4 ms·

That's a sub form of democracy called Majoritarianism. lots of decision making needs higher standards, often watered down later Conviction for Murder 12 unani

by tezza 10y ago

That's a sub form of democracy called Majoritarianism. lots of decision making needs higher standards, often watered down later Conviction for Murder 12 unanimous peers - watered down to 11 of 12 in some places Constitutional changes - 2/3 majority required in many jurisdictions As a side note this is why the Brexit result was so devastating, the brexit side won by only a little however the support for being governed by the EU was only 48% .... this needed to be 66% or more for EU rule to be truly accepted

pitaj 10y ago
Consent doesn't happen at anything but unanimous consent in a group. If you decide to vote, the decision to vote must be unanimous. There needs to be a consent on every individual level in order for consent to occur in the collective level. Otherwise a room of wolves can eat the sheep.
- sokoloff 10y ago
  Play that out a little bit and tell us how you get a functioning government [or collective society over 100K people] as a result. "I didn't agree to that parking fine; I park where I damn well please." "I didn't agree to not put rat poison on the food I sold." "I didn't agree that John and Jane Doe owned that house." "I didn't agree that we have a medical licensing board to determine qualifications for doctors/surgeons." "I initially agreed to pay for that, but I now revoke my consent and don't wish to be bound by that earlier consent. I did not agree to recognize your courts as valid and able to enforce that civil agreement."
  - icebraining 10y ago
    That's not a rebuttal against the argument. If you have a chicken and call it a bull, and I say "that's not a bull, those have horns, tails, etc", saying "well, try getting eggs from that" doesn't prove that chickens are actually bulls.
    - sokoloff 10y ago
      I'm claiming that a unanimous consent ideal is utterly unworkable at the scale that even a city government needs to work at, let alone state or federal government. If the argument against a mostly functional existing government is that "not everyone consented unanimously and willingly", I think the claim that to require such makes things less functional is an in-bounds claim. You can argue that I'm wrong, but you will have a hard time convincing me that my claim was non-responsive.
      - aminok 10y ago
        Not all things need consent. You don't need the consent of someone violating other people's rights to punish them. You don't need the consent of 100% of the citizenry to make a decision on how to expend public funds. You do need someone's consent to take private income from them. Income taxation is wrong for that reason.

by tezza 10y ago

pitaj 10y ago

Consent doesn't happen at anything but unanimous consent in a group. If you decide to vote, the decision to vote must be unanimous. There needs to be a consent on every individual level in order for consent to occur in the collective level. Otherwise a room of wolves can eat the sheep.

sokoloff 10y ago
Play that out a little bit and tell us how you get a functioning government [or collective society over 100K people] as a result. "I didn't agree to that parking fine; I park where I damn well please." "I didn't agree to not put rat poison on the food I sold." "I didn't agree that John and Jane Doe owned that house." "I didn't agree that we have a medical licensing board to determine qualifications for doctors/surgeons." "I initially agreed to pay for that, but I now revoke my consent and don't wish to be bound by that earlier consent. I did not agree to recognize your courts as valid and able to enforce that civil agreement."
- icebraining 10y ago
  That's not a rebuttal against the argument. If you have a chicken and call it a bull, and I say "that's not a bull, those have horns, tails, etc", saying "well, try getting eggs from that" doesn't prove that chickens are actually bulls.
  - sokoloff 10y ago
    I'm claiming that a unanimous consent ideal is utterly unworkable at the scale that even a city government needs to work at, let alone state or federal government. If the argument against a mostly functional existing government is that "not everyone consented unanimously and willingly", I think the claim that to require such makes things less functional is an in-bounds claim. You can argue that I'm wrong, but you will have a hard time convincing me that my claim was non-responsive.
    - aminok 10y ago
      Not all things need consent. You don't need the consent of someone violating other people's rights to punish them. You don't need the consent of 100% of the citizenry to make a decision on how to expend public funds. You do need someone's consent to take private income from them. Income taxation is wrong for that reason.