Comment: Rose made your numbers irrelevant.

(See in situ)


Rose made your numbers irrelevant.

Some will claim that a majority, or the people as a whole, have given their consent to be ruled, even if many individuals have not. But such an argument turns the concept of consent on its head. No one, individually or as a group, can give consent for something to be done to someone else. That is simply not what "consent" means. It defies logic to say, "I give my consent for you to be robbed." Yet that is the basis of the cult of "democracy": the notion that a majority can give consent on behalf of a minority. That is not "consent of the governed"; it is forcible control of the governed, with the "consent" of a third party.

See, Vince, it doesn't MATTER whether you are governed by a minority or a majority. The only thing that matters is you are being governed without YOUR consent. No one can consent for you, except YOU. The principle here is not a matter of numbers; it's a fundamental moral issue.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition, http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Ros...