@kingkrawdad

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.

I was talking about a representative government in general. Plus I did say "generally a majority" not systematically.

I think the use of the word "right" is the problem. Right in this context just means a role. You appoint someone in a governance role. A security role etc...And you create legal infrastructure that complements his/her role.

So you question is: How can you collectively appoint people?

When did/do people (which "people" btw?) "consensually invite coercion"? The very idea of "consensual coercion" makes no fucking sense, you realize that, right?

The point was to show you that what you call coercion arises out of consent, in a pure representative system that enforces governance.

People elect representatives in governance roles which enforce rules (which could involve physical force). But the point is that people consented to this in appointing them at these roles.

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.

I don't. But the thing is, I am convinced in an anarchic system, with no established legal infrastructure (in the short term), people with resources (security etc...) will prevail - hence I'm not "rich enough" yet.

Atm, I'd just prefer improved representative governance.