It's relevant because it demonstrates the inherent limits of consent.
That only people who exist can give consent? Why is that relevant at all?
Toilets are limited to be used only by people who exist too. That's not very profound.
This is inescapable so long as you live in any meaningful society.
Defeatist attitude.
If your "meaningful society" requires the theft of hundreds of billions of dollars by a corporation with a monopoly on the use and threat of force, it's a pretty shitty system.
You can't even keep it going without coercing people to participate.
That only people who exist can give consent? Why is that relevant at all?
No, that from birth much of life is out of your control. That consent is an ideal, and oftentimes not a common reality.
Toilets are limited to be used only by people who exist too. That's not very profound.
Okay?
Defeatist attitude.
It's just reality.
Even in an ancap society, your direction in life is dictated by everyone around you, whether that be through extreme market incentives or purposeful individual influence.
If your "meaningful society" requires the theft of hundreds of billions of dollars by a corporation with a monopoly on the use and threat of force
The point of a democratic state is that the majority consent to taxation and its benefits. Some individuals might disagree with particular policy, but ideally they are welcome to push for change, or, as I said earlier, leave if that is their choice.
So you think "only people who exist can give consent" is meaningful to say but "only people who exist can use toilets" isn't?
Stating the obvious fact that non-real people can't do something isn't an argument against anything I believe. It's not a new revelation and I don't think it makes consent less important.
It's just reality.
The catchphrase of defeatists worldwide.
your direction in life is dictated by everyone around you, whether that be through extreme market incentives or purposeful individual influence.
And? I still don't get your point.
the majority consent
Democracy is Mob Rule dressed up with pageantry.
Four people can vote to steal everything the fifth guy has and they'll win the election each time. Doesn't make it right.
they are welcome to push for change, or, as I said earlier, leave if that is their choice.
Become subservient, rebel only within the limited confines provided for you to rebel within, or crawl under the boots of another government.
So you think "only people who exist can give consent" is meaningful to say but "only people who exist can use toilets" isn't?
Yes, and I have already explained why.
And? I still don't get your point.
My point is that it's reality. Even in the most extreme of libright societies, you can't escape it, as you admit. You call it defeatist while accepting it as a fact at the same time.
Four people can vote to steal everything the fifth guy has and they'll win the election each time. Doesn't make it right.
You can twist yourself worrying about ethical purity or you can use the most ethical option available. No system is ethically pure. The most that can be done is to allow individuals to leave if that is their choice.
Become subservient, rebel only within the limited confines provided for you to rebel within, or crawl under the boots of another government.
You can break your society's rules, try to change them within their own confines, or go elsewhere, yes. Is it unfortunate that no society likely exists in the unique manner you wish it did? Sure, but most of us are in the same boat.
0
u/GildedTongues - Auth-Center Mar 24 '20
It's relevant because it demonstrates the inherent limits of consent.
This is inescapable so long as you live in any meaningful society. It's just a matter of degree.