[quote]NickViar wrote:
-What makes you question my understanding of the election process? [/quote]
Because the other option is you’re pretending to not understand in order to make some obscure point about your personal beliefs.
Holy shit, really? Someone standing up and saying “I choose this person to be my representative” somehow isn’t clear consent?
Irrelevant
See above, fill in the “conversely”.
No, not really at all. You’re attempt here to compare voting to being robbed and/or killed has failed.
I never claimed it was perfect, but we haven’t really found a better alternative yet.
[quote]
-How so?[/quote]
Jesus H.
SCOTUS overturned Clinton’s ban on same sex marriage. Therefore it protected minority opinion and freedom to enter into a contract, even though, as Democrats are apt to do, the government tried to take away those freedoms.
States used mob rule to take away the freedom to enter into a contract recognized by government. SCOTUS effectively said that, no mob rule can not take away the freedom of the minority to enter into a contract.
No the opposite is true. As long as people stop calling it “gay” marriage and call it “samesex” marriage, we’ve effectively seen LESS government oversight in our day-to-day lives as a result of this ruling. The government can no longer dictate that gender can determine one’s eligibility to enter into a contract.
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
-What oppressive responsibility? You wouldn’t have to be the people’s nanny.[/quote]
Meanwhile back in reality. [/quote]
-This thread is about DESIGNING YOUR OWN CITY STATE. I may be wrong, but I don’t believe that’s reality for anyone here.[/quote]
The point being, nor you or anyone could design a state in which a dictator didn’t have an oppressive amount of responsibility.
[quote]
-No, that’s fine. However, I find it strange that you wouldn’t want to be a king due to “the oppressive responsibility,” but you do vote and claim that voting equals consent to being governed. [/quote]
How the fuck is that strange? One has nothing at all to do with the other and your following twisted logic doesn’t bring the two any closer.
No. Each individual chooses their level of involvement in the consent. On the surface voting is consent. However, working on a campaign, getting on a soap box to spread an ideal, etc are much more involved.
Voting is consent to being governed. Working to further one’s agenda is participating in governance.
They are accountable. WTF?
Suddenly people don’t have to live under rule of law anymore?