The Majority Cannot Give Consent for the Minority

The following correspondence originally took place upon my Facebook wall, after I posted artwork being shared by the page, “Being Free“…

Rayn:

"Democracy is based on the idea that the majority can give consent for the minority. But consent doesn't work like that."

“Democracy is based on the idea that the
majority can give consent for the minority.
But consent doesn’t work like that.”

Jordan K.: I want to post this photo every day of my life. I might just print this out and start putting it on telephone poles.

Rayn

“Yo, Dawg! We heard that you don’t like the tyranny of the majority over minority groups… So, we legitimized the authority of an ultra-minority through a voting majority, so they can tyrannically rule over everybody, accordingly, while you formally select the next elect minority of tyranny to fully control your humanity, in perpetuity!” (Artwork by Rayn, and originally located here)

“Yo, Dawg! We heard that you don’t like the tyranny of the majority over minority groups…
So, we legitimized the authority of an ultra-minority through a voting majority, so they can tyrannically rule over everybody, accordingly, while you formally select the next elect minority of tyranny to fully control your humanity, in perpetuity!”
(Artwork by Rayn, and originally located here)

Happy to See a Friend Becoming Interested in Voluntaryism

The following correspondence originally took place upon the Facebook wall of my friend, Jordan K…

2016-02-23-happy-to-see-a-friend-becoming-interested-in-voluntaryism

Jordan K.: I’m getting interested in Voluntaryism. Has anyone heard of it?

Mike J.: Yes. Just now.

Rayn: Voluntaryist is my middle name! 🙂

Ryan P.: Is that like being “Voluntold”??

Kris K.: It’s a society without rulers

Feminist Doublethink

The following correspondence originally took place here, upon the Facebook page, “Being Libertarian“…

(replies from all third parties have been omitted for clarity)

“I believe that I have a right to your money for my birth control!” “No, thank you. I don’t believe that you can take my money for…” “WHAT IS WITH THIS WAR ON WOMEN??? STOP FORCING YOUR BELIEFS DOWN MY THROAT!!! I HAVE A RIGHT TO DECIDE HOW TO SPEND YOUR MONEY AND THAT’S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!!!!”

Rayn: Popular Feminist abortion slogans: “My body, my choice,” and “Stay out of my uterus.”

How about some similarly-themed, doublethink-exposing Feminist birth-control slogans? “My body, your non-consensual funding.” Ha! “Enter into a non-consensual, long-term financial relationship with my uterus.” Ha ha!

Jay K.: ‘My paycheck, my choice?’ ‘Stay out of my wallet?’

Circular Reasoning: Debate a Statist Edition

The following debate originally took place on my Facebook wall, upon my post, “Circular Reasoning, Statist Edition Series: Example 3

Rayn: Circular reasoning: “The law should be obeyed because it’s the law should be obeyed because it’s the law should be obeyed because…” *head spins*

"The law should be obeyed because it's the law"

“The law should be obeyed because it’s the law…”

Katherine C.: Well, the law should be obeyed because it’s basically the social contract that allows us to coexist peacefully (enough).

Genaire: The social contract in which no one has signed.

Katherine C.: If we had to rely on every idiot and moron to sign it, it would never get done, nor would it be efficient. I’m not saying the system is perfect, not even close, but the ideal isn’t a bad one.

RaynI don’t agree with you for two reasons, Katherine. For one, legality doesn’t equal morality. Confusing the two is a very dangerous mode of thinking.

"How does something immoral, when done privately, become moral when it is done collectively? Furthermore, does legality establish morality? Slavery was legal; apartheid is legal; Stalinist, Nazi, and Maoist purges were legal. Clearly, the fact of legality does not justify these crimes. Legality, alone, cannot be the talisman of moral people" - Walter E. Williams

“How does something immoral, when done privately, become moral when it is done collectively? Furthermore, does legality establish morality? Slavery was legal; apartheid is legal; Stalinist, Nazi, and Maoist purges were legal. Clearly, the fact of legality does not justify these crimes. Legality, alone, cannot be the talisman of moral people” – Walter E. Williams

(Click Here to Continue Reading This Post)

Debating About Democracy

The following debate originally took place upon my Facebook wall, after I posted artwork being shared by the page, “People for Anarchy, Voluntaryism, Non-Aggression, and Liberty“…

Rayn:

"Democracy is the means by which those who adore authority and crave security of servitude can use their superior numbers to enslave those who wish to be free"

“Democracy is the means by which those who adore authority and crave security of servitude can use their superior numbers to enslave those who wish to be free”

Daniel Sv.: Democracy is stable until a politician discovers they can stay in office by promising free goodies from the treasury.

Daniel F.: There is a reason why we have a Constitution and a judicial branch. On more than a few occasions a law that was passed by a majority-elected legislative body (federal or state) that reflected the desires of a majority of that body’s constituency was nonetheless struck down as unconstitutional, often for infringing upon the rights of a minority.

And it is for this reason that federal judges (including Supreme Court justices) are appointed and not elected, so as to not be subject to the whims of an often prejudiced electorate. Cases like Brown v. Board of Ed. could have gone down very differently if the justices rendering the decision had to worry about being reelected and how their decision would affect their reelection chances.

Rayn: Daniel Sv., democracy is merely mob rule, as a political system. It is inherently flawed because it does not adequately acknowledge and protect all of the rights of the Individual. Mises said it best: “All rational action is in the first place individual action. Only the individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual acts.”

The “common good” that Democracy claims to protect is just an ever-elusive, ever-evolving myth that inevitably signifies the slow-march towards pathocracy, and eventually, full democide.

Rayn: Not at all impressed by the US government, I agree with Lysander Spooner, Daniel F. “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

The US government certainly was designed with a Constitution and three branches of “checks and balances” for VERY GOOD, HISTORICALLY-ESTABLISHED reason: GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH AUTHORITY, NOR POWER, NOR HUMAN LIVES!!!

While real human beings demanded the acknowledgement and respect of their rights, the US government was busy institutionalized slavery, committing genocide, and denying their MAJORITY (women) the right to even directly participate in said system. The Truth isn’t nearly so romantic….

Daniel F.: Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. There will always be someone in power, someone who will be able to wield enough force in order to coerce the masses to obey. When there is more than one faction competing for power within a given area, you end up with civil war as each faction attempts to exert its rule. (Click Here to Continue Reading This Post)