Democracy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by an8150

... Still, look on the bright side: you've learned about fascism, objectivism, the coercive nature of state action and minarchism.

---

We learned that the actions of a people who are engaged in democratic self-rule are, by definition, self-willed actions and by definition not coercive. The self-willed actions of a democracy are no more coercive than your self-willed action to play a game of gin-rummy and adhere to the rules. The self-willed actions of a democracy are no more coercive than your self-willed action to post in this thread and follow the rules of grammar at least to the extent as to make yourself understood. By participating in the democracy, by playing the game, by posting on this thread you have already agreed to the respective rules and agreed to the penalites for not following them.

We learned that neither liberty nor property exist if they are not recognized and respected by those around you. They are man-made notions; neither god given nor woven into the fabric of the universe.

We learned that when interpreted literally rational self-interest is too narrow a notion from which to derive the notions of liberty and property; that when interpreted more broadly rational self-interest is too weak a notion to support and guarantee liberty and property.

Stavros, "but also suggests that the Irgun who bombed the King David Hotel in Jersusalem in 1946 cannot be seen as political activists, but as murderers, which means that when, every year, Netanyahu takes part in the celebrations of this crime, he is celebrating murder, and not just the murder of British soldiers, of Arabs, but also of the Jews were who killed on that day.

King David Hotel, 1946; Munich 1972: what's the difference?"

Answer: none.

trish, "We learned that the actions of a people who are engaged in democratic self-rule are, by definition, self-willed actions and by definition not coercive [if that were true, I could refuse to pay my taxes in that proportion I deemed were spent on things of which I disapprove and, thus refusing, not be prosecuted and thrown into prison for doing so; you persist in the distortion that by existing within the status quo I give my approval to it; if that were true, there would be no point in anyone at all voting] . The self-willed actions of a democracy [in the context in which you use the word, a democracy is an abstract, no more capable of will than is a religion] are no more coercive than your self-willed action to play a game of gin-rummy and adhere to the rules [except I can't be prosecuted and thrown into prison for failing to follow the rules of gin rummy. The clue is in the word: coercion. It means to be forced physically to do something]. The self-willed actions of a democracy are no more coercive than your self-willed action to post in this thread and follow the rules of grammar at least to the extent as to make yourself understood [this is no more true than your observations on gin rummy]. By participating in the democracy [I use the roads because I have to to, not as an endorsement of their funding by the state; if the state licensed breathing, and I bought a breathing license, am I endorsing state licensing of breathing?], by playing the game, by posting on this thread [this thread, this forum, btw, is a paragon of libertarian principle ; it follows that this forum has no point of similarity with a democracy of the type under discussion] you have already agreed to the respective rules and agreed to the penalites for not following them [you mean I can be thrown in prison and be dispossessed of my property if I upset the wrong person on this forum?].

We learned that neither liberty nor property exist if they are not recognized and respected by those around you [they can, but I suspect you're confusing law enforcement with the convenience afforded by one's neighbour not smashing one's windows]. They are man-made notions [I agree, but what of it?]; neither god given nor woven into the fabric of the universe [I haven't suggested that either is the case].

We learned that when interpreted literally rational self-interest is too narrow a notion from which to derive the notions of liberty and property [here, I can't even guess what aspect of the thread you're referring to]; that when interpreted more broadly rational self-interest is too weak a notion to support and guarantee liberty and property [ditto, with bells on!]."

Justice Party's Rocky Anderson: Change the Way We Vote| Think Tank - YouTube

A good sign for so-called democracy -- :)

Early figures show fewer Americans cast votes in 2012 race than in 2008

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Ear...892/story.html

Yes the clue is in the word coercion and most people live happy lives; they obey the traffic laws, pay their taxes etc. and are never physically forced by the government to do anything. (And if you cheat at gin rummy with the wrong people you may find there are consequences you'd rather not pay).

trish, "Yes the clue is in the word coercion and most people live happy lives; they obey the traffic laws, pay their taxes etc. and are never physically forced by the government to do anything [you mean they would do all these things regardless of whether failing to do them was a criminal act? you say, then, for instance that people would pay the same tax as they do now even if not required by law to do so? if you're right, why is law needed to make people pay that tax?]. ... "

I think we've got to the heart of the matter.

Every action has a reaction. Everything you do touches someone else. There are consequences to everything you do, & there's no such thing as a right to impunity. You can refuse to pay your taxes. No problem. Just don't snivel about the consequence that you already know is near certain. Go hang out by Walden Pond & think about it.

Do you think people proudly perform their duties only out of fear of the authorities, or only for a paycheck? Then how do we get by with an underpaid volunteer military? But don't be facetious, the law is there to take care of unmotivated freeloaders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by an8150

trish, "Yes the clue is in the word coercion and most people live happy lives; they obey the traffic laws, pay their taxes etc. and are never physically forced by the government to do anything [you mean they would do all these things regardless of whether failing to do them was a criminal act? you say, then, for instance that people would pay the same tax as they do now even if not required by law to do so? if you're right, why is law needed to make people pay that tax?]. ... "

I think we've got to the heart of the matter.

---

Jesus, these people who constantly complain about taxes are the most boring people in the country. Operative word: constantly. I don't mind someone making a reasoned argument against taxation or for less taxes, but most of these people are just tedious because they never stop. Something about feeling that they're clever or charming or something by repeating themselves.