Subnostr

Well if 100 percent of the people want to kill you, there really isn’t much recourse you have irrespective of the type of government. So the key would be to create rights that would take a very large majority to overcome such that they would survive for at least 250-odd years.

The rights + democracy create a barrier to forcing you on the fundmentals. This is arguably a higher barrier than say in a monarchy where the king can just violate your rights at a whim.

So I don’t disagree that violating rights is wrong, regardless of whether the violation comes from the ballot box, but democracy with rights is probably the best way to protect yourself. And there must be some way for people to express conflicting preferences.

mark tyler 2y ago

Some rights are difficult in constitutional democracies to remove, and that’s great. No evil in that.

Here are a couple examples:

1. If 75% of people don’t want to hear from you in the US, (or if your speech is currently restricted and 25% or more don’t want to hear you) you won’t have freedom of speech.

2. A seldom-protected right that everyone should have is the right to spend your money (which is a mechanism for storing your labor/time) on what you want, rather than your neighbors want. There are no protections for this in any democracy that I’m aware of. It’s taken with threat of whatever use of force is required to ensure it’s taken.

The second is more illustrative of what I’m thinking of. The first is a bridge between what I’m guessing you’re thinking and what I’m thinking.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Chris Liss 2y ago

1. As long as they’re making the decisions individually, and it’s not the public square itself censoring them, it’s still free speech. People shouldn’t be forced to listen any more than you should be forced to shut up.

2. I’m not following — you mean if you wanted to buy something illegal?

mark tyler 2y ago

I should have sent more context. In case 1, the first amendment has been removed from the constitution.

Case 2 is non-voluntary taxes. Most poignantly when you would like to not subsidize something that you feel is wrong. You can’t.

Chris Liss 2y ago

The first amendment is a foundational right, so if that’s removed, democracy is a sham. It would be the trappings of democracy without an actual one.

Taxation is a tough one. I would rather the government light my money on fire than use it the way they do now, but in a fiat system, they don’t really need to tax you except as a means of control. I think involuntary taxation as it’s currently administered is a scourge, but that would be so in any form of government.

mark tyler 2y ago

Yeah, mandatory taxation in a system that doesn’t ask for your consent (and has no interest in doing so) is pretty bad. It doesn’t feel pressing if you have no moral qualms with how it’s being spent, which works out because most people think of government systems like the US as inherently virtuous rather than maybe a distasteful utilitarian necessity (trolley problem).

Interesting idea that fiat governments don’t need to tax. It’d be cool if someone somewhere could try a country that doesn’t. They’d have maybe a permanent, 30% inflation rate? Experimenting like this or with a voluntary system is too hard 😭

To your first point: assuming the implementing government actually functions well (this assumption of course is the issue), would you prefer the current system over losing freedom of speech and gaining freedom from involuntary tax?

Chris Liss 2y ago

Think maybe that experiment would fail because the fiat-ness would be too out in the open, i.e., it would be too obvious that the govt was printing willy-nilly, and inflation might be even higher than that. I said they only do it for control, but they might also do it to perpetuate the illusion that the money is real and comes from the taxpayer.

I would not trade freedom of speech for freedom from invoiuntarily tax because soon you would have neither (if no one could object to future encroachments.)