4 ms·

So no one can complain about their government violating their human rights, because they are capable of moving?

by aminok 10y ago

DannyBee 10y ago
You can complain of course, for anything you think is a violation of whatever. You can vote to change it. As long as the consensus decision making process exists, is being followed, and you are still taking advantage of the benefits of the contract, you don't have a complaint that you didn't consent to the contract. You even have a way out. You seem to have a very very very strange view of what collective consent is. You seem to think it is "individual consent of literally every member of the collective", instead it is "output of collective decision making process". You may want that decision making process to be "every member of collective says yes", but that's just one form of collective consent, and at least here, not the one agreed to. and again, you have your chance to ratify or not ratify the agreements your forebearers have made. If you choose to ratify and adopt, you've consented. If you choose to leave, great, you haven't. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim "i don't subscribe to the agreed collective decision making process but i want the benefits the collective have agreed to".
- pitaj 10y ago
  > You seem to have a very very very strange view of what collective consent is Collective consent is not a form of true consent. 51% of people in a room cannot decide what the other 49% have to do. That is tyranny, and it's ridiculous to think that the government even has the consent of the majority for half of the shit they do.
- aminok 10y ago
  >you don't have a complaint that you didn't consent to the contract. But you didn't consent to the contract. Choosing to stay in a country is not contenting to following any human-rights violating law the majority happens to pass. By your logic, any law implemented through the democratic process cannot be a human rights violation, as long as the citizens had an option to leave the country, since all citizens "consented to the contract" by choosing to stay in the country. >You seem to have a very very very strange view of what collective consent is. Terms like "collective consent" are double-speak, and mean exactly the opposite of what they imply. Other terms that fall in this category include "social justice", which blatantly violates justice, and "social contract", which is in no way a contract.
  - pitaj 10y ago
    It's okay. Statists are used to double speak, apparently. It;s incredible the amount of dissonance a statist has to endure in order to justify the morality of their beliefs. And then you have the HNers using downvote buttons as a symbol of disagreement. This is just a terrible forum for political discourse.
    - aminok 10y ago
      Ironically, I am a statist too. I believe a state has a rightful place in society, in managing the commons, and expending its revenue on public goods. What I don't believe a state has a right to do is violate human rights, in imprisoning people for engaging in some voluntary action or interaction by and between consenting adults, or for refusing to hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade.

So no one can complain about their government violating their human rights, because they are capable of moving?

by aminok 10y ago

So no one can complain about their government violating their human rights, because they are capable of moving?

You can complain of course, for anything you think is a violation of whatever. You can vote to change it. As long as the consensus decision making process exists, is being followed, and you are still taking advantage of the benefits of the contract, you don't have a complaint that you didn't consent to the contract. You even have a way out. You seem to have a very very very strange view of what collective consent is. You seem to think it is "individual consent of literally every member of the collective", instead it is "output of collective decision making process". You may want that decision making process to be "every member of collective says yes", but that's just one form of collective consent, and at least here, not the one agreed to. and again, you have your chance to ratify or not ratify the agreements your forebearers have made. If you choose to ratify and adopt, you've consented. If you choose to leave, great, you haven't. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim "i don't subscribe to the agreed collective decision making process but i want the benefits the collective have agreed to".

pitaj 10y ago
> You seem to have a very very very strange view of what collective consent is Collective consent is not a form of true consent. 51% of people in a room cannot decide what the other 49% have to do. That is tyranny, and it's ridiculous to think that the government even has the consent of the majority for half of the shit they do.
aminok 10y ago
>you don't have a complaint that you didn't consent to the contract. But you didn't consent to the contract. Choosing to stay in a country is not contenting to following any human-rights violating law the majority happens to pass. By your logic, any law implemented through the democratic process cannot be a human rights violation, as long as the citizens had an option to leave the country, since all citizens "consented to the contract" by choosing to stay in the country. >You seem to have a very very very strange view of what collective consent is. Terms like "collective consent" are double-speak, and mean exactly the opposite of what they imply. Other terms that fall in this category include "social justice", which blatantly violates justice, and "social contract", which is in no way a contract.
- pitaj 10y ago
  It's okay. Statists are used to double speak, apparently. It;s incredible the amount of dissonance a statist has to endure in order to justify the morality of their beliefs. And then you have the HNers using downvote buttons as a symbol of disagreement. This is just a terrible forum for political discourse.
  - aminok 10y ago
    Ironically, I am a statist too. I believe a state has a rightful place in society, in managing the commons, and expending its revenue on public goods. What I don't believe a state has a right to do is violate human rights, in imprisoning people for engaging in some voluntary action or interaction by and between consenting adults, or for refusing to hand over a share of the currency they receive in private trade.