brandwach said:Well, yes, I think government in any form in authoritarian, democracy is no exception. Taxation is authoritarian as it is foisted upon you against your will. Voluntary interactions are not authoritarian. Paying at a restaurant is totally different as I consent to pay there. I may choose to patronize them or not. The issue is consent.
Liberal democracies are not authoritarian precisely because they are based on the consent of the governed. What makes you say that American politics are not based on consent of the governed? Are you unfamiliar with the concepts of VOTING and REPRESENTATION? Are you unaware that as a citizen you are entitled to RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE and thus DIRECTLY PARTICIPATE in the creation of public policy if representation is not enough for you? Again, your comments sound either disingenuous or incredibly stupid. If you really don't understand how a democracy works, then you should learn about it before making inflammatory remarks regarding authoritarianism and taxation. Just because righties like Rad and Lee don't know what they are talking about doesn't mean you or anyone else is justified in aping their selfish stupidity.
In a liberal democracy your consent actually comes in two forms:
First, your CONSENT IS CAPTURED IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATION OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY. Constitutional democracy requires that you consent to the DEMOCRATIC PROCEDURE for creating public policy in your daily choice to remain a US citizen. If you don't like the way law is created in America - that is, if you don't like the kind of representative democracy spelled out in our constitution - you can always go elsewhere. No one is forcing you to remain a citizen: you CHOOSE/CONSENT to remain a citizen. This is especially true in your case and not just idle "take it or leave it" talk. Political theorists call it "implicit consent" or "consent by foot": though we may not realize it, we choose to be citizens of our home state each and every day of our lives. This choice is implicit in the other decisions and actions that define our social world (for example, taking a job with a US employer, or using US consular services, or benefiting from the protections of US armed forces, and so on). If you seriously don't like how the US constitution organizes political processes, you should find another set of political institutions that capture your consent more effectively. That is, go elsewhere. Or, better yet, take the initiative to get the constitution amended. You may not know this, but the constitution even delineates a democratic process to change the democratic process itself when necessary. It's called constitutional amendment and historically it has been effective for correcting injustices like chattel slavery and the denial of suffrage to women. You can try to use it to abolish the income tax. By not acting to make a change you are in effect consenting to the status quo.
Second, your CONSENT IS REPRESENTED BY ROUTINE PARTICIPATION IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS. Your voice is captured in the process of creating public policy through the people you chose to represent you in public office. This means that you actively consent to the laws that your representative subsequently votes for (as opposed to tacit consent to the democratic procedure itself). This consent not in any way implicit; it's actual consent even when the resulting law is not the one you wanted, and even when you don't vote. REPRESENTATION IS CONSENT. One of the better things about the US Federal system of government is that you are represented at many levels and in many ways: from city councils and mayors, to county supervisory boards, to state assemblies and governors, to Congress, the Senate and of course the President. This means you consent to all sorts of laws and policies, from those that regulate parking in your home town to those that set income tax rates at the national level. People who live in authoritarian societies (like China) have no such voice in the political process.
Thus if your point is that no government is just unless it's unanimous - that is, that each person directly supports each and every policy and law, such than only the laws that enjoy 100% endorsement from every citizen are enacted and enforced - then you are advocating for nothing more than a LAWLESS SOCIETY, one that even you would not want to live in. Why? Because in an enormous and diverse modern society like the United States it's impossible get unanimous direct consent to anything. In your world there would be no law at all, just a bunch of citizens rejecting every proposal that's not precisely what they desire.
For example, you don't like paying taxes? Fair enough. Maybe the next guy doesn't like Germans. You want a law to abolish taxes; he wants a law requiring the depatriation every person of German descent. Is the US government authoritarian because a majority disagrees with his asinine preference to deport Germans? Of course not. Is the the US government authoritarian just because a majority disagrees with your asinine preference to abolish taxes? Of course not. In both cases, all views were represented in the political process. That means that consent has been achieved at both the constitutional and the representative level. Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean you're getting fucked over. It just means that you lost this round. The wonderful thing about democracy is that just because you lost today doesn't mean that you can't try again tomorrow. Don't believe me? Just look at those Tea Party dipshits. They are excellent examples of the non-authoritarian nature of a LIBERAL democracy. They don't like tax policy so they are working to get it changed through existing constitutional procedures. They ousted Bennett in Utah and Crist in Florida because they want better representation. If our government were authoritarian, they would have no ability to participate in politics in this way. Instead, the politicians would have ousted them.
So please, in lieu of asserting foolish things about democracies and power, why don't you read a book about how they actually function. I think it will save you from a great deal of future embarrassment.
Sex is fine between willing partners, but we call it rape when only one partner is willing and forces the act. Lets face it rape and consensual sex are very similar, but the consent issue makes one evil and the other a very nice thing.
This analogy is offensive. Use something else next time.
Sincerely, you call me close minded and a conservative. Wrong on both counts! I can not imagine that you'd call some one who wants a peace, non-violence, and nonaggression and who condemns aggression as small minded. I mean really! Don't you think that the apologists for aggression and force are the small minded one.
Actually, I called you stupid, which is very similar to but not quite the same thing as narrow minded. Conservatives don't like paying taxes and often claim that democracies are authoritarian to justify the selfishness. If you are not a conservative then you should worry because you sound exactly like one.