I guess we have no grounds to ojbect or complain about anything unless it violates a natural human right
Sure you do. And you do too. Complaining does not constitute an initiation of force (unless it elevates into harrassment or threat). The act of complaining is therefore moral and just, as is any instance of voluntary association. You don't, however, have a moral right to invoke force (government) unless natural law has been clearly violated. (The only moral use of force is in defense of force, according to natural law.)
The corporation doesn't have a natural right to make a profit
Sure they do. Any instance of voluntary association is moral and just according to natural law. The act of trade is, by definition voluntary (if it wasn't voluntary it wouldn't be trade, it would be theft, fraud, or extortion). Perhaps you are confusing the right to chase after profit (voluntary) with some artifical, government-imposed "guarantee" of profit (involuntary)?
Of course, the vast majority of people in the world today do "approve" the initiation of force (offensive, rather than defensive force) and indeed, most can't imagine any other solution. So in the end, us anarchists and our philosophy of zero-aggression are relegated to lunatic status, people keep trying to "solve" problems with force rather than voluntary association, and the world remains violent and unjust.
Voluntary association is the human right in question. Mind you, China is hardly the only country, nor the first, to rob its people of the right to voluntary association. As a rule of thumb, the bigger the government, the more erosion of this fundamental human right. Yes, this means that the US government is among the worst offenders.
Its their country, their rules
And I suppose you'd still be singing that catchphrase as your own government drags you off to prison for breaking its own laws against voluntary association. (Have we got a case of the "if it ain't me, it doesn't concern me" syndrome?)
Linux is about freedom more then anything else. Who are you to shove a desktop down my throat?
Unless he plans on using the force of government to shove a desktop down your throat, freedom isn't an issue here. If all linux developers got together and voluntarily decided that there's room for only one desktop, how can that possibly be a loss of freedom? Where's the force or fraud? Loss of alternative choice, sure. But loss of freedom? That's a red herring. If McDonalds suddenly decided to stop selling you those Big Macs, would you claim that as a loss of "freedom" too? If you suddenly decided to quit your job, are you infringing on your employer's "freedom" to employ you? (These examples are absurd, of course, but no more absurd than your claiming to lose "freedom" through voluntary association.)
Otherwise, I agree with you that more choice results in better software.
If the definition freedom is subjective, then the term is meaningless and we might as well drop this discussion. I think we all know, deep down, what freedom really means, but most people are afraid to admit it because they would expose themselves as hypocrites.
Freedom means (a) the ability to make your own choices through free will, so long as (b) you respect others ability to make their own choices through free will. The concept of freedom is precisely unambiguous; it is not up for debate what the term means. Those who claim otherwise are only looking for a way to sugar-coat their real objective, which is using the force of government to limit freedom.
For example, engaging in voluntary trade is an example of freedom, because both conditions (a) and (b) are met. Engaging in theft is NOT an example of freedom, because although condition (a) is met, condition (b) is not. (A person cannot posess the "freedom" to steal from others, as some might claim. This makes as much sense as a government having the "freedom" to oppress its people.)
Key point being, the majority of Americans don't realize that. Politicians are masters of exploiting (1) ignorance, (2) fear, and (3) arrogance, and (4) greed. Those that can master all four will go very, very far.
if you don't want government in your life, you'll need to live in a country where the government has little technology
No, you'll need to live in a country where the government is strictly limited in their powers over the people. How to achieve that -- or whether it can be achieved at all -- is a matter of question. Sadly, the US has already proven that strict limits on government power (the constitution) don't necessarily mean a thing. Most people don't realize that if the constitution was upheld, the US federal government would have 1/10 (or even less) the revenue and power it has today.
It takes the one thing that every American values -- our freedom
I don't think I agree with that. If Americans valued their freedom, the majority would be libertarians if not anarchists. As it is, libertarians are generally considered the radical minority, and anarchists are considered lunitics.
No, I definitely don't believe that every American values freedom. I don't even belive the majority of Americans values freedom.
It's impossible to estimate the cost of war in Iraq before we go in. It's impossible to estimate the cost of the war once we're in it. Therefore it is obviously impossible to estimate its cost in the future, which is why it's not in the budget package.
It's quite simple, however, to measure the real cost of the war on Iraq (measured in innocent human life) based on trend. After the first 10,000 were killed, it was likely that should the US government continue, another 10,000 would be killed. After the second 10,000 were killed, it was even more likely that another 10,000 would be killed. And so on. Could we guarantee, before the war was initiated, that at least 10,000 innocents would be killed? Absolutely, based on the extensive history of US military intervention, and the scale of this war relative to other wars.
Now we're up to over 100,000 dead innocents (some estimates claim 200,000). Is it likely that another 100,000 will be killed should the US government continue for another 2 years? I don't see how anyone could argue with history.
Capitalism? Hardly. Capitalism would require that government is strictly limited in their powers over the people and their right to to engage in voluntary trade. As it is, the US government is very heavily entangled in the market, quite the opposite of capitalism.
In general terms, the "level" of capitalism is directly proportional to the size of government, which can be measured in terms of revenue. Today, the averge US citizen pays nearly 50% of their yearly earnings to government through federal, state, and local taxes and fees combined. In a system of pure capitalism (anarcho-capitalism), citizens would retain 100% of their earnings, and therefore 100% of their ability to choose where, when, and how to direct those earnings (freedom of choice is the core process of capitalism). In a system of pure socialism, government would take 100% and private property wouldn't exist at all (centralized planning is the core process of socialism). So overall, the US is roughly half capitalist, half socialist, and therefore you cannot simply label the US economic system "capitalism", much less blame capitalism for the many problems facing the US.
The Bush administration has already demonstrated their willingness to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians for political gain. The only thing holding them back is the guaranteed backlash from the American public. When 100,000 innocent deaths occur slowly but steadily over a period of months or years, they can be easily covered up or spun off as "colateral damage". If 100,000 innocents were to die in one sudden instant, the sheep might just wake up and take notice.
If any regime on Earth really deserves to be invaded and dismantled by the civilized nations of the world it is North Korea.
Do the innocents deserve to die? I'm quite serious -- answer the question. Do the innocent civilians of North Korea deserve to die? Becauase that is exactly what will happen if the US invades North Korea, just as tens of thousands of innocents have already been killed by the US invasion of Iraq.
The consitution is dead and gone. If the consitution were upheld, the federal government would be 1/50 the size it is today, and the only functions it would be legally permitted to undertake are national defense (NOT offense as we have today), border control, and settling disputes between states. All other functions would be in the hands of the states, not the federal government. That was the intent of the founders.
The constitution made this requirement because the founders understood that centralized power is the most dangerous thing in the world.
I have literally never heard the "all government power comes from the point of a gun" line from anyone who doesn't regard all government as tyranny.
To paraphrase George Washington: Government is not reason or eloquence; it is pure force.
The founders understood that government is the most dangerous thing that could ever exist, unlike most of our political leaders (and civilians) today. As history shows, the crimes committed by governments (of all types, including democracy/republic types) dwarfs the crimes committed by private individuals and groups. What could possibly be more dangerous than an organization that posesses the ability to initiate force legally?
So, to realize that government is founded on pure force is not paranoid or radical; it is the simple truth.
Now, there is a great and moral difference between the initiation of force and force invoked in self-defense. By the laws of human nature, the latter is moral and just; the former is not. Government, as I stated before, is defined precisely as the organization which posesses the unique legal ability to initiate force (any other individual or organization which does so is criminal).
And, sorry for being argumentive, but I tend to take these discussions very seriously. I am what you call an anarcho-capitalist. I believe that someday, perhaps 1000 years into the future, government will finally crumble and give way to a completely voluntary society. (What society could be more moral and just than one which is entirely voluntary, and only permits force in self-defense?) Libertarianism is only a stepping stone between oppressive government and the "holy grail", the voluntary society. Libertarianism, and freedom in general, is simply social evolution in progress.
Right, but the general idea is to underclock the processor, not the FSB. You will take a bigger performance hit by lowering the bus speed than by using a lower multiplier. Unfortunately, the process of unlocking the multiplier isn't clean, easy, or reliable.
I would love to underclock my Athlon XP 1800, but after reading up on the technique, I decided that it couldn't be done cleanly (in terms of both reliability AND tidy-ness). Underclocking would be the perfect solution if it could only be done cleanly and easily.
First of all, where did I say that I was a libertarian? Or were you just looking for an excuse to rattle off the old canned "the problem with libertarians" speech? Would it be helpful to you if I rattled off my "the problem with statists" speech? Let's stick to the subject.
the comparison between people eating you in a life boat and being forced to pay a extra $10 in property tax is ridiculous.
What do you think would happen if you refused to pay that $10? First they'd impose a fine or two. Assume you ignore it. Then comes the threatening letters and phone calls, and if you still ignore them, the IRS arrives at your door. If you refuse to chat with them, they go away and the cops take over. If you refuse to open the door for the cops, they break it down, guns pointed at your face. If you decide to invoke force in defense of force, what happens then?
The comparison wasn't that absurd after all. Sure, $10 is "small fries", but that's irrelevant. The point is that deadly force is behind everything government does -- even the seemingly little things -- even if you can't see it at first.
As for megacorps and the ability to initiate force as a means to an end -- it wouldn't be possible without the blessing of government. Business cannot lie, cheat, steal, rape, or murder, unless the law allows them to (unfortunately it does exactly that, in too many circumstances). Otherwise they are criminals and should be dealt with accordingly.
Economic power is not the same kind of power that government is founded on. A business cannot hold you at gunpoint and demand that you purchase its products. Government, on the other hand, does exactly that, even if you can't see it at first.
Indeed. I just bought the same model (Super Tornado 400) and fired it up solo the other day just to see how loud it is relative to the other noise makers in my computer (I'm doing the silent thing). I turned it on and nothing happened, so I assumed my paperclip wasn't shorting the wires correctly. So I adjusted the paperclip, tried again, and no dice. Then I connected a case fan, fired it up, and finally realized that the power supply WAS on in the first place, I just didn't realize it because there was no sound. I honestly couldn't hear a thing unless I put my ear right next to it. Between the silent operation and the high efficiency (save on electricity), I would highly recommend the Seasonic. The price is a bit steep, but I'd certainly buy it again.
Indeed. Government makes the rules. Microsoft is only playing the hand they've been dealt by government. A similar example is the proliferation of unethical lawyers willing to make a buck on unethical grounds. Guess what? It only works because government makes it all possible, with a hugely complex, ambiguous, and highly exploitable legal system. The root of the problem lies squarely in government, and therefore, the only solution is to change government.
That is the essence of all government. If you don't pay your taxes, they come with guns, and they take you to jail. Yes, by force. They may not come with guns at first. They usually don't, in order to downplay the fact that you are, indeed, facing deadly force. But the threat is not make-believe as you would have it. The threat is real, and that's why it works.
Government is the only organization that posesses the unique "right" to initiate force (yes, deadly force, if it comes to that) as a means to an end. Anyone else who does so is a criminal. That is the only universal, unambiguous definition of government, and will be, until the end of time. If government was voluntary, it wouldn't be government at all -- it would be free enterprise.
The fact is that if you decide to resist -- any law, not just the big ones -- you WILL eventually face deadly force. You can sugar-coat the promises of government until they rot, but you can't change the fundamental principle of government which is association by force.
Are you against "faith-based" charity? Using your logic, your individual opinion doesn't mean squat, because "society" has already decided that it's right for government to take your money and hand it out to religious groups.
At least admit that those who are forced to participate against their will have been robbed of personal liberty. Don't try to sugar-coat it like it's some kind of higher calling. Government is pure force, plain and simple.
Secondly, your use of the term "society" implies that people aren't individuals with individual needs, wants, and opinions, but rather more like bricks in the wall. Have some respect, and admit that what you really mean by "society" is "the majority".
If they want to offer a pay service, that's fine. If the do offer a pay service then it needs to be operated only by the funds it takes in.
If people are going to be charged to use the service, then it might as well be a privately-run business in the first place. You're not one of those people who automatically suggests government as the solution to any given problem, are you?
Otherwise it would unfair competition with private companies.
Government-run business can't possibly qualify as "fair competition" in the first place. Why? Because government is the organization which holds the unique legal right to initiate force as a means to an end (anyone else who does so is a criminal). To put this in perspective, you wouldn't call the mob "fair competition" for the security market, would you?
Be careful with your choice of words. Freedom does not mean the right to gang up and initiate force against others. In this case, true freedom would be the right to refuse to associate with others, or the right to peacefully develop your own voluntary solution. Your solution may be popular, or supported by the majority, but that does not make it voluntary in the slightest.
If there are 5 people starving to death on a raft at sea, and 4 of those people decide to kill the fifth, against his will, in order to survive, would you say that those 4 people are "exercising their freedom" to murder the fifth? That is exactly what you're claiming here, and that's just plain wrong. An initiation of force is an initiation of force, whether 4 against 1 or 4,000,000 against 1. Majority rule does not magically flip the definition of association by force.
Now you tell me, why shouldn't I be free to exercise MY will to refuse to participate in this program? If I don't have that right, then I'm not exactly free, am I?
Slashdot Mirror
I guess we have no grounds to ojbect or complain about anything unless it violates a natural human right
Sure you do. And you do too. Complaining does not constitute an initiation of force (unless it elevates into harrassment or threat). The act of complaining is therefore moral and just, as is any instance of voluntary association. You don't, however, have a moral right to invoke force (government) unless natural law has been clearly violated. (The only moral use of force is in defense of force, according to natural law.)
The corporation doesn't have a natural right to make a profit
Sure they do. Any instance of voluntary association is moral and just according to natural law. The act of trade is, by definition voluntary (if it wasn't voluntary it wouldn't be trade, it would be theft, fraud, or extortion). Perhaps you are confusing the right to chase after profit (voluntary) with some artifical, government-imposed "guarantee" of profit (involuntary)?
Of course, the vast majority of people in the world today do "approve" the initiation of force (offensive, rather than defensive force) and indeed, most can't imagine any other solution. So in the end, us anarchists and our philosophy of zero-aggression are relegated to lunatic status, people keep trying to "solve" problems with force rather than voluntary association, and the world remains violent and unjust.
Voluntary association is the human right in question. Mind you, China is hardly the only country, nor the first, to rob its people of the right to voluntary association. As a rule of thumb, the bigger the government, the more erosion of this fundamental human right. Yes, this means that the US government is among the worst offenders.
Its their country, their rules
And I suppose you'd still be singing that catchphrase as your own government drags you off to prison for breaking its own laws against voluntary association. (Have we got a case of the "if it ain't me, it doesn't concern me" syndrome?)
Unless he plans on using the force of government to shove a desktop down your throat, freedom isn't an issue here. If all linux developers got together and voluntarily decided that there's room for only one desktop, how can that possibly be a loss of freedom? Where's the force or fraud? Loss of alternative choice, sure. But loss of freedom? That's a red herring. If McDonalds suddenly decided to stop selling you those Big Macs, would you claim that as a loss of "freedom" too? If you suddenly decided to quit your job, are you infringing on your employer's "freedom" to employ you? (These examples are absurd, of course, but no more absurd than your claiming to lose "freedom" through voluntary association.)
Otherwise, I agree with you that more choice results in better software.
If the definition freedom is subjective, then the term is meaningless and we might as well drop this discussion. I think we all know, deep down, what freedom really means, but most people are afraid to admit it because they would expose themselves as hypocrites.
Freedom means (a) the ability to make your own choices through free will, so long as (b) you respect others ability to make their own choices through free will. The concept of freedom is precisely unambiguous; it is not up for debate what the term means. Those who claim otherwise are only looking for a way to sugar-coat their real objective, which is using the force of government to limit freedom.
For example, engaging in voluntary trade is an example of freedom, because both conditions (a) and (b) are met. Engaging in theft is NOT an example of freedom, because although condition (a) is met, condition (b) is not. (A person cannot posess the "freedom" to steal from others, as some might claim. This makes as much sense as a government having the "freedom" to oppress its people.)
Key point being, the majority of Americans don't realize that. Politicians are masters of exploiting (1) ignorance, (2) fear, and (3) arrogance, and (4) greed. Those that can master all four will go very, very far.
No, you'll need to live in a country where the government is strictly limited in their powers over the people. How to achieve that -- or whether it can be achieved at all -- is a matter of question. Sadly, the US has already proven that strict limits on government power (the constitution) don't necessarily mean a thing. Most people don't realize that if the constitution was upheld, the US federal government would have 1/10 (or even less) the revenue and power it has today.
I don't think I agree with that. If Americans valued their freedom, the majority would be libertarians if not anarchists. As it is, libertarians are generally considered the radical minority, and anarchists are considered lunitics.
No, I definitely don't believe that every American values freedom. I don't even belive the majority of Americans values freedom.
It's quite simple, however, to measure the real cost of the war on Iraq (measured in innocent human life) based on trend. After the first 10,000 were killed, it was likely that should the US government continue, another 10,000 would be killed. After the second 10,000 were killed, it was even more likely that another 10,000 would be killed. And so on. Could we guarantee, before the war was initiated, that at least 10,000 innocents would be killed? Absolutely, based on the extensive history of US military intervention, and the scale of this war relative to other wars.
Now we're up to over 100,000 dead innocents (some estimates claim 200,000). Is it likely that another 100,000 will be killed should the US government continue for another 2 years? I don't see how anyone could argue with history.
Capitalism? Hardly. Capitalism would require that government is strictly limited in their powers over the people and their right to to engage in voluntary trade. As it is, the US government is very heavily entangled in the market, quite the opposite of capitalism.
In general terms, the "level" of capitalism is directly proportional to the size of government, which can be measured in terms of revenue. Today, the averge US citizen pays nearly 50% of their yearly earnings to government through federal, state, and local taxes and fees combined. In a system of pure capitalism (anarcho-capitalism), citizens would retain 100% of their earnings, and therefore 100% of their ability to choose where, when, and how to direct those earnings (freedom of choice is the core process of capitalism). In a system of pure socialism, government would take 100% and private property wouldn't exist at all (centralized planning is the core process of socialism). So overall, the US is roughly half capitalist, half socialist, and therefore you cannot simply label the US economic system "capitalism", much less blame capitalism for the many problems facing the US.
The Bush administration has already demonstrated their willingness to kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians for political gain. The only thing holding them back is the guaranteed backlash from the American public. When 100,000 innocent deaths occur slowly but steadily over a period of months or years, they can be easily covered up or spun off as "colateral damage". If 100,000 innocents were to die in one sudden instant, the sheep might just wake up and take notice.
Do the innocents deserve to die? I'm quite serious -- answer the question. Do the innocent civilians of North Korea deserve to die? Becauase that is exactly what will happen if the US invades North Korea, just as tens of thousands of innocents have already been killed by the US invasion of Iraq.
And if God exists, the political leaders on each side who are responsible for initiating the attacks will burn in hell for the rest of eternity.
The consitution is dead and gone. If the consitution were upheld, the federal government would be 1/50 the size it is today, and the only functions it would be legally permitted to undertake are national defense (NOT offense as we have today), border control, and settling disputes between states. All other functions would be in the hands of the states, not the federal government. That was the intent of the founders.
The constitution made this requirement because the founders understood that centralized power is the most dangerous thing in the world.
To paraphrase George Washington: Government is not reason or eloquence; it is pure force.
The founders understood that government is the most dangerous thing that could ever exist, unlike most of our political leaders (and civilians) today. As history shows, the crimes committed by governments (of all types, including democracy/republic types) dwarfs the crimes committed by private individuals and groups. What could possibly be more dangerous than an organization that posesses the ability to initiate force legally?
So, to realize that government is founded on pure force is not paranoid or radical; it is the simple truth.
Now, there is a great and moral difference between the initiation of force and force invoked in self-defense. By the laws of human nature, the latter is moral and just; the former is not. Government, as I stated before, is defined precisely as the organization which posesses the unique legal ability to initiate force (any other individual or organization which does so is criminal).
And, sorry for being argumentive, but I tend to take these discussions very seriously. I am what you call an anarcho-capitalist. I believe that someday, perhaps 1000 years into the future, government will finally crumble and give way to a completely voluntary society. (What society could be more moral and just than one which is entirely voluntary, and only permits force in self-defense?) Libertarianism is only a stepping stone between oppressive government and the "holy grail", the voluntary society. Libertarianism, and freedom in general, is simply social evolution in progress.
The process of unlocking the multiplier is what's not clean, nor is it reliable.
Right, but the general idea is to underclock the processor, not the FSB. You will take a bigger performance hit by lowering the bus speed than by using a lower multiplier. Unfortunately, the process of unlocking the multiplier isn't clean, easy, or reliable.
I'm running Gentoo, you insensitive clod.
I would love to underclock my Athlon XP 1800, but after reading up on the technique, I decided that it couldn't be done cleanly (in terms of both reliability AND tidy-ness). Underclocking would be the perfect solution if it could only be done cleanly and easily.
the comparison between people eating you in a life boat and being forced to pay a extra $10 in property tax is ridiculous.
What do you think would happen if you refused to pay that $10? First they'd impose a fine or two. Assume you ignore it. Then comes the threatening letters and phone calls, and if you still ignore them, the IRS arrives at your door. If you refuse to chat with them, they go away and the cops take over. If you refuse to open the door for the cops, they break it down, guns pointed at your face. If you decide to invoke force in defense of force, what happens then?
The comparison wasn't that absurd after all. Sure, $10 is "small fries", but that's irrelevant. The point is that deadly force is behind everything government does -- even the seemingly little things -- even if you can't see it at first.
As for megacorps and the ability to initiate force as a means to an end -- it wouldn't be possible without the blessing of government. Business cannot lie, cheat, steal, rape, or murder, unless the law allows them to (unfortunately it does exactly that, in too many circumstances). Otherwise they are criminals and should be dealt with accordingly.
Economic power is not the same kind of power that government is founded on. A business cannot hold you at gunpoint and demand that you purchase its products. Government, on the other hand, does exactly that, even if you can't see it at first.
Indeed. I just bought the same model (Super Tornado 400) and fired it up solo the other day just to see how loud it is relative to the other noise makers in my computer (I'm doing the silent thing). I turned it on and nothing happened, so I assumed my paperclip wasn't shorting the wires correctly. So I adjusted the paperclip, tried again, and no dice. Then I connected a case fan, fired it up, and finally realized that the power supply WAS on in the first place, I just didn't realize it because there was no sound. I honestly couldn't hear a thing unless I put my ear right next to it. Between the silent operation and the high efficiency (save on electricity), I would highly recommend the Seasonic. The price is a bit steep, but I'd certainly buy it again.
Indeed. Government makes the rules. Microsoft is only playing the hand they've been dealt by government. A similar example is the proliferation of unethical lawyers willing to make a buck on unethical grounds. Guess what? It only works because government makes it all possible, with a hugely complex, ambiguous, and highly exploitable legal system. The root of the problem lies squarely in government, and therefore, the only solution is to change government.
That is the essence of all government. If you don't pay your taxes, they come with guns, and they take you to jail. Yes, by force. They may not come with guns at first. They usually don't, in order to downplay the fact that you are, indeed, facing deadly force. But the threat is not make-believe as you would have it. The threat is real, and that's why it works.
Government is the only organization that posesses the unique "right" to initiate force (yes, deadly force, if it comes to that) as a means to an end. Anyone else who does so is a criminal. That is the only universal, unambiguous definition of government, and will be, until the end of time. If government was voluntary, it wouldn't be government at all -- it would be free enterprise.
The fact is that if you decide to resist -- any law, not just the big ones -- you WILL eventually face deadly force. You can sugar-coat the promises of government until they rot, but you can't change the fundamental principle of government which is association by force.
Are you against "faith-based" charity? Using your logic, your individual opinion doesn't mean squat, because "society" has already decided that it's right for government to take your money and hand it out to religious groups.
At least admit that those who are forced to participate against their will have been robbed of personal liberty. Don't try to sugar-coat it like it's some kind of higher calling. Government is pure force, plain and simple.
Secondly, your use of the term "society" implies that people aren't individuals with individual needs, wants, and opinions, but rather more like bricks in the wall. Have some respect, and admit that what you really mean by "society" is "the majority".
If people are going to be charged to use the service, then it might as well be a privately-run business in the first place. You're not one of those people who automatically suggests government as the solution to any given problem, are you?
Otherwise it would unfair competition with private companies.
Government-run business can't possibly qualify as "fair competition" in the first place. Why? Because government is the organization which holds the unique legal right to initiate force as a means to an end (anyone else who does so is a criminal). To put this in perspective, you wouldn't call the mob "fair competition" for the security market, would you?
Be careful with your choice of words. Freedom does not mean the right to gang up and initiate force against others. In this case, true freedom would be the right to refuse to associate with others, or the right to peacefully develop your own voluntary solution. Your solution may be popular, or supported by the majority, but that does not make it voluntary in the slightest.
If there are 5 people starving to death on a raft at sea, and 4 of those people decide to kill the fifth, against his will, in order to survive, would you say that those 4 people are "exercising their freedom" to murder the fifth? That is exactly what you're claiming here, and that's just plain wrong. An initiation of force is an initiation of force, whether 4 against 1 or 4,000,000 against 1. Majority rule does not magically flip the definition of association by force.
Now you tell me, why shouldn't I be free to exercise MY will to refuse to participate in this program? If I don't have that right, then I'm not exactly free, am I?