You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit-Anarchist Fallacy: Government claims the "right" to rule - 1 min
How can someone 'represent' me w/o my consent?
How can you delegate a right to a 'representative' that you, yourself, don't have?
"Elected individual", "representative", "government"...all artificial titles which don't change the fact that you're simply talking about PEOPLE who are using coercion/violence against other PEOPLE.
Of course in electoral representative government, those who didn't vote or voted for a sufficiently unpopular person don't get represented. My point was mainly that it's a sufficient widespread group of the population (generally a majority) that elect representatives. Such government comes from widespread consensus.
You personally can't delegate a right, but together you can pool a "right" to an entity.
E.g. the right to enforce physical security
What's wrong with people consensually inviting coercion?
But it isn't a majority of the populace that elects rulers...in America its usually around 20-25% that elects the majority ruling party.
If I can't delegate a right I don't have and neither can you how can we collectively do so? Again, how do you delegate rights (specifically taxing and legislating rights/powers) that you don't have?
When did/do people (which "people" btw?) "consensually invite coercion"? The very idea of "consensual coercion" makes no fucking sense, you realize that, right?
If you think a master-slave/ruler-ruled situation enforced by coercion/violence--which is inherently an UNequal and UNfree system--is the only or best way we as humans can live w/each other just say so and stop trying to cover up the truth w/propaganda about how "we" choose rulers, how people I didn't vote for and don't want 'represent' me, etc.