No government that is assigned rights that individuals do not have can be said to represent the people because you cannot delegate a right you yourself do not have.
If the government assumes rights that the people who institute it do not have it cannot be said to represent its people.
I don't think any government represents its people because they all assume rights that individuals do not have. I think the US at the time of its founding is probably the closest to such a government in recorded history.
You talk a lot about what you think shouldn't exist, but can you line out what you think SHOULD? Let's say you get your wish, and you've torn down all nations and states. How would a society that you would consider "legitimate" deal with the daily troubles that every society eventually must?
Note that I am saying "society", and not "government". I would like to know how you think people would interact on the whole--and not "should" or "I would hope", either.
Show me your vision. Show me you can build as well as destroy.
It boils down to letting the market find solutions to the problem of rights protection.
Markets are self-organizing, that's why it's hard to describe exactly what such a system would end up looking like without trying to forcefully impose a top-down system on people.
The core principle of this would be that everyone has a right to defend their rights and the rights of others, and there is nothing wrong with organizing on a voluntary basis to defend the rights of oneself and others.
Most thinkers who have attempted to describe what such a system would end up looking like have suggested that it would take the form of multiple competing insurance agencies employing competing protective services.
A similar system has been described by David Friedman in "The Machinery of Freedom", Michael Huemer in the second half of "The Problem of Political Authority" and by Robert Murphy in "Chaos Theory" likely others as well but these are the most comprehensive descriptions of how such a system might work that I'm aware of.
Also I'm not one to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I am very much in favor of any reduction in government power even if we are left with a minarchist state even if such a state engages in immoral acts such as taxation IF it can keep itself limited to the protection of rights otherwise.
I define rights as those actions an individual can do without imposing on others.
The core principle of this would be that everyone has a right to defend their rights and the rights of others, and there is nothing wrong with organizing on a voluntary basis to defend the rights of oneself and others.
Oh, I've got a lot of nitty-gritty sort of questions, but let's start with a couple of big ones, and maybe we can hit some more later.
(Side note: It's a shame a lot of folks aren't going to see this as the thread rolls off down to the bottomless void over the next couple days, but damn if I'm not interested in your answers.)
I define rights as those actions an individual can do without imposing on others.
"Imposing" is a squishy sort of word, unfortunately; human nature is less rational than rationalizing, as this one blogger I used to follow would say. So the question is then, what happens when the members of your society start rationalizing what "imposition" means? Do you already have some concrete examples of what rights they enjoy, or do you wait until the conflicts begin before lining it out?
And more importantly, how do you get everyone in the society to agree to the definition you propose--and how do you hold them to it?
Which leads into another question, and I promise this is the last one for now: If someone new enters the society in question, how do you secure their agreement to those same terms?
that's why it's hard to describe exactly what such a system would end up looking like without trying to forcefully impose a top-down system on people.
Some examples of rights-based and -honoring societies that emerged from the pure market would probably go a long way toward helping. Surely there are some?
No government that is assigned rights that individuals do not have can be said to represent the people because you cannot delegate a right you yourself do not have.
If the government assumes rights that the people who institute it do not have it cannot be said to represent its people.
I don't think any government represents its people because they all assume rights that individuals do not have. I think the US at the time of its founding is probably the closest to such a government in recorded history.
But close to legitimate is still not legitimate.
You talk a lot about what you think shouldn't exist, but can you line out what you think SHOULD? Let's say you get your wish, and you've torn down all nations and states. How would a society that you would consider "legitimate" deal with the daily troubles that every society eventually must?
Note that I am saying "society", and not "government". I would like to know how you think people would interact on the whole--and not "should" or "I would hope", either.
Show me your vision. Show me you can build as well as destroy.
It boils down to letting the market find solutions to the problem of rights protection.
Markets are self-organizing, that's why it's hard to describe exactly what such a system would end up looking like without trying to forcefully impose a top-down system on people.
The core principle of this would be that everyone has a right to defend their rights and the rights of others, and there is nothing wrong with organizing on a voluntary basis to defend the rights of oneself and others.
Most thinkers who have attempted to describe what such a system would end up looking like have suggested that it would take the form of multiple competing insurance agencies employing competing protective services.
A similar system has been described by David Friedman in "The Machinery of Freedom", Michael Huemer in the second half of "The Problem of Political Authority" and by Robert Murphy in "Chaos Theory" likely others as well but these are the most comprehensive descriptions of how such a system might work that I'm aware of.
Also I'm not one to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I am very much in favor of any reduction in government power even if we are left with a minarchist state even if such a state engages in immoral acts such as taxation IF it can keep itself limited to the protection of rights otherwise.
I define rights as those actions an individual can do without imposing on others.
Oh, I've got a lot of nitty-gritty sort of questions, but let's start with a couple of big ones, and maybe we can hit some more later.
(Side note: It's a shame a lot of folks aren't going to see this as the thread rolls off down to the bottomless void over the next couple days, but damn if I'm not interested in your answers.)
"Imposing" is a squishy sort of word, unfortunately; human nature is less rational than rationalizing, as this one blogger I used to follow would say. So the question is then, what happens when the members of your society start rationalizing what "imposition" means? Do you already have some concrete examples of what rights they enjoy, or do you wait until the conflicts begin before lining it out?
And more importantly, how do you get everyone in the society to agree to the definition you propose--and how do you hold them to it?
Which leads into another question, and I promise this is the last one for now: If someone new enters the society in question, how do you secure their agreement to those same terms?
Some examples of rights-based and -honoring societies that emerged from the pure market would probably go a long way toward helping. Surely there are some?