Quote from: AyeYo on July 02, 2011, 05:09:44 PM

Quote from: LastBattle on July 02, 2011, 04:45:48 PM

Quote from: AyeYo on July 02, 2011, 12:50:51 PM

Quote from: LastBattle on July 02, 2011, 03:41:54 AM

If people in my "country" can loot a minority by will of its numbers, why can't I get together a bunch of guys in my town and rob some neighbors? After all, they consent to being robbed if they don't leave.

That's why your arbitrary standard of concent is a load of horseshit.

That's why pure democracy doesn't exist anywhere.

Humans are fallable, that's why we have laws and basic legal documents like constitutions that secure some basic rights and principles to protect the minority from the majority. Beyond that, it's all compromise, which really can only be done through a majority vote.

Okay. My buddies set up a constitution with a variety of "laws" that we begin to enforce, but notably allows our enforcers to steal money from our "citizens". Every year we have an election to decide who gets to be an enforcer and who gets extra money taken from them.

Also, what happened to your bullshit about consistency, then? The majority is completely in control except when it isn't? What happened to consistency right there?

What separates a "rightful" government from the mafia? And don't give me that "consent of the governed blah blah" garbage, I didn't consent and neither did many others. Please, seeing as how you think that you have the consistent position and I don't, give me a clear definition of a government that separates it from something some toughs in a town or the Mafia could establish.

The enforces don't steal money from the citizens. Give me real world proof of government officials DIRECTLY pocketing public money on a large scale. Is that really what you think happens? No wonder you're so clueless.

It's completely consistent. The majority rules WITHIN THE BOUNDS SET BY THE FOUNDING DOCUMENT. They can do what they want as long as it doesn't violate the ground rules.

The Mafia doesn't hold public votes, last time I checked. No public meetings, open forms for opinion, etc. That's the major difference, but feel free to keep bringing the lulz with your hyperbole.

You did give and are continuing to give your consent. You're free to live at any time. If you choose to stay, you choose to abide by the rules.

I was being brief. In practical terms, if the state was small enough the enforcers would also be all of the government.

Who makes the founding document legitimate? Does everyone have to agree to it, or do some people declare themselves important and agree to it on behalf of neighbors who don't want to?

You are still dodging my question. Okay, so if the Mafia held public votes and had public meetings, it would be a government? You aren't giving me a CONSISTENT answer. Also, Communist China doesn't have public votes or public meetings. Is Red China an anarchy?

WHERES THE CONSISTENCY? YOU SAID THERE WOULD BE CONSISTENCY

There is a lot of hyperbole, and it is coming from mister "I refuse to define my arguments".

You are free to leave if the mafia is robbing your house, too. I was unaware that not leaving constituted consent. I suppose rape is consensual when the victim doesn't pack up and leave town, too.