How can you delegate a right to a 'representative' that you, yourself, don't have?
"Elected individual", "representative", "government"...all artificial titles which don't change the fact that you're simply talking about PEOPLE who are using coercion/violence against other PEOPLE.
Of course in electoral representative government, those who didn't vote or voted for a sufficiently unpopular person don't get represented. My point was mainly that it's a sufficient widespread group of the population (generally a majority) that elect representatives. Such government comes from widespread consensus.
You personally can't delegate a right, but together you can pool a "right" to an entity.
E.g. the right to enforce physical security
What's wrong with people consensually inviting coercion?
But it isn't a majority of the populace that elects rulers...in America its usually around 20-25% that elects the majority ruling party.
If I can't delegate a right I don't have and neither can you how can we collectively do so? Again, how do you delegate rights (specifically taxing and legislating rights/powers) that you don't have?
When did/do people (which "people" btw?) "consensually invite coercion"? The very idea of "consensual coercion" makes no fucking sense, you realize that, right?
If you think a master-slave/ruler-ruled situation enforced by coercion/violence--which is inherently an UNequal and UNfree system--is the only or best way we as humans can live w/each other just say so and stop trying to cover up the truth w/propaganda about how "we" choose rulers, how people I didn't vote for and don't want 'represent' me, etc.
IMO every statist, if he's being honest w/himself, must admit a few things:
He spends from his entire childhood to early adulthood in a state-run/controlled school system which inculcates in him as strong a belief in statism as spending 12 years in a fanatical religious school system would inculcate a strong and irrational belief in whatever god/religion this system taught him to worship.
He lives in a society which reinforces his irrational belief system, since the vast majority of people have also been indoctrinated in statism and because every center of power/influence also reinforces statism (just like people in a church/religion all reinforce their own collective irrationality/insanity).
He gets to participate in the political ritual of voting which gives the illusion that his choice matters or that he is in control--when in fact it does NOT change the fact that someone else has the power to make decisions FOR him, against his will and wishes if necessary. IMO there is a good deal of Stockholm Syndrome at work here as well, because to admit the truth about the system would be to reject a system that the statist has had deeply ingrained in his pysche as well as admitting that he is, in fact, NOT free.
Letting the slaves vote for new figurehead 'representatives' every so often was an evil-genius move on the part of the masters...forcing the slave children into schools run by the slave-masters was even more brilliant..."slavery is freedom"...
Not sure what being rich has to do w/surviving in a world w/o rulers...living in a state doesn't guarantee survival either (ask the Iraqis and Libyans) and most anarchists have nothing against VOLUNTARY collectives (they are natural and beneficial), we just don't think there should be one set of rules (i.e., no rules) for a ruling class and another for a ruled class.
Which part?
How can someone 'represent' me w/o my consent?
How can you delegate a right to a 'representative' that you, yourself, don't have?
"Elected individual", "representative", "government"...all artificial titles which don't change the fact that you're simply talking about PEOPLE who are using coercion/violence against other PEOPLE.
Of course in electoral representative government, those who didn't vote or voted for a sufficiently unpopular person don't get represented. My point was mainly that it's a sufficient widespread group of the population (generally a majority) that elect representatives. Such government comes from widespread consensus.
You personally can't delegate a right, but together you can pool a "right" to an entity.
E.g. the right to enforce physical security
What's wrong with people consensually inviting coercion?
But it isn't a majority of the populace that elects rulers...in America its usually around 20-25% that elects the majority ruling party.
If I can't delegate a right I don't have and neither can you how can we collectively do so? Again, how do you delegate rights (specifically taxing and legislating rights/powers) that you don't have?
When did/do people (which "people" btw?) "consensually invite coercion"? The very idea of "consensual coercion" makes no fucking sense, you realize that, right?
If you think a master-slave/ruler-ruled situation enforced by coercion/violence--which is inherently an UNequal and UNfree system--is the only or best way we as humans can live w/each other just say so and stop trying to cover up the truth w/propaganda about how "we" choose rulers, how people I didn't vote for and don't want 'represent' me, etc.
IMO every statist, if he's being honest w/himself, must admit a few things:
He spends from his entire childhood to early adulthood in a state-run/controlled school system which inculcates in him as strong a belief in statism as spending 12 years in a fanatical religious school system would inculcate a strong and irrational belief in whatever god/religion this system taught him to worship.
He lives in a society which reinforces his irrational belief system, since the vast majority of people have also been indoctrinated in statism and because every center of power/influence also reinforces statism (just like people in a church/religion all reinforce their own collective irrationality/insanity).
He gets to participate in the political ritual of voting which gives the illusion that his choice matters or that he is in control--when in fact it does NOT change the fact that someone else has the power to make decisions FOR him, against his will and wishes if necessary. IMO there is a good deal of Stockholm Syndrome at work here as well, because to admit the truth about the system would be to reject a system that the statist has had deeply ingrained in his pysche as well as admitting that he is, in fact, NOT free.
Letting the slaves vote for new figurehead 'representatives' every so often was an evil-genius move on the part of the masters...forcing the slave children into schools run by the slave-masters was even more brilliant..."slavery is freedom"...
I'm not a statist. But I'm not rich enough to survive in an individualist anarchy.
Not sure what being rich has to do w/surviving in a world w/o rulers...living in a state doesn't guarantee survival either (ask the Iraqis and Libyans) and most anarchists have nothing against VOLUNTARY collectives (they are natural and beneficial), we just don't think there should be one set of rules (i.e., no rules) for a ruling class and another for a ruled class.