4 > Discussions; Public Archive

MC

(1/1)

Dale Eastman:

--- Quote ---Voting to have others' wealth stolen to fund things you support is a morally-bankrupt form of exploitation.
--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---It goes without saying means it needs to be said.
Govment skooling.
--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---How are social decisions to be made if people do not vote?
--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---What do you mean specifically by "social decision". I want to be sure I understand the question before answering.
--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---Any type of decision where more than two people are involved in the transaction.
--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---okay, those decisions that involve more than two people can be decided through unanimous consent. If some do not consent, then leave them out of it and let them do their own thing.
--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---Voting can NOT delegate an authority over others that the voter does not have.
--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---"do their own 'thing'"??
--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---the whole point of government policies and judicial rulings is that they apply very broadly to many people—and what happens as a consequence to those who are ignored is no less important than what happens to those who have been arbitrarily singled out by an observer
--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---equal protection of the law applies to all citizens. One conception of fairness is that every one plays by the same rules, is judged by the same standards, and is rewarded according to the same criteria
--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---you said: "the whole point of government policies and judicial rulings is that they apply very broadly to many people—and what happens as a consequence to those who are ignored is no less important than what happens to those who have been arbitrarily singled out by an observer"
That's actually what I'm suggesting be done away with. Unanimous consent, or not at all. If unanimous consent from all cannot be had, then everyone who doesn't consent should be left alone to do their own thing.
--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---I understand that forcing everyone (except politicians and their enforcers, it would seem) under the same set of rules is standard-operating-procedure of most groups called "government" these days. What I am suggesting is doing away with that expectation altogether. Let people decide their own rules over their own property but not over anybody else's property.
--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---➽ equal protection of the law applies to all citizens.
What do you mean by "law"?
Sorry Chris, this discussion just might have been hijacked.
--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---Maybe you know something about Coward Cantin that I don't.
Coward Cantin wrote: ➽ equal protection of the law applies to all citizens.
I asked: What do you mean by "law"?
--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---Rule of law is the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws. A principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated.
--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---That is not the question I asked you.
--- End quote ---

Dale Eastman:

--- Quote ---How decisions supposed to be made if there's more than two people involved?
--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---asked: How decisions supposed to be made if there's more than two people involved?

What type of decisions? Specific examples please?
--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

Reply