ext_367809 ([identity profile] meus-ovatio.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics 2010-04-20 04:14 am (UTC)

Representative democracy is a mob rule (even if they limit themselves with some agreement) with threat of force and violence to anyone who doesn't share with them.
No, representative democracy is a rule of law. Direct democracy is mob rule.

So if you had a large gang which elected it's leaders you would be ok with them robing you every year?
If I was a part of that gang, and that gang decided that I needed to give 30 percent of my drug proceeds to that gang? No, I wouldn't have a problem with that, since that would be an exchange of benefit for cost; ie: I secure a supply of drugs to sell, and they take a cut to finance the larger scheme.

If I wasn't a part of that gang, I would petition the government to protect me since I do not have the manpower to resist. And since the gang has agreed to a relation of power and violence, I would be just ok with punishing them, imprisoning them, banishing them or killing them.

But since I have petitioned the government to protect me, I likewise am obligated to provide some measure of compensation to secure my further protection from said gang. Since it is in my interest (just like how it is in my interest, if I were a drug-dealer), I gladly agree to such.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting