[Nono]

Likewise (something I've often quoted on this-here board):

Quote by: Huey Long Of course fascism will come to America. But it will be presented as 100% Americanism.

Or words to that effect.

[Jack]

Mr. Jaggers, this thread is not in entertainment. Please either contribute to the topic or refrain from posting. Do not attempt to derail the thread.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: grandpa This argument isn't really defensible. You shouldn't just assume there is any absolute "American" identity that everyone must conform to. There isn't. In fact, it's an authoritarian expectation that someone should leave--politely or otherwise--because they disagree with one or more features of a system.

I agree with this.

Quote by: Isherwood "Those of us who shout the loudest about Americanism are all too frequently those who . . . ignore some of the basic principles of Americanism -- the right to criticize, the right to hold unpopular beliefs, the right to protest, the right of independent thought." -Margaret Chase Smith, the first senator who spoke out about Senator Joe McCarthy's contention that anyone who criticized him was "aiding the enemy."

I would say that the principles delineated by Ms. Smith are not uniquely American principles.

- Rob

[Mr. Jaggers]

Throughout history, there have been those that believed that man might be regulated by enlightened self-interest, where people would be righteous and just, and there would be no need for the law for everyone would act for the best interest of the common good. They were impossible dreamers; their perfect world does not exist. No, in the real world, it is only the sanction of law that keeps man in line.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Autolykos Hence, it is plain for anyone who wishes to see. "Love it or leave it" is simply another way to demand what the State always demands -- complete and total obedience, or death.

If I happen to repeat what you've already said, I apologize, but here's my take on it:

Which country you live in is a choice.

You don't necessarily have to agree to live by the laws of the country.

But the way I see it, living in a country means that you are agreeing to the punishments for breaking the laws.

For example, I've lived in various countries that have a different approach to the following situation:

Someone parks their car, leaves the windows down, the doors unlocked, they keys in the ignition, and the car turned on. They don't own the car yet... they are still making payments.

In one country, if you take the car you are stealing it. It's not yours, you stole it, you can be punished.

In another country, if you take the car then nothing happens to you. Instead, the owner of the car (the bank) made a poor choice of person to trust with their property during the period of repayment. As such, they absorb their loss and probably investigate privately whether or not the car was stolen by the debtor.

In either country, you might strongly disagree with the particular laws of the situation. You don't have to.

But by choosing to live in that country, you are acknowledging that you accept the punishments for violating the law or consequences derived from law violation.

I don't agree that you have to respect the laws of the country in which you live. I think that the greatest benefit of citizenship is the ability to complain about the laws and fight for change.

But I do believe that, in the meantime, as long as you live in that country you accept the punishments for law violation.

[Athena]

Quote by: Chancellor But it isn't about the nation's laws, it's about the idea of America - our core values, what defines us as Americans. If someone doesn't love our core values, our collective American identity, then that person is kindly invited to go live in some other country more to his liking.

Nothing is more core value in America then disagreeing and taking action when one disagrees. We must obey our laws, but we can also take action to change them. In fact, it is our duty to change laws we do not believe are just. That is the whole point of being a democracy and not an autocracy.

This is such an important point. I know this is no longer a shared understanding of democracy, but democracy comes from ancient Athens. It comes out of asking how the gods resolve their differences, and concluding, reason, is the controlling force of the universe. Even the gods are controlled by reason.

Our freedom of speech is not the freedom to say anything we want to say, that could be very immoral. It is the freedom to reason, which is essential to self government. We do our best to make good laws, and because they are "our laws" made by us, or those we elect to office, we have a stake in these laws. Our laws are changeable because there is always the chance someone will reason why a law should be changed, and if this person can convince enough of the reasoning to change the law, the law is changed. Because, my dear friends, even the gods are controlled by reason. That is the core value of democracy.

[Kamehameha34]

I only use the phrase when people push for change, and refuse to do it via the correct channels as described by the constitution.

There's no intrinsically "correct" political process, but people who live in America accept that they are under jurisdiction of the constitution and are free to leave if they don't find it to their liking.

If they seek change without any regard for the constitution of the processes it lays out, then they should move to a country more in line with their beliefs.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I only use the phrase when people push for change, and refuse to do it via the correct channels as described by the constitution. There's no intrinsically "correct" political process, but people who live in America accept that they are under jurisdiction of the constitution and are free to leave if they don't find it to their liking.

You should probably elaborate more on what is meant by "proper channels," and, of course, why they are proper.

If that isn't done, the channels shouldn't be to my liking.

Grandpa h.

[Nono]

Quote by: Chancellor It isn't about the nation's laws, it's about the idea of America - our core values, what defines us as Americans. If someone doesn't love our core values, our collective American identity, then that person is kindly invited to go live in some other country more to his liking.

1) Would you kindly define all these things in unambiguous black and white?

2) Even if you can -- and guess what, you'll have an argurment on your hands from other Americans as soon as you start -- you're implying that America should henceforth be perfectly static. This, of course, defies the whole idea and purpose of democracy (you do believe in democracy, don't you C?).

3) Your invitation might conceivably apply to potential immigrants -- if you don't like this place, don't bother coming. But not to American citizens, unless you're a fascist.

4) If there's too much bitching for you, Chance, why don't you leave?