Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerBang
That's a good point. I was going to agree with you but then I thought..
if you live in a "Democracy" by choice, then you inherently accept the will of the majority. Technically (Supposedly) our representatives put SUI in place by majority will. So, the will to live in this system means accepting the majority rules and that would cancel the 'shame' you speak of. Otherwise anyone who dislikes it is free to leave and pursue their own will... and good luck finding any society that will bend to each individuals will for fear of being called shameful.
...sorry to cut in but it just got interesting....
|
That's the problem: we don't live in a democracy by choice.
Democracy is great if you want to start a tennis club or something like that. You and other like minded people who are all interested in playing tennis come together and voluntarily decide to start a tennis club. The voluntary members of this club can decide how things will be organized: vote on every decision? elect a president every year or every 4 years? do x to raise y amount of money to buy equipment? do x to raise y amount of money to buy a piece of land or rent a building? etc.
If you as a member of your tennis club don't like the way things are being done, you can always quit the club and maybe even start your own tennis club or apply to join another club.
The important thing here is that membership of the tennis club is
voluntary. The tennis club does not force anyone to join. The tennis club does not use force to wipe out other tennis clubs that are located in the same geographical area.
Now if we take a look at the state, we see that the state is nothing more than an organization that has a monopoly on certain services such as protection and arbitration and an organization that forces all people who just happen to be living in a certain area to buy its services.
The fact that the internal structure of this organization (the state) is democratic does not justify the acts of aggression that this organization commits. The state remains an organization that uses force to wipe out the competition, the state remains an organization that forces people to buy its services.
From an ethical point of view this is an act of injustice.
From a utilitarian point of view this is incredibly inefficient. Because there is no competition and people are being forced to pay, the state does not have any incentive to do a good job at the services it claims to provide.
The argument that people are free to leave is invalid since:
A. first of all it does not address the fact that the state has no right to force people to buy ,its services.
B. states are ever growing/expanding institutions. Look at the EU for example. It's impossible to run. Even if you do manage to find a place in some remote part of the world, some democratic state will sooner or later send in troops to "free you and install democracy".