Whether I am conflating or NOT, I am trying to use the current world as a starting point, rather than projecting some pie in the sky vision that is built upon a house of cards of conjectures about some speculative vision about "how things could be, if....". One thing you seem to be arguing the same points over and over, including voluntary nature of participation in society - but using different creative terms to say the same thing about your not wanting to be a subject of rules unless you completely agree with them on some ultimately unattainable level of specific consent.
Interestingly enough, the phrase "pie in the sky" originated from a slave preacher who was paid by plantation owners to tell his fellow slaves that if they were good little slaves, they would get pie in the sky when they died. Slavery abolitionists were no less radical in their day than anarcho-capitalists are now. Slavery had been part of every civilization for thousands of years until it wasn't any more. Which one of us is really more guilty of pie in the sky thinking?
Yes, you are making such brilliant points that average individuals do NOT understand the profound nature of your abstractions. Also, maybe you are failing to understand that it may NOT even matter whether or NOT you are correct b/c part of the resolution to be a part of a community is to compromise and to go along with the wishes of the community rather than imposing some superior vision upon the community.. even if you were to be correct. Personally, I am NOT as attached to outcomes, so long as the public is getting what it wants, and ultimately will likely result in the entering into various compromises that will NOT be satisfactory to every single individual. Sometimes, that means that we cannot have our cake and eat it too.
INDIVIDUAL consent is the only consent that means anything. If we voted to kill all the Jews or some other minority and take their stuff, it would not be legitimate merely because the decision was popular. It's no more legitimate if that minority is the rich, provided they came by their wealth honestly.
Yes, if you are trying to privatize all or a majority of public goods, then it becomes very likely that you are going to fail to allow for the public good to serve the public.
I don't know about that. If I'm on a road trip, I'd rather take a crap at a truck stop than a rest area. They're cleaner, just as free, and I'm less likely to get assaulted.
I argue that you are trying to oversimplify the various levels of government and the various public goods and services that governments need to provide. Your supposed hypothetical system is NOT going to end up covering various needs and goods b/c it will result in a bunch of freeloaders, like you seem to be, who do NOT want to pay, unless they agree with what they are paying.
LOL. Because freeloading is not a problem now, is it? I'm not oversimplifying. I'm just starting with the simple, because you can't even seem to get that right.
when we are talking about community values, none of us will get to completely call the shots b/c we have to be able to work together to figure out what is best for the community and hopefully, figure out which representatives are going to best serve in the public interest (rather than their personal / private interests).
Um, there is only one of us that is even trying to call the shots and it isn't me. I am arguing that we can't know what is best for the community and so we should err on the side of freedom rather than control. Because I do understand society is complex, I know that the unintended consequences of mandates and bans can often be worse than the problems they were put in place to address.
You seem to come up with these perversions through a sense of maniacal focus about yourself. IN the end the social contract is one of consent, even though you keep saying that you feel forced. The community is NOT imposed on you, but a state of mind about whether you belong to the community comes from you, not from other imposing their will upon you. I realize that may be too abstract for you to comprehend b/c you keep coming back to the same monotonous assertion that you are being forced. Poor thing.
Maybe the solution is that you have to figure how to live with yourself, and several of you libertarian wanna-be s have been citing Alan Watts... which is fine and dandy.. b/c there is a certain amount of self empowerment that is projected through his teachings.
The social contract? You're joking, right? When did I agree to this contract? Is this an "opt in" contract or an "opt out" contract? What are the other parties obligations, and what are the consequences if they don't meet those obligations? Did I authorize someone else to negotiate this contract on my behalf?
http://jim.com/treason.htm Sure there are mixed views about the various goals of government, and freedom is one of those goals... that is weighed by the community.
It doesn't matter if you think my government is legitimate. The government itself claims legitimacy stems from securing pre-existing natural rights.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"~ D of I, 1776
but wait, There's more!:
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by
abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
The community is a group of individuals. If the government's legitimacy stems from the consent of the governed, then to the extent individuals do not consent, it is illegitimate. You claim to care about the poor and needy. I suggest before we debate the relative merits of stealing FOR them, perhaps we should agree to stop stealing FROM them. We are members of communities and societies, and that does carry obligations, among them, the obligation not to steal from our fellow community and society members.
Poll
