Governments are said to have the right to rule over people. But, what gives them this right?
Source
First, you have to define a right. So, what is a right? What do you have a right to do?
The best way to describe what a right is, is in the negative. You don't need to list all the rights, but simply what we don't have the right to do.
A right is an action that doesn't initiate harm to other sentient beings. This is murder, rape, assault, theft, trespass, coercion and lying. These are all aggressive and violent actions because they violate the boundaries of rights. They are all forms of theft at their core. Theft of your life, of your your sexual consent, of physical well-being, of your property, of your security in your home, of your free will, of your ability to make informed decisions.
Government involves political rituals, like voting, where people think they can bestow upon a select group of people the right to rule, rights that an individual doesn't have themselves.
The right to rule doesn't exist. No one has the authority to rule over another. No one can bestow that non-existent right to another, let alone a group of people.
The belief in authority and the legitimacy of government is the problem, where people imagine their is a legitimate 'rightful' ruling class. It is a demonstrably false belief. Like a cult, it's harmful to members that are not it's believers or adherents.
Governments, or the ruling class of law makers or legislators, want to impose their will onto others. They believe government, or those acting on it's behalf, have the authority to initiate violence upon others who are exercising their rights.
Governments don't have the right to rule.
Rights, like fingers, are inherent to individual people. Governments are just agreements people make, and have neither rights nor fingers. What they have is agents that project power institutions avail them.
If those agents respect the rights of individuals, then they act in conformance with law. If they don't, and they mostly don't, then they are criminals.
Institutional approval is not necessary to handle crime.
Indeed. Any person or body that violates rights is essentially a criminal. Government is the biggest criminal body that has ever existed.
Given any group of people and a certain task, the group will organize itself.
Almost always with a leader.
This i have seen everywhere.
The only place it doesn't is with a group of competent people who all have a very strict/structured tasks.
Such as plumber, electrician, framer... on a job site.
So, given this, when we have created larger groups, we tend to fall into the mode of electing a leader.
Unfortunately, those who would be good at leading want to do almost anything else but be a bureaucrat.
And even worse, those who want power are attracted to those positions.
In the future, i believe we will see the governing structures be applied to no more than a thousand people.
And the structure of structures won't have any authority. They will be guides, councils, or leaders for a certain project.
And the most important aspect is, if you do not wish to live under the ruling of the group you find yourself born into, you can choose to leave. The biggest problem we have today is that there is no place to leave to.
Even with a leader, you can have them not violate rights. We have leaders at work, but are they violating our rights? I hope not, or you should find another job ;)
The tendency to allow leaders to fabricate 'rights' that they and others don't have, is a failure of people allowing this to happen. We have created our own suffering in the aggregate.
Unanimous equality in decision making according to foundational principles and rights is the model I support in a true free community. It's highly involved, but blockchain can facilitate it.
Even the holy book says the it does to belong to a man who is walking even to direct his steps. Now if a man can not direct his own steps, how can he or them direct the steps of millions/billion of people. Truly, man does not have the right to rule.
But to who does rulership belongs to?
Indeed, only an individual can govern themselves, and no other.
Rule by force is the disease, who and how are symptoms.
The only thing that guarantees democracy is that you will never have a better government than you deserve.
It's time to create a government with blockchain. ;-)
That may be something better than what we have, for the time being.
I beg to differ that they do have the right to rule. If there is a right to delegate power, then its legitimate for an extablished government to rule since we voted them into power
I don't think you read things correctly:
You can't delegate power that you don't yourself have. That's impossible. Can I own you as a slave? No? Then how I can I delegate that power over to my friend? If I don't have the right, then I can't delegate it. I don't have the right to rule you, and I can't delegate that power.
Why don't I have the power to rule myself?
That's the only person, yourself, that you do rule, because you are you. You aren't someone else, you can't rule them. And you can't give away your own self-ownership. That's not a right.
If the idea is you rule yourself then you can give that same rule to another fully or partially. You cannot give what you have. But if you indeed have something, then it can be shared
No one has the right to believe that slavery is legitimate for anyone, including themselves. That belief perpetuates the belief in the legitimacy of slavery, which is not a right. Slavery is not a right, people are not property to be ruled over by others, no one has the right to be a master over another. Even if someone thinks they can give away their right to self-ownership, they don't have that right, it's not a right, because rights are inviolable. They can't be given up, they are always there. Any attempt to violate a right is a wrong. Thinking you can nullify a right to self-ownership by giving your rights away is a wrong, not a right, because you are violating a right.
not this government, they should be shot. our system has falled way behind, it's 60-120 years out of touch, we need a reboot. i'm posting on it soon
Well, not any government.
There are no rights in nature and nature is where we live. The government came into being through a complex historical process involving a struggle for power among various groups. Justification are justifications. Some of them are better (=more acceptable to a larger number of people) than others.
There will ALWAYS be a government. You can't avoid it. Someone will always tax you. It will be a local warlord or a criminal gang if there is no government. To suggest that the current federal government of Canada, or your provincial or your local government are worse than the alternatives I mentioned is, well, interesting.
Spoken like a well controlled slave.
If you look at history, you'll see that I'm right. Organized violence trumps unorganized violence each and every time.
Yes, but only until it doesn't.
Your dog eat dog paradigm is not how dogs live IRL.
This system will pass.
I'm not talking about dogs. I'm talking about humans. And even dogs have a hierarchy in their pack.
The "system" is based on a layer of reality beneath even biology. It's a physical fact that applying force can disrupt complex systems. If such a system happens to be an entity you're in competition against over some scarce resource whoever has more force at their disposal wins.
It's typical of our species to form groups and compete against other groups. This is how humans operate. If you are in a group of humans in a lawless situation, your only chance is to develop a capacity for organized violence to defend yourselves. The level organization and the size of groups determine the outcome of a conflict.
The only way for somewhat just societies to develop is through arrival at a balance of power between groups making up that society. However imperfect, modern day Canada is one of the best societies ever to have existed.
The universe is at fault. This is a shit universe. If we are here because someone put us here (I don't believe that), then that someone is a fucking asshole.
Or so you would have us believe.
If you want to use a subset as your example of us all, maybe.
Tell that to their gun nuts.
They don't look so free today.
Let's hope they push back.
Yes, indeed, someone is definitely an asshole.
Rule by force is the disease, who and how are symptoms.
Pick your side, carefully, eh?
Very good question! ;)