A correction for the first paragraph, and a question for the second.
The correction: I believe the word “initially” neds to be added before “imposed,” yes? Or else in the second paragraph, you need to clarify that it’s not always called “crime.”
A question: how does the government decide how to resolve such conflicts, or to punish the criminals?
Daniel
So, instead of majoritarianism, we have groups of people who form governments and then other people have consent-to-be-governed contracts with them? So if you want the age of consent to be 26 and murderers to be executed, you find yourself a government that has that policy, and if you want the age of consent to be 12 and murderers to be given rose-scented aftershave, you find yourself a government that has that policy or, failing that, form one of your own? Roughly correct?
Not one of your quotes addressed my assertion. They addressed the conflict of wills in general, but did not address the assertion I made. A rebuttal of my assertion will begin something like this: “Majoritarianism does not create a conflict of wills because…”
Wills collide when one will is imposed upon another.
For one thing, I haven’t had time to answer all the questions from everyone. It is the exact same principle each time that is applied anyway, and my deductive powers are not superior to anyone else’s, so it shouldn’t be that big of a deal. But for another, it has already been said (repeatedly) that a third-party arbitration based on the interpretation of an ethical principle is one alternative to a majority deciding. But if I say that, then you will say that I am violating my own thread rule. So, you phrase questions that damn me if I answer and damn me if I don’t. That seems pretty shady to me.
And that way is to let every person make his own decision. IT WILL NEVER BE THE CASE that your decision is of benefit to me, except by accident.
“If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.” — Henry David Thoreau, Walden
Oy. The statement that A implies B does not preclude C from implying B, and does not mean that A and only A implies B. A collision of wills occurs whenever one will is imposed upon another, as it did in the Falklands. But majoritarianism — by its very nature — is always imposing the will of the majority on the minority AND THEREFORE IS ALWAYS CREATING CONFLICTS OF WILL.
So long as all are volunteers. Volunteerism and imposition of will do not intersect.
Actually, another rebuttal of that assertion would begin something like “Certain conflicts of wills would exist even under a nonmajoritarianist system, such as…” and I think you’ll find I’ve tried to make such a rebuttal a couple of times in this thread.
Wait. I feel like I’m missing something (as usual, I might add). What in my post prompted this? Who in my post might not be a volunteer?
A response to an imposition is not an imposition anymore than a response to an invitation is an invitation. Imposition of will is the very essence of coercion, and freedom for you means the absence of it in your life.
In whatever manner you have given it consent. If ALL have agreed to majoritarianism, then the majoritarian system is libertarian. But one peaceful honest dissenter forbidden to secede makes the whole thing a tyranny.
In this system, at what age may we presume that the children are volunteers?
Can Michael Jackson set up a government that declares the age of consent to exist at the age of five? May he then go to playgrounds and lure children with candy to sign onto my government platform?
May I set up a government that declares the age of consent to be [six months younger than me], and keep my children as slaves in this society, perpetually unable to graduate to the age of consent?
How do we figure out who’s got a legitimate age of consent, and who’s a creep trying to game the system?
Daniel
I already refuted that statement in the very post you quoted from. Why don’t you slow down just a bit?
The children. Time to tag-team now?
That’s a total non sequitur: a response to an imposition may be an imposition just as much as a response to a punch may be a punch. But that’s semantics, so I’ll let it go.
As to your second point, my previous post asks the necessary follow-up.
Daniel
Right backatcha. You said “Not one of your quotes addressed my assertion”. That I take issue with. We did address your assertion, just not in the manner that you claimed was the only one in which your assertion could be addressed. You refuting the rebuttal does not mean the rebuttal never happened.
So the children must voluntarily choose a government too?
What system? Majoritarianism? Whatever age the majority says, I reckon. In a libertarian system, children cannot be volunteers by definition. Birth itself is a coercion.
Not my kids. May he yours?
I suppose so, until such time as they can beat your ass. I hear numerous complaints about the arbitrary majority decision of 21 years. Why is that superior to 18? Or 16? Or, best case, a case by case decision since some people mature faster and slower than others. Some are mature enough to give meaningful consent by age 15 and others are not yet mature enough at age 51. And it isn’t just age. Some people are mentally ill or retarded. Their consent is also meaningless.
We who? I do not need you to figure it out for me, and I assume you do not need me to figure it out for you. I personally would rescue any children I thought were abused, and I’m sure you would too.
But […blank stare…] it is refuted. You need another one. It’s dead.
Proof that you aren’t listening. If the children cannot be volunteers, how could they “voluntarily” choose a government? How could your question even arise in response to my post?
Another question about the volunteering point:
John belongs to a government called the Knights of Doom, that believes in might-makes-right and likes to go on killing sprees. (They’re really a very crappy government, but surely such groups will exist).
Mary is an anarchist and refuses to join any government.
Mary’s Mom is a member of The Justice League, who believes in executing anyone who commits murder. They’re good libertarians, though, so they will abide by whatever the metamodel is.
Mary’s Husband is a member of Christ’s Compassion, a government that believes in rehabilitating prisoners and absolutely despises capital punishment. They’re also a good libertarian government.
John kills Mary, brazenly and openly. What, if anything, need he fear by way of reprisal?
Daniel
I physically can’t keep up with two to one posting, and you know it. Why don’t you use your much lauded majoritarianism to pick a spokesman? Or is it good for nothing but gang banging?
My fist or gun, if I’m a friend of Mary. What does Majoritaria do? Invade the Land of Doom militarily?
Okay, so if I understand you correctly:
I can’t say that any of these steps seem superior to the majoritarian method, despite what I see as the many flaws in the majoritarian method.
Daniel
Have some herbal tea, dude, and calm down. If you think reading posts equals being raped, your sense of perspective has got a flaw or two in it.
Daniel
Possibly, but that’s not even what I’m talking about. You said “not one of your quotes addressed my assertion”. We did. That’s all I’m saying.
Seriously, Lib, why are you always so unpleasant? You know from before that I do my best to understand, you know that I will admit I’m wrong when I find that I am, you know that I change my mind when I find that I should.
Eck-fucking-zaktly. That’s why I asked. Let’s go through this.
I described how I imagined your proposed system would work in regards to age of consent and treatment of criminals, and asked if that was roughly correct. Your answer was “So long as all are volunteers”. I didn’t understand what you meant by that since it was obvious to me that everyone must be a volunteer; that’s the foundation of the system, after all. I therefore asked what prompted you to post that, who in my post might not be a volunteer so that you felt compelled to point out that even they must, in fact, be volunteers. Your answer: “The children”.
At this point, you are saying to me that the children must also be volunteers. I then asked if that was in fact what you meant, since it contradicted a lot of stuff that had been said earlier. You then come back with this post, where it is clearly said that the children cannot be volunteers.
Obviously, somewhere in there is a misunderstanding between us. Care to point it out?