What you presume to call a plan is most often merely only an assertion of a politician that if given the authority to initiate force against people (an "authority" that nobody posesses to delegate in the first place) he will ultimately force someone to do something, somehow, sometime.
You are suggesting that when difference in opinion on implementing rules occur, compromises are negotiated or another parallel entity is formed so that two sets of rules can be used.
Precisely.
Are you aware that this already exists in many incarnations basically in every place of the world[?]
Yes. I see you at least acknowledge this reality. Good.
when it comes to a larger society and structure it is highly impractical to the point of impossibility for certain larger transactions.
Now who is making vague assertions which she is not supporting with either facts or logic?
Also, I am amused that "compromises" is so vaguely formed.
You cannot predict the terms of a compromise before any such terms have been negotiated, nay, before even the disputes arise. Are you so fearful of human disagreement that you reach for a fuhrer to dictate unity?
Democracy and compromise are procedural mechanisms only; they are not ends in themselves and do not automatically guarantee respect for rights. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner does not a just system make, despite the holy rituals of "democracy" being observed to the letter.
If no one should do anything against anyone's will...
That is not what I said. I said that nobody has the authority to violate another's rights. Nobody has a right to initate force against someone who has not themselves previously caused or threatened harm. What it is to which this boils down is that nobody is able to presume a forcible monopoly on the provision of any good or service, which includes security or dispute resolution. Since we seem to be attempting to get to the bottom of what I am espousing here, and obviously not getting the idea across to you (I am presuming that you are not being deliberately obtuse and purposely misrepresenting my claims) then perhaps you would be better enlightened on the concepts by reading the Wikipedia article on Non-aggression Principle. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 13/1/12 21:53 (UTC)Precisely.
Yes. I see you at least acknowledge this reality. Good.
Now who is making vague assertions which she is not supporting with either facts or logic?
You cannot predict the terms of a compromise before any such terms have been negotiated, nay, before even the disputes arise. Are you so fearful of human disagreement that you reach for a fuhrer to dictate unity?
Democracy and compromise are procedural mechanisms only; they are not ends in themselves and do not automatically guarantee respect for rights. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner does not a just system make, despite the holy rituals of "democracy" being observed to the letter.
That is not what I said. I said that nobody has the authority to violate another's rights. Nobody has a right to initate force against someone who has not themselves previously caused or threatened harm. What it is to which this boils down is that nobody is able to presume a forcible monopoly on the provision of any good or service, which includes security or dispute resolution. Since we seem to be attempting to get to the bottom of what I am espousing here, and obviously not getting the idea across to you (I am presuming that you are not being deliberately obtuse and purposely misrepresenting my claims) then perhaps you would be better enlightened on the concepts by reading the Wikipedia article on Non-aggression Principle. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)