Lib: “Why don’t you let those “decent folk” think on their own behalf?”
Okay. Here’s the mechanism I propose: Several people will be asked to volunteer to express their opinions about what the government should spend money on. The population of a particular geographics region will then select which of the volunteers most closely matches their own opinion on how the government spends money. The people have agreed that the volunteer who gets the most supporters will have the authority to speak for everybody. The volunteers, each from a distinct geographic regions, will congregate in a particular place, debate the merits of spending on a particular program, and then vote their consciences. The people of each region have further agreed that in addition to the individual volunteers speaking for them, they will abide by the collective decision of the majority of the volunteers operating at their convention.
Oh, wait, that’s what we’ve got, except we call them Congressmen and they meet in the Capitol.
No, I didn’t. Our government is not Libertarian. I like that about our government, because I think Libertarianism, as you describe it, is silly. The difference between us is that you think that Libertarian and Good are synonyms, and you think non-Libertarian and tyrannical are synonyms. They’re not. You claim that: “if even one person, in any form of government is forced to participate against his will, then that government, no matter what its form, is not libertarian”, and yet you repeatedly deny that your government requires unanimous agreement to do anything (presumably because you recognize the impracticality of a unanim-ocracy). Everybody here has decided to live under our system. We have agreed to systems in which we might not always get our way because we all (except you, apparently) recognize that we’re never going to come to unanimous agreement on anything. We have agreed to what most of us feel is a fair system in which our differences can be debated out, and the “popular” opinion can be taken. Sometimes that choice will be the opposite of the one I advocate, but I agree to live under the system because everyone else has agreed to go along with me when they are in the minority.
So,that’s your idea of consent? Say yes, you ungrateful knave, or abandon your land! In the hues of tyranny, that’s about one shade lighter than North Korea, isn’t it?
Libertarian: “So,that’s your idea of consent? Say yes, you ungrateful knave, or abandon your land! In the hues of tyranny, that’s about one shade lighter than North Korea, isn’t it?”
And tell me, good sir, exactly how people who don’t like Libertaria can get a government they want? They can choose another? You’d call that a triumph of freedom. How exactly do you think the marketplace of governments works? Nations are currently based on territorial integrity, and you pick a government based on where you live. If you want to call that tyranny, than capitalism itself is tyrannical. You can’t get the job you want anywhere you want. You can’t get the products you want anywhere you want. Please tell me why the marketplace of governments is tyrannical but the marketplace of goods and services is not.