Help, please

[davek]

I have been conversing with a couple of pro-planners at Randal O'Toole's excellent blog

http://www.ti.org/antiplanner/

If anyone is interested in been outraged and horrified, I direct you to the forum where you may view the posts of PDXF and Dan.

But what I'm really posting about is part of a reply I made in the course of my discussion with these two.  In the second part I articulate a position in defense of state and local government.  It is a position I didn't realize I supported until I finished composing it.  I would be grateful for anyone's comments.  Please ask away if you need something clarified, but because we are all on the same team, I will simply accept whatever criticism is offered rather than offering a debate.  So, here we go;


"In keeping with the principle of self-ownership and natural rights, you have the right to select a leader for yourself. A group may agree to elect leaders for itself, and all participants tacitly or overtly acknowledge they will abide by the results. Those elected may rightfully govern only over those who participated in their election, including those who voted against them, and their governance is restricted to those items enumerated by the group at the time of the election. They may not rightfully rule over those who have not elected to participate, and they may not compell anyone outside of their electorate to do anything, regardless of the size of the majority within their group.

How does this work on the ground? If I am an adult living under a local government, I have tacitly agreed to cooperate with the will of the majority on those matters enumerated by the electorate of that local government, and on no other matters. My agreement is implied because I am free to separate myself from the electorate by moving to another city whenever I care to. This is also true at the state level. Because I cannot move freely to another country, the federal government has no moral authority over me unless I voluntarily participate in federal elections. The federal government is also limited to its enumerated responsibilities."

There you have it.  Fire away!

[MaineShark]

If I am an adult living under a local government, I have tacitly agreed to cooperate with the will of the majority on those matters enumerated by the electorate of that local government, and on no other matters. My agreement is implied because I am free to separate myself from the electorate by moving to another city whenever I care to. This is also true at the state level. Because I cannot move freely to another country, the federal government has no moral authority over me unless I voluntarily participate in federal elections. The federal government is also limited to its enumerated responsibilities."

How does simply existing give some group of thugs the right to tell me how to live my life?

I didn't agree to have any group of thugs try to run my life.

You have specific rights.  You can confer the authority to exercise those rights to others.  For example, you can hire someone to protect you, exercising your right to self-defense on your behalf.

You cannot confer rights you do not have.  You do not have the right to initiate force against me, ever, for any reason.  You cannot confer that right to others.  Two people cannot confer any more rights to a third person than either of them posesses.  Rights are not cumulative.  Ten trillion people have no more rights than one person, and have no moral authority to invoke their will upon that person.

Simply because some group gets together and announces, unilaterally, that they control a given geographic area, and if you don't like it, you can get out, doesn't make it so.  If the mafia comes to your town and announces that you must pay them "protection money" in order to do business, are you just going to pay them and smile?  Would you do so if they put on fancy clothes and campaigned arround, and offered to let you choose which gangster would be the one to break your knees if you didn't pay?

Joe

[NC2NH]

Simply because some group gets together and announces, unilaterally, that they control a given geographic area, and if you don't like it, you can get out, doesn't make it so.  If the mafia comes to your town and announces that you must pay them "protection money" in order to do business, are you just going to pay them and smile?  Would you do so if they put on fancy clothes and campaigned arround, and offered to let you choose which gangster would be the one to break your knees if you didn't pay?

Joe

Very well put, Joe. +1