Well, yes the government enforces laws at each level of government (local, state, federal). In a representative democracy though, don't we elect the people who make these laws, and therefore we choose what the government forces us to do. So, if we don't like what the government forces us to do, we should organize and elect representatives that will enact policies we favor. So, why anarchy? If I assume correctly that that is the premise of your book. Sorry, I haven't read it.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
You're in the right place, mate. Stay curious. There are excellent answers to all of your questions.
Voting isn't choosing. When you choose, you get what you chose. When you vote, you get what the majority chose. It's a very important distinction. Voting also isn't choosing, since you're not given the option of not being governed at all.
I can choose vanilla, chocolate, or rum n raisin icecream. I can also choose no icecream.
If you're forced to eat icecream, despite being lactose intolerant, being given your choice of flavour isn't particularly empowering.
Thanks, but I'm not sure I agree with the metaphor. Voting for our elected officials is not just one choice and one outcome, right? We elect a representative, a senator, local leaders, state officials, and the president. There's also the presidential primary, and primaries for each of the other elections. So, Because we have a two party system, there will always be compromise. As opposed to a multiparty system, like in many Euro countries, where you are more able to elect someone who favors your specific policy preferences.
The way I see it is - in the US, we work out our differences in the primary process, and then winner takes all in government. Whereas in a multiparty system, you elect more extreme officials in general, and they duke it out in the legislative process more.
They're distinctions without a difference.
They rule 'by the consent of the governed'.
How does one withdraw that consent?
By voting, right? The problem is people don't vote. You withdraw your consent by saying - "I'm going to organize, do my civic duty, and vote yo ass out."
You can't vote against people, you can only vote for them. Either way, whether the guy you voted for wins or loses, you're going to be governed.
How does one withdraw their consent to be governed by anyone?
If there's no way to do so, then how does it qualify as consent?
I mean, if you could withdraw your consent from being bound by U.S. laws, I daresay that would be anarchy!
That's correct. Adam and I, and many others are anarchists. That no doubt has an unsavory ring to it; but it's actually a very well developed moral and practical philosophy.
We don't want chaos, we maintain that government is the cause of most chaos.
We don't hate rules, we just realise that the best rules are written by property owners, not strangers who have invested nothing, thousands of miles away.
Well, in a democracy you are going to governed by someone. If you don't like it, the idea is that you either join the fray and run for office yourself, or participate, and speak with your vote.
I think many people voted against Hillary Clinton this past time around, rather than FOR... uh, the president.
It's true that we'll no doubt continue to be governed by someone; but not with our consent.
Also, I just think we don't teach kids civics well enough. I went to a decent public school, and I didn't have a civics class. At all. I had to learn in college.
So, if anything, voting in the primary is really much more important and more empowering choice, perhaps, than voting in the general? Although, it would be silly to not do the latter.