|
stratvic (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
If voluntarism is invalid for the reason you state then your solution is elitism as is your notions of societies other than your own. The idea that you can protect people from themselves is a failed and useless idea. Attempting to do so creates leads to people believe falsley that they are being protected and leads individuals to even more lax care and taking on more risk. ie. the idea you are or can be protected by others is harmful.
mistaspot1 (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
I don't think it's inevitable in the long term, but many places in the world are, for all intents and purposes, just coming out of the dark ages. Saudi Arabia, for instance, is still very much a closed, feudal society. We overestimate where we are as a people in our progression. Voluntarism is invalid because unsuspecting people enter into contracts with people who are just taking advantage of them and they deserve our protection. Economic inequality is tyranny no matter what the circumstances
stratvic (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
Why is tyranny inevitable?? Most of the successful interactions and relationships we have and maintain are tyranny free and based on voluntarism. Tyranny is the exception hardly the norm and I therefore reject your unsubstantiated premise that tyranny is inevitable... or at least substantiation is obviously required.
mistaspot1 (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
Right, but that's not what I asked. If tyranny of some kind is *inevitable* what's worse: tyranny of a majority on a few or tyranny of a few on a majority?I think as few people should be tyrannized as possible.
stratvic (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
Tyranny is the problem not who or how many get to tyrannize the other. Democracy is a tyranny by majority. The objective should be to eliminate tryanny. An alternative is minimal or no government and a society based on freedom of association and individual freedom.
Libertarianist (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
Yes, because our constitution does sprout arms and legs and kicks the ass of any politician who ignores it.It's not a moot point, it's absolutely relevant. We MUST remember that the constitution is only as powerful as the people willing to raise guns in defense of it. And we must remember that the purpose of the constitution was NOT to grant power* to the people, but to prevent power* from being attained by ANYONE.*the power of force/coercion, the power all governments wield
Libertarianist (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, coin money, and build an army. That's about it. Beyond that, yes, everything they do IS unconstitutional. This is stated VERY clearly in the tenth amendment.It's really too bad our socialist school systems have not just failed to teach you this, but have taught you the opposite.
mistaspot1 (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
OK, but it's a moot point because we'll still have a Constitution, thus remaining a republic.
Libertarianist (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
Unless your form of socialism doesn't involve the government taxing people or putting restrictions on how people can conduct legitimate businesses, in which case socialism is a very pour choice of word, you are by definition NOT a libertarian.
Libertarianist (December 31, 1969 at 5:59 pm)
My point is that democracy is NOT better than a republic. Democracy can and does produce tyranny. |
