if it administers the will of the people. With proportional systems everyone is represented. There are forces outside of gov't that are far more coercive or duplicit, like when Corporations and Capital control gov't rather than the populous.
Thanks for sharing. Mind = blown.
So you have no arguments? Don't be so condescending.
How does a corporation control government?
A corporation controls government by lobbying.
Look, this forum just went through a troll-cleansing. It doesn't need another one, and you have the argument of a 12 year old.
What does 'the will of the people' actually mean? What does 'representative' even mean in the case of democracy?
First of all, you can't vote for a policy, you can only vote for people who promise certain policies, and after they're elected there's no recourse for you as a voter if they don't follow through.
So, the 'will of the people' in this case comes down to what exactly? Choosing which people get to force their will on us by passing laws we have no say in? How is that -not- coercion? Say the government votes to kill all redheads. Does that make it not murder, but suicide because it's "the will of the people" and therefore we are "doing it to ourselves"?
In practice, the will of the people is actually the will of those who have managed to capture power. It's really the will of a very tiny oligarchy of politicians.
Secondly, democracy itself, the idea of majority rule, is inherently coercive. It purports to make it legitimate for the majority for force their will on the minority. That's prima facie aggressive-coercion. To force policies on people who don't want those policies, yes, that is coercion.
What would be the difference to the person who's having policies forced on them if the policy being forced on them was forced by say a dictator or a Congress? To the person being forced, it makes no difference at all, certainly no ethical difference. In both scenarios, both people are being equally coerced.
You need to think deeper about coercion and the meaning of the evil coercive system known as 'democracy'.
I suggest Hoppe's "Democracy the God that Failed."
greenbabe:if it administers the will of the people.
Ok. If there is to be a single government for 300 million people, then, according to your statement, all 300 million people would have to have the same will for the government to not be coercive. We can agree with that.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Welcome back, Kylio!
So we just need to let majorities decide everything, huh? So I suppose there would be nothing wrong with a society that decided all people with red hair can be slaves held by people with hair that is not red? And the majority should be able to establish a law that says any escaped redheaded slave must be returned to the slaveowner? And if a person without red hair refuses to aid in the capture and re-enslavement of an escaped redhead, or aids redheads in escaping and staying hidden, said person could be jailed, fined, or suffer physical punishment (up to including death is resistance is maintained)? Yeah, anything goes as long as 50%+1 say so!
Just because a majority supports coercion, coercion isn't justified. Ever.
Government is coercive by definition.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
You forgot the /thread tag. Otherwise, well played.
You guys use the most extreme examples. The majority of society is not going to want to enslave people.
You’re really going to get flamed here. You have thrown out an over simplified populist argument on a board that eat populists for breakfast.
To play along. Define “will of the people”? Are we talking about 100% of the people? Are we talking about 51% of the people? What percentage of the people have to be in agreement before it become the “will of the people”?
If it is 51% then what happens to the other 49%? Do they no longer matter? If 51% decide slavery is acceptable then government is simply administering the will of the people by legalizing slavery?
Which “forces outside of government” are you referring to? Be specific. What forces can rival the Nazi gas chambers, Stalin’s death camps, & killing fields of Cambodia? Was Hitler simply “administering the will of the people”? Realize that Hitler was pretty popular in Germany in the 1930's. Hitler was popular among socialists all over the globe.
Entitlements of any form are coercion.
The problem with democracy is that poor people are extremely greedy, and have zero incentive NOT to steal and plunder. Simply rejecting the Mystical voting powers of the state would do more good than bad.
You mean physically enslave people, because economic enslavement is alive and well.
I can't physically force people to grow food for me and build my shelter, but I can use the power of government to seize the assets of other people and transfer the fruits of their labor to me and provide me with food and shelter.
So you are correct in that you can no longer physically enlsave people, but financial and economic slavery is alive and flurishing. Obamacare is a good example of one group being forced against their will to provide free services for another group. The difference between physically being compelled to provide a service like picking cotton is no different than finnancially being compelled to provide a service like paying to have the cotton picked. The key difference is that the government agency that collects the money and administers the service becomes the middle man who has to get paid.
" You’re really going to get flamed here. You have thrown out an over simplified populist argument on a board that eat populists for breakfast. "
This should be stickied to the top of the forum.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
For something to be "the will of the people" it must include all people, there are some people against government, therefore government is not "the will of the people". With 100% of the people in agreement, it doesn't make something right, a long time ago people believed the Sun revolved around the Earth, which was wrong, yet people still believed it to be true.
With proportional systems everyone is represented.
I think we have a problem here...
Besides, if government weren't coercive, it would be a pointless institution. If coercion weren't needed to "administer the will of the people," then people would administer their will voluntarily. That they don't/wouldn't means coercion is necessary and is used. Even if it has some democratic component, the point is to make 'collective' choices that override individual choices.
Malachi:In the meantime, there is apolitical ad hoc productarianism.
Ah, that makes me smile just to read it :)
Winder:Obamacare is a good example of one group being forced against their will to provide free services for another group.
You do realize that Obamacare is not socialized heaathcare, right?
If so, what you meant to say is that "Obamacare is a good example of one group of companies using the coercive arm of the state to force others to buy a good that they may not want."
While true of all states, the irony of democracy (majority rule) is that more often than not, the democracy ends up being a minority rule. A small oligarchy of business interests control and coerce the people (but only when a state exists to control). From another view, in American democracy, a few privileged men we call politicians call the shots. The majority only rules on who gets to call the shots (and even here this is not always true - Gore vs Bush), after that, we still get minority rule.
"If men are not angels,
then who shall run the state?"
I wasn't aware that it was corporations going around collecting taxes and demanding payments from me at the point of a gun.
I did not call it socialized healthcare. The goal of the program is to provide free healthcare for one group at the expense of a second group. Government is using the power of cohersion to force people into the insurance pool. The difference being a private insurance pool vs. a public insuance pool. The insurance corporation becomes an extension of government and we have fascism instead of socialism.
Flipping the OP around:
Libertarianism Is Not 'No Gun In The Room'
So what you are saying is that when a corporation lobbies to government, the government has no choice but to meet the demands of the corporation?
greenbabe:[Government isn't coercive...] if it administers the will of the people.
Like Anenome said, what do you think is "the will of the people"? I look forward to your answer.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
I don't understand why these people post these more than common objections to free markets, we offer up no shortage of answers, and never do we get a reply. If these weren't great "likely to get googled" questions, I would say this is a ploy to waste our time with easy mental masturbation.
"...if government weren't coercive, it would be a pointless institution. If coercion weren't needed to "administer the will of the people," then people would administer their will voluntarily. That they don't/wouldn't means coercion is necessary and is used. Even if it has some democratic component, the point is to make 'collective' choices that override individual choices."
Beautifully put sir.
Wouldn't plan on real answers anytime soon.