There is no collective. Society is merely shorthand for the interactions of individuals. If individuals are not interacting through consent, what is the justification for coercion?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
There is no collective. Society is merely shorthand for the interactions of individuals. If individuals are not interacting through consent, what is the justification for coercion?
I can't think of many issues where 100% of folks would interact through voluntary consent ..what do you suggest we should do in that case? not make any collective decision ?
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
― Someone important in history
What situations require 100% consent from everyone in society once you strip away the zero-sum game of politics? Every interaction and exchange is a person-to-person event. Where in your individual life is mutual voluntary consent optional?
Sorry , I have no idea what you are talking about.
You said, "I can't think of many issues where 100% of folks would interact through voluntary consent."
I asked, "What situations require 100% consent from everyone in society?"
Politics turns every question into a zero-sum game. For someone to win, someone else must lose. Of course there can be no 100% consent or universal satisfaction under such a system, but it is an artificial constraint.
In reality, every interaction and exchange is a person-to-person event. So where in your individual life is mutual voluntary consent optional, and coercion acceptable? Outside the artificial confines of politics, how is consent an impractical standard?
In democracy we vote to provide consent , no law is passed with 100% approval.So the practical consideration is that since 100% consent from demographic is never achieved , inevitably some party is going to feel "coerced" into conforming to a norm/law.
And that is why democracy is a fraud. I cannot consent to something on your behalf, and vice versa. There isn't even an agent/principal relationship between politicians and those who voted for them, much less those who voted against them, could not vote, or chose not to vote. Ther is no virtue in the system.
What is a law? It is the opinion of politicians who represent no one but themselves, imposed by coercion. Where such laws coincide with reason and morality, they are redundant. Where such laws trespass against natural rights and fly in the face of reason and morality, they are an abomination.
Slavery was "legal." Jim Crow was "legal." Alcohol prohibition was "legal." Eminent domain, conscription,
concentrationinternment camps, drug prohibition, and innumerable other violations of the natural rights of individuals have been imposed under color of law as though they had moral and rational authority. This is utterly and completely absurd when examined rationally.― Someone important in history
See I already included the fact Democracy is flawed in many ways in my previous response.
I would much rather fix this system than throw it out of the window in hope of an Utopian system.