4 ms·

The difference is which group derives its power from the consent of the governed, actually.

by djur 13y ago

baddox 13y ago
And like I implied in my last comment, a lot more of what Apple does relies on the consent of its stakeholders than what governments do. There's a tragic irony in the fact that government routinely uses supposed consent to justify violence, while Apple (as far as I know, although shady stuff might happen from time to time) actually obtains consent from its stakeholders. Apple doesn't have to go around telling everyone "It's okay that we take your money in exchange for our products, because you actively consent to the exchange," because everyone knows that's how it works. And yet government, which plainly doesn't work that way, is the one that hammers into our heads the lie that the exchange is consensual. It would be laughable, except that so many people actually get fooled.
- djur 13y ago
  The nation I'm a citizen of has a government that renews the consent of the government on a regular basis with free, fair, universal elections. I'm sorry if you don't live in such a country. The guillotine is a traditional remedy for that. Apple doesn't have to do that because we don't rely on it to safeguard our life, liberty, and property. If it disappeared tomorrow the economy would take a hit but life would go on.
  - dreamdu5t 13y ago
    Elections aren't an election of anyone's consent to be governed.
    - claudius 13y ago
      You are free not to use any of the services offered by society to you, which obviously requires leaving the country.
      - randunel 13y ago
        You are not free to leave the country, unless you are willing to spend your time in between borders. Many people are not as privileged as you are, for example I need a visa to go anywhere in the world. And the elections may seem like freedom, but usually you have to choose between multiple sides of the same evil :P </rant>
        claudius 13y ago
        You are usually free to leave your country (the GDR likely being one of the few exceptions…), but other societies obviously have the right to reject you entry into their countries. And if you don’t like the choices you have at your elections, nominate yourself.
      - CamperBob2 13y ago
        Ah, yes, the old Don't want to be nannied from cradle to grave? Well, here's your ticket to Somalia! routine. One of my all-time favorite thought-stopping arguments.
      - baddox 13y ago
        > You are free not to use any of the services offered by society to you, which obviously requires leaving the country. You are free to avoid me killing you. Just leave your house and never come back so I can live in your house in peace. Ridiculous logic.
  - baddox 13y ago
    > The nation I'm a citizen of has a government that renews the consent of the government on a regular basis with free, fair, universal elections. At best, that just renews the consent of those who do consent. If I didn't vote, or voted for the losing candidate or option, then I am still governed despite not consenting.
    - djur 13y ago
      "Consent of the governed" refers to consent of the polity (by some form of majoritarian process), not to individual consent. Individuals do not have the unrestricted option to remove themselves from society; universal consent is unnecessary, unworkable, and undesirable.
      - baddox 13y ago
        > "Consent of the governed" refers to consent of the polity (by some form of majoritarian process), not to individual consent. That's precisely my point. It's a linguistic trick to make it sound like an exchange is justified despite there not actually being consent. The analogy would be Apple forcefully taking x hundred dollars from you, giving you an iPhone, then saying the exchange is justified because 50.1% of the smartphone market consensually buys iPhones. (I made up that number, obviously.)
dreamdu5t 13y ago
Nobody alive today has ever consented to government. There is no negotiation. "Consent of the governed" is sophistry.
- djur 13y ago
  The people have the right to vote in whatever government they want. If that right is abridged or taken away, they can kill the people doing that until the right is restored. That is the consent of the governed.
  - baddox 13y ago
    No, that's still just consent of those who consent.
- dmoo 13y ago
  From time to time people withdraw that consent, like in the Ukraine at the moment.
  - baddox 13y ago
    And yet, they're still governed, and you can bet they will still be governed after this struggle is over.

The difference is which group derives its power from the consent of the governed, actually.

by djur 13y ago

The difference is which group derives its power from the consent of the governed, actually.

And like I implied in my last comment, a lot more of what Apple does relies on the consent of its stakeholders than what governments do. There's a tragic irony in the fact that government routinely uses supposed consent to justify violence, while Apple (as far as I know, although shady stuff might happen from time to time) actually obtains consent from its stakeholders. Apple doesn't have to go around telling everyone "It's okay that we take your money in exchange for our products, because you actively consent to the exchange," because everyone knows that's how it works. And yet government, which plainly doesn't work that way, is the one that hammers into our heads the lie that the exchange is consensual. It would be laughable, except that so many people actually get fooled.

djur 13y ago
The nation I'm a citizen of has a government that renews the consent of the government on a regular basis with free, fair, universal elections. I'm sorry if you don't live in such a country. The guillotine is a traditional remedy for that. Apple doesn't have to do that because we don't rely on it to safeguard our life, liberty, and property. If it disappeared tomorrow the economy would take a hit but life would go on.
- dreamdu5t 13y ago
  Elections aren't an election of anyone's consent to be governed.
  - claudius 13y ago
    You are free not to use any of the services offered by society to you, which obviously requires leaving the country.
    - randunel 13y ago
      You are not free to leave the country, unless you are willing to spend your time in between borders. Many people are not as privileged as you are, for example I need a visa to go anywhere in the world. And the elections may seem like freedom, but usually you have to choose between multiple sides of the same evil :P </rant>
      - claudius 13y ago
        You are usually free to leave your country (the GDR likely being one of the few exceptions…), but other societies obviously have the right to reject you entry into their countries. And if you don’t like the choices you have at your elections, nominate yourself.
    - CamperBob2 13y ago
      Ah, yes, the old Don't want to be nannied from cradle to grave? Well, here's your ticket to Somalia! routine. One of my all-time favorite thought-stopping arguments.
    - baddox 13y ago
      > You are free not to use any of the services offered by society to you, which obviously requires leaving the country. You are free to avoid me killing you. Just leave your house and never come back so I can live in your house in peace. Ridiculous logic.
- baddox 13y ago
  > The nation I'm a citizen of has a government that renews the consent of the government on a regular basis with free, fair, universal elections. At best, that just renews the consent of those who do consent. If I didn't vote, or voted for the losing candidate or option, then I am still governed despite not consenting.
  - djur 13y ago
    "Consent of the governed" refers to consent of the polity (by some form of majoritarian process), not to individual consent. Individuals do not have the unrestricted option to remove themselves from society; universal consent is unnecessary, unworkable, and undesirable.
    - baddox 13y ago
      > "Consent of the governed" refers to consent of the polity (by some form of majoritarian process), not to individual consent. That's precisely my point. It's a linguistic trick to make it sound like an exchange is justified despite there not actually being consent. The analogy would be Apple forcefully taking x hundred dollars from you, giving you an iPhone, then saying the exchange is justified because 50.1% of the smartphone market consensually buys iPhones. (I made up that number, obviously.)

dreamdu5t 13y ago

Nobody alive today has ever consented to government. There is no negotiation. "Consent of the governed" is sophistry.

djur 13y ago
The people have the right to vote in whatever government they want. If that right is abridged or taken away, they can kill the people doing that until the right is restored. That is the consent of the governed.
- baddox 13y ago
  No, that's still just consent of those who consent.
dmoo 13y ago
From time to time people withdraw that consent, like in the Ukraine at the moment.
- baddox 13y ago
  And yet, they're still governed, and you can bet they will still be governed after this struggle is over.