Laws are enforced through use of force or literally denying freedom of movement, or by threatening to do the above to subjects who do not obey.
It’s a spectrum. How violent are the reprisals, how lethal, how indiscriminate. How egregious are the prison terms, how outsized are the fines and fees. But all governments are inherently authoritarian, unless they allow subjects to instead choose punishment by exile instead of strongarm tactics. I’m not aware of any that do. Mostly because there’s nowhere to be exiled to. All governments have claimed all of the available land, so you can’t even choose exile independently. Societies vary on the freedoms they allow; all governmental bodies are by nature authoritarian. If no one were to submit to them, nations would have no standing to declare binding authority over members of the public. Governments are systems of control, and that control is allegedly by consent of the governed. However, if one is never given a reasonable alternative or opportunity to object, they are not free. They are only as free as their society allows them to be. This one-sided state of affairs makes freely-given consent to be governed impossible.
I am open to being convinced otherwise, though. We’re freer than we’ve ever been, but we’ve only changed the window dressing. We’re still beholden to government representatives that themselves have multiple competing interests. Full direct democracy with vote delegation for those who want it is a start. Proportional representation instead of first past the post elections would also be necessary.
It just occurred to me that the closest we have in USA to self-exile is joining a Native American tribe via marriage, or otherwise being adopted onto a reservation and settling on res.
I’ve done humanitarian work and outreach with various Native American/Indian tribes in western states. My great-uncles both married Native women. No disrespect is intended in any of my above statements. I don’t take these issues lightly, but for the purposes of debate, I included this post to illuminate how hard it is to be freer in a free society that has its warts and issues.
It’s a spectrum. How violent are the reprisals, how lethal, how indiscriminate. How egregious are the prison terms, how outsized are the fines and fees. But all governments are inherently authoritarian, unless they allow subjects to instead choose punishment by exile instead of strongarm tactics. I’m not aware of any that do. Mostly because there’s nowhere to be exiled to. All governments have claimed all of the available land, so you can’t even choose exile independently. Societies vary on the freedoms they allow; all governmental bodies are by nature authoritarian. If no one were to submit to them, nations would have no standing to declare binding authority over members of the public. Governments are systems of control, and that control is allegedly by consent of the governed. However, if one is never given a reasonable alternative or opportunity to object, they are not free. They are only as free as their society allows them to be. This one-sided state of affairs makes freely-given consent to be governed impossible.
I am open to being convinced otherwise, though. We’re freer than we’ve ever been, but we’ve only changed the window dressing. We’re still beholden to government representatives that themselves have multiple competing interests. Full direct democracy with vote delegation for those who want it is a start. Proportional representation instead of first past the post elections would also be necessary.