4 ms·
The source of legitimacy of feudal monarchies was divine right. This is not the case today. Our governments derive legitimacy from the consent of, and in defenc
by thegrimmest 5y ago
The source of legitimacy of feudal monarchies was divine right. This is not the case today. Our governments derive legitimacy from the consent of, and in defence of the liberty of, the governed. This is why I object to these laws. They only constrain my liberty to interact peacefully with other people, and I certainly don't recall consenting.
> You've never seen those signs that say you get only one free cup of coffee have you?
Indeed I've seen the signs. I would very much object to similar laws.
- SiempreViernes 5y agoYou are free to leave if the governed collectively have decided on laws you don't agree with, and they'll probably ask you to if you go on about your demand to be granted veto rights on all legislation. As an aside, I'm slightly curious how you explain the legality of said sign using your absolutist libertarian framework.
- SiempreViernes 5y agoActually, never mind. I saw your other replies and it's clear you see epicycles as a badge of honour.
- thegrimmest 5y ago"free to leave" isn't really an excuse for tyranny is it? The legality of the sign is derived from the fact that it's on private property, from which the owner has a right to expel anyone for any reason. Violating the rules of the sign is simply grounds for expulsion from said property, not criminal consequences. That's the difference between a rule and a law.