Do politicians have the "right to rule others"?

[castille]

If we destroy the government and live in an anarchic society, we'll still have rulers.

They won't be politicians. They'll be gangs demanding protection money, people with the biggest guns, terrorists, and other fun figures.


Lets say the government collapsed, and the world fell into a state of anarchy.

Well, if the local Triads or Mafia stopped by your house and shot you, nobody is going to "arrest" them, since there isn't any more cops.

Now some of you will say "I'll just get my super duper D2000 super bazooka and blow them up!"

Obviously, you've never had the experience of taking on an entire gang of organised, well-trained killers. These aren't kids armed with knives, they're people who can put a bullet in your head before you turn around.


China during the 1920s is a classic example of anarchy. China's government only managed to rule the south-West coast. Most of China's west and northern areas had no form of government.

So what happened? Warlords took over some areas. Criminal organizations grabbed chunks. Local villages were ruled by whoever had the biggest and most guns. My grandfather lived through this; he was lucky, having joined up with a local warlord's army before he got into any kind of mess.


You want to live in that kind of society? Just topple the government, and say Hi to Mr Mafioso.

[tusaki]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Anarchist,)
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
So far, all I&#39;ve heard from you is bitching how things are bad and how my arguments and questions are invalid. I was merely stating -why- I think a government is needed. For any of the "what-if"&#39;s, how would you propose to deal with them? What does your model of society look like? I never argued the current solution is the best or always right. But I will argue that it is the best we have at the moment.

[Jackney Sneeb]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
Ok, this is getting quite a long discussion, so I will summarize the arguments given by you and me. This is my interpretation of how I feel you see things, feel free to write your own.

First of all, you asked me if I would please answer your question about &#39;what right does the government have to tax and to apply law&#39; (exchange tax/law with extortion/bullying to your own leisure) and you argued that I was getting off topic with my arguments.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I asked you how some people -- call them the state, politicians, "government," if you want -- got the right to do things we as individuals don&#39;t have the right to do. That&#39;s all I asked, and your suspicions and inferences are unfounded and irrelevant. You either can&#39;t answer the question or you won&#39;t, and all your wild accusations can&#39;t camouflage that fact.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
So my question to you is: how would you arrange all the things a government does, without a government?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
You haven&#39;t proved "government" even exists yet, as a rightful ruler and tax agent. You&#39;re asking a question based on your conclusion that it does exist, which is circular. Do people in "government" have rights we don&#39;t have as individuals?

Yes__ No__

If "yes," how did they get rights we don&#39;t have?

If "no," why do you call one group "government" and not everyone else?

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
I said "ruled," not enslaved  -- although the difference is subtle.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Enlighten me.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
It&#39;s only a matter of degree. In the one, the ruler pretends that the slave is a free person for propaganda purposes, while in the other there is no pretense that the ruled has a choice whether to fork over the fruits of his labor to his masters.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
There&#39;s no correlation between politicians&#39; commandments and protecting others.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
What do you think law is meant to be for?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
To gain compliance with politicians desires.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
What is the necessary connection between paying taxes and using public services?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Propose an alternative solution.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Absence of an answer noted.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
History contradicts that assumption [i.e., that "governments" don&#39;t want war because they&#39;re expensive].
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
We have come a long way since WWII. I think governments enter war for more valid reasons than the tribal leaders which will emerge when there is no government.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
What was the valid reason for the US invasion of Vietnam? How about Grenada? Panama? Haiti? Bosnia? Iraq? Somalia? Korea? I&#39;m sure you feel wars are more justified when made by a huge military power rather than by bickering tribes. The point is that states make wars far more lethal and widespread. For that reason alone, it would be worth abolishing them.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
Why?  I can do that without believing the state is sacred.  As for voting for another "government" to make war, isn&#39;t that like voting for a different rapist to screw your wife, or voting for a different armed thug to rob you?  What&#39;s the purpose of that?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
The state isn&#39;t sacred, the state can be changed. Not all people within the government are evil.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
If the state isn&#39;t sacred, then what business would I have subordinating my own judgment of right and wrong to a gang of lawyers, armed thugs, and con artists who are no more qualified to judge than I am?
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
How is that any different from just one person controlling resources and granting equal access based on a reasonable fee?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
That there is no guarantee that the one person will give everyone equal access. Government will provide the guarantee.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I disagree. There&#39;s no evidence that "government" provides equal anything, or guarantees anything. After all, what&#39;s the difference between people making guarantees when they aren&#39;t "government" as opposed to when they are acting as "government"?
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
Sin is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. While you may think you&#39;re getting a good deal out of your belief in "government," others certainly disagree with your assessment. However, you have a right to pay anyone any amount you wish for "protection," or anything else. If only you stopped there. You don&#39;t. Your cult also demands that everyone else should bow to its demands, as well. Many of us don&#39;t think there is a voluntary relationship between the people and the IRS, so who are you to impose your loony system on the rest of us?

As for claiming taxes aren&#39;t extortion, how is a) "Give us your money or we won&#39;t protect you from us," different from b) "Give us your money or we won&#39;t protect you from us," where &#39;a&#39; is the Mafia and &#39;b&#39; is the IRS?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Could you please refrain from using words like &#39;cult&#39; or &#39;rapist&#39;, &#39;extortionists&#39;. They have no merit and do not contribute to the discussion.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
No. Ever heard of freedom of speech? "Cult" and "rapist" and "extorionist" are legitimate, descriptive terms. If they ofend you, maybe you need to join Teen Chat somewhere.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
Everyone pays taxes because everyone uses public utilities and/or services.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
That&#39;s not true. Everyone does not pay taxes, and furthermore there is no logical relationship between paying taxes and taking advantage of "free" (public) services. Many people who pay nothing use schools, hospitals, and libraries, while others who pay lots, and lots of taxes send their kids to private schools, hospitals, and buy their books.

a) Taxation is extortion.

New concept:

b) Public services are bribes politicians use to get votes.

&#39;a&#39; and &#39;b&#39; have only a coincidental relationship to one another. Politicians could provide free goodies by simply ordering the bank to print money for them. They like the income tax, because it provides them with a social engineering tool, and a way to dole out favors (like tax breaks) for their wealthy campaign contributors.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
If you don’t, you don’t have to pay taxes. But at that point you are probably not living in the same society. But I’m still waiting to hear the great idea from you on how a government is not necessary for the services they provide.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I&#39;m not offering an idea. Nor am I making an argument for any system. I&#39;m asking a question, one you consistently refuse to answer: Do some people have rights the rest of us do not have? And, how did politicians get the right to rule others that we the people don&#39;t have?
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
Who else but the state has the power to make war?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Ok, let me ask you, in a country without a government, will there or will there not be people who will &#39;gang up&#39; and try to enforce their rule on others? If there are, what will you do about them?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
You didn&#39;t answer: who else but the state has the power to make war?
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
Because it is not &#39;someone&#39;. The idea behind taxation is that the money will be used for the public good.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
The propaganda, you mean . . . the propaganda behind taxation is that it will be used "for the public good." Based on whose idea of "good"?
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
But since this is the core idea and the basis for a lot of my and your arguments, I&#39;ll summarize them [your and my arguments] at the top of the post.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
Congress often ignores the law, so does the president, so do the courts.  They break the law when it is expedient to do so, and they think they can get away with it, and with attitudes like yours and Dan&#39;s in abundant supply, they most often do get away with it.  They think they are above the law, and I agree with them -- since all humans with a brain who can think for ourselves are above the law as well. It&#39;s only the perverse belief that the law alters morality that we&#39;re bickering about here.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
In positions of power, some people misuse that power for their own personal benefit.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
That much power is too dangerous to leave in the hands of politicians.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
But, overall, the system works.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
If you mean "works to keep politicians in power," I agree.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
I think it is better than an anarchist solution. But if you can convince me, with valid arguments, that an anarchist society can work and provide all the things a government does, I will listen.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I&#39;m not interested in taking your belief from you. As I said, if you want to believe in "government" and pay your politicians whatever they demand, there&#39;s no logic in the world powerful enough to dissuade you. I merely want to know why you think you should impose that lunacy on everyone else?
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
We shouldn&#39;t. Now, answer please: Why should just one group have a monopoly on making rules for you?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Because it is a time-limited monopoly and the majority of the society you are a part of decided . . .<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
No, we didn&#39;t.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
Since when did the majority make the laws?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Since they voted for the group which will make the laws. If you don’t like the new laws, vote for a group which is opposed to them.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
The majority doesn&#39;t make laws. A small group called congress or parliament makes laws. The majority doesn&#39;t vote for either party. In fact, in the US the majority of us don&#39;t believe in "government" enough to vote for it.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
For that matter, since when is the majority the final arbiter of right and wrong?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
They are not . . .<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Then I must rely on my own judgment to decide matters of right and wrong.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
Historical and practical reasons. And it is not &#39;some people&#39;. The government now is not the government then or the government in the future. The government is a system of continuously evolving organizations which are created to provide services for people so they don&#39;t have to worry about the most elementary things in life and can do more meaningful things.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Nice irrelevant platitudes and propaganda. What does it have to do with how people in "government" got the right to rule?

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
How can you steal something that is rightfully yours?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
The roads are rightfully yours? sanitation is rightfully yours? what is rightfully yours?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Aren&#39;t they? Are you trying to argue that the people don&#39;t have a right to the services your "government" offers? I hope so, because that would nail it as far as I&#39;m concerned -- "we have to pay taxes, and we have no right to use the toilet." Aak.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)

I disagree.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
"live peaceful lives" - I don&#39;t have to worry about a neighboring village which may or may not attack me.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
No, just the United States with its aircraft carriers, tanks, cruise missiles and 35,000 nuclear warheads. Big improvement over grouchy neighbors . . .
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
We have not seen a war on our lands in 50 years. And at the rate things are going here, we probably never will again.
"other people coming to take their lives" - Crime rates are low because the criminals are held in check.
"hunger" - Because of the services of the government, I have easy access to food. I don&#39;t have to scramble in nature to find berries or kill a deer.
"sickness" - (EU only?) I can always go to a doctor and get all the help I need if I am ever sick.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
What does all that have to do with my question? How did the state get the right to rule others?
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
How can a corporation -- a legal fiction, created by law (the law itself a creation of the state) -- exist without a state to create it?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
What is a corporation, but a group of people working towards a goal?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
It is a legal entity, a fictional "person" created by law to limit liability and gain special protection of the state. In return, corporations provide tax collection services, bribes to politicians, and campaign money to keep the system in place. Without the state, corporations by definition cannot exist.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)

You can give it a different label if you want, but without the government to prevent groups of people from doing &#39;wrong&#39; one way or another, how would you stop them?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
If the "government" is made up of the same kinds of people (armed with machinguns, tanks, and bomber planes), how would you stop them if they dicided to do the wrong things?
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)
False choice.  Option #3: "I rule me, you rule you.  I&#39;ll keep my hands off of your stuff, you keep your dick skiners off mine."  There&#39;s all the rules I need.
--Jackney Sneeb<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
And you presume everyone will just do that?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Every sane, reasonable, honest human being will. I have to deal with those of you who refuse to abide by those simple principles.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
So all those sane, reasonable, honest human beings are everywhere except in the government?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
For the most part -- yes.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Jackney Sneeb,)

I never said anything about hating "government." I do suspect a statist rant coming on, instead of answers to my simple questions about how the cult of "government" got rights we ordinary mortals don&#39;t have.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
See my summary at the top of the post. Nice dodging of thorny questions btw.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I&#39;m the one asking the questions. I don&#39;t have a belief that I want to convert you to. You apparently want me to believe in "government." I don&#39;t. I am asking why I should accept your word for it if you can&#39;t explain how it got authority over everyone. So, please -- answer the questions, or I will have no reason to accept what you&#39;re offering.

--Jackney Sneeb

[Anarchist]

Tusaki,
I think the question Jackney is asking you is:

"How do the people in &#39;government&#39; have the right to do things that ordinary mortals don&#39;t have?"

You have not answered that question. Forget the long posts and concentrate on this one.

[tusaki]

Dear Anarchist posters of Volconvo,

I&#39;ll keep it simple this time so you won&#39;t have to dodge, ignore or twist everything I throw at you.

"Do politicians have the "right to rule" other people? where did they get this magical right?"
Yes. How? through elections. How did it start? Because our ancestors decided it was a good idea. Why? so we don&#39;t have to be bothered to deal with the elementary things a government provides. Why only them? Because no decisions could be made if we had an ancient greek model. Extortion? To pay for the things the government provides. Not fair extortion? Vote for something else or be a participant and propose it in the Senate.

I&#39;m still quite interested in your Anarchistic ideas, and I&#39;m angry that you deprive me of your obvious wisdom. But perhaps I should start another thread for that, so we wont have to bother those readers which are only interested in the question and the answer.

[Jackney Sneeb]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
Dear Anarchist posters of Volconvo,

I&#39;ll keep it simple this time so you won&#39;t have to dodge, ignore or twist everything I throw at you.

"Do politicians have the "right to rule" other people? where did they get this magical right?"
Yes. How? through elections.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
How does voting in an election create a right that you do not have and transfer or delegate it to someone else who does not have that right?
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
How did it start?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I am not interested in how it started. I&#39;m only asking how politicians got the right to rule others if the rest of us don&#39;t have that right.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (tusaki,)
I&#39;m still quite interested in your Anarchistic ideas, and I&#39;m angry that you deprive me of your obvious wisdom. But perhaps I should start another thread for that, so we wont have to bother those readers which are only interested in the question and the answer.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Good idea. Please stick to answering the questions that arise from the topic of this thread.

--Jackney Sneeb

[Geoff332]

All of your questions have been asked and asnwered by far better minds than mine.

Iwould start with social contracts and then it might be worth taking a look at Hobbes&#39; Leviathan. It does a pretty good job of explaining the origin of rights. Given that the idea of the social contract, from Hobbes, via Rouseau, was the template that Jefferson used to write the US Constitution, these would seem the obvious place to start. You will see that the right of authority is neither magical nor mysterious.

It would also be worth actually working out what you mean by things like &#39;right&#39;, &#39;power&#39;, &#39;authority&#39; and so forth -- the concepts have been used quite slopily here with a multitude of meanings. To help you out, the classic definition is that power is based on force; while authority is based on legitimacy. The definitive work identifies three forms of authority -- legal-rational (akin to the social contract), traditional, and charismatic. The 19th and 20th centuries were characterised by a transition from traditional to legal-rational authority (charismatic authority is tied to an individual and is not enduring; if it endures, it is converted to another form, usually traditional).

With respect to the nature/existence of corporations, your economics is about 70 years out of date. There&#39;s a nice short article by Ronald Coase from 1937 (I can&#39;t remember the title, but any if you dig up any one of Oliver Williamson&#39;s works -- 1975&#39;s Markets and Heirarchies is the best). That sumarises the economic justification for corporations. It would also be beneficial if you took a look at Simon&#39;s Administrative Behaviour, which gives you a pretty good introduction to the functioning of corporations with respect to bounded rationality. Both Coase and Simon have received the Nobel Prizes for their contributions to economics. It would also be sensible to take a look at Alfred Chandler&#39;s The Visible Hand which traces the emergence of the large corporations in the US. If you want a sociological bent, there&#39;s a couple of decent pieces by Charles Perrow -- Complex Organisations from 1986 and a recent one, something like Corporate America. Both provide a much richer explanation of why corporations exist (albeit from Perrow&#39;s own particular biases).

Finally, if I&#39;ve understood your arguments properly, you are suggesting a situation where there is no authority, only power. This all sounds nice and wonderful, but unless I&#39;m mistaken, this was basically the situation in pre-feudal societies and was generally a pretty unpleasant place for most people most of the time. The nearest modern &#39;civilisation&#39; to that form of governance would be pre-Taliban Afghanistan and we all know how well that worked out for everyone concerned.

[Jackney Sneeb]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332,)
All of your questions have been asked and asnwered by far better minds than mine.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
It&#39;s a simple question. Do politicians have rights we mere mortals don&#39;t have?

Followup (if the answer is "yes"): How did some people get a right no one else has?

While it is always nice to back up your assertions with evidence, you didn&#39;t answer the question. I expect people to answer with their own opinions, then if they have something they want me to read elsewhere, go ahead and post a link. The "social contract" theory is bunk, by the way. There is no such thing, except in a satire as illustrated here: http://www.anarchistblather.com/articles/s..._contract.shtml
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332,)
Finally, if I&#39;ve understood your arguments properly, you are suggesting a situation where there is no authority, only power.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
You must not understand, then, because I&#39;m not making an argument. I&#39;m asking a question or two: Can some people have a right the rest of us don&#39;t have, i.e., the right to order us around and help themselves to our wages? If so, how did they get that right?

--Jackney Sneeb

[Geoff332]

I answered that by reference to the social contract. You called it &#39;bunk&#39;, but failed to actually say why. Satire is not arguement; in fact, most of its humour is derived from the fact it attacks a straw man. The remainder of my comments -- such as you actaully explaining what you mean by a &#39;right&#39; -- have not been addressed. You&#39;re asking a question where your key terms are not defined, your basic ideas are poor articulated and your reponses are insubstantial.

You&#39;re right that is not an argument. It doesn&#39;t even qualify as a coherent statement.

[Jackney Sneeb]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332,)
I answered that by reference to the social contract. You called it &#39;bunk&#39;, but failed to actually say why.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Because there&#39;s no such thing. Clear enough?
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332,)
Satire is not arguement; in fact, most of its humour is derived from the fact it attacks a straw man. The remainder of my comments -- such as you actaully explaining what you mean by a &#39;right&#39; -- have not been addressed.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
The thread is about whether politicians have the right to rule others. I don&#39;t believe such a right exists. I have no obligation to answer questions relating to a right that doesn&#39;t exist. If you believe politicians have a right to rule the rest of us, it is you who are obliged to explain how they got that right -- and what rights means to you for that matter.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Geoff332,)
You&#39;re asking a question where your key terms are not defined, your basic ideas are poor articulated and your reponses are insubstantial.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I&#39;ll be happy to rely on your definition of rights for purposes of the question, "Do politicians have the right to rule others?" You aren&#39;t answering the question. It&#39;s not about me or my articulation. If you don&#39;t know what is being asked by "Do politicians have the right to rule others," why did you enter the discussion?

--Jackney Sneeb

[spat]

Government is simply people acting collectivly, therefore it cannot have any "rights" or "privledges" that were not granted by those people. Consequently, those people must have had those rights or privledges to grant in the first place.

[Packratt]

It&#39;s a rather subjective question, whether anyone one human has some innate &#39;right&#39; to have power over others. We all have a modicum of power, some more than others. "What gives a manager the right to manage?" would be asking the exact same thing. It&#39;s not just about politicians or dictators, it&#39;s about any aspect of human interaction in hiearchical systems.

The what is easy, the people who are ruled grant the ruler the right to rule. In any system this is ultimately and always the case, without the concent of the people, one cannot rule.

So, do politicians have the right to rule others? So long as those who are ruled wish to be ruled, then yes. Otherwise, they can revolt, they can hold nonviolent protests, or they could even throw up their arms and not do what they are told, after all, a law which is disregarded by all or even the majority is ultimately unenforceable.