Your second and third differences are entirely irrelevant. You could also have said “Tom would not likely threaten his wife (as most husbands do not) so the analogy is invalid” but this misses the point of what an analogy is. Speculating about what Tom would likely do distracts from my point, which is this: if Tom behaves exactly as the government does in every relevant way, his actions are evil. So it is with government.

As to the first, I thought we had worked through this. I have not made any such agreement with the state, nor have most of the people in the country, as we were born here. I cannot have consented to an agreement made over 200 years ago, and I would not consent to it now if I had a better alternative. The fact that I do not have a better alternative does not excuse state violence any more than Tom could be excused for his abuse if other husbands were even more abusive.

I was wrong to consent to the phrasing of your statement, “power to enforce rules means the enforcer is always wrong in its demands.” All I’m saying is that it is wrong to use violence against those who have hurt nobody–period. I’m not saying violence is always wrong and we should just lay down and allow evil people to harm and steal from us, but I am saying that it is wrong for the state (or anyone) to use violence against those who have hurt no one. Is that such a hard concept to endorse?

You (apparently) support a system in which I could be killed for driving 80 mph in a 70 mph zone, and you are happy to give the state a monopoly on violent force to make this happen. I find this repulsive.

1.) There isn’t any agreement between Tom and Jane which grants Tom the power to abuse Jane. Whereas, the constitution is an agreement whereby citizens granted to the government permission to do certain things.

2.) Jane’s attempt to report Tom’s behavior will likely anger Tom and might result in more abuse and more serious abuse. Whereas citizens are considerably more free to speak out against the government without retribution.

3.) Jane’s suggestion or attempt to dissolve the marriage will likely anger Tom and might result in more abuse and more serious abuse. Whereas, renouncing citizenship is likely to be granted in a peaceful fashion, again, without retribution.

I reject the theory that force is inherently evil. It would not be evil for the government to use it’s enforcement power to arrest and incarcerate Tom. Perhaps you view enforcement in this manner as a lesser and/or necessary evil, but evil nonetheless.

I’m curious how far you extend the “power to enforce rules means the enforcer is always wrong in its demands” theory. Are all employers evil because they impose rules on employees and enforce those rules by firing violators? Are all parents evil because they impose rules on their children and enforce those rules via unpleasant consequences?

Thanks for teaching me a new term, rational ignorance. And on that note, I’m succumbing to rational ignorance regarding this blog and will unsubscribe. Klein bottles are easy for me to ignore because I have little interest and opinion on the subject. However, in Steven’s latest Frankly Speaking post, I feel he and other commenters have either misunderstood or are misrepresenting Frank’s article. It is difficult to ignore, but I don’t have time to engage in more discussions. I’m feeling like the guy in the cartoon Steven re-posted where the dialog between spouses is “Are you coming to bed?”; “I can’t this is important.”; “What”; “Someone is wrong on the internet.”

I’ve enjoyed the discussion with you and wish you well.

This is essentially what I am saying.

I consider government to be immoral in exactly the same way that I consider Tom to be immoral; I see no meaningful difference. I very much welcome any attempt to justify government which does not also justify Tom, whom we have agreed to be evil.

Now, one might (very reasonably) make the argument that government maximizes utility, or point out that it is not reasonably possible to eliminate government. I concede the latter and not the former, but that is an entirely different discussion. Whether or not government is necessary to maximize over all utility is a discussion worth having, but I am here talking about universal principles.

As I see it, government is inherently immoral to the extent that it uses coercive force. Even if we generally agree that it is necessary (I personally do not), I think it is best that we all recognize it as evil (necessary or not). This recognition, I believe, would make us all more hesitant to increase its power.

- Restricting the scope of what we’re *allowed* to vote on was the purpose of enumerated powers (a pretty bright line?), and would neatly resolve all issues of campaign finance (as Ken B alludes).
- Supermajority voting isn’t much better in principle if it just means 70% take from the 30, or 90 from 10, or 99 from 1, just because they can.
- Because lawmakers aren’t fools, we should expect them to push populist or special interest BS. Judges are supposed to be the last line of defense, and we devolve when they acquiesce to “living” reinterpretation of the written words. [I recommend a book called “The Dirty Dozen” here.]
- Rational ignorance explains voter apathy, re-election of incumbents etc., and is an excellent argument in itself for limited govt.
- If anything I think I’d prefer we *decrease* legislator pay, to ensure they come to serve temporarily and return (there’s that original intent again). But of course I don’t really want them to become too “good” at legislating. Term limits would be great, but good luck getting that amendment passed.
- To me 3rd parties fail simply due to the game theory of it all. Maybe a different format like ranked voting would tweak that, but again at the end of the day I care not about how they win but what they’re allowed to do.

Actually I don’t think this is factually correct WillA, and misses an important point. Congress does raise the taxes on SOME of the wealthy and does lower taxes on SOME OTHERS of the wealthy at the same time. This is why people spend so much on politicians: to be part of the some others, not the some.

My elected officials (Jerry Brown, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein) aren’t a bunch of power grabbing, selfish fools, it is everyone else’s elected officials who are.

Congressional approval ratings are down because congress doesn’t follow the will of the people.

80% (a super majority) of this country wants to either raise taxes on the wealthy or lower the taxes on the wealthy, and yet congress doesn’t do what the super majority wants and both raise and lower taxes on the wealthy.

This is why I’m in favor of term limits.

I agree our laws should be respectable and preserve sufficient respect for individual rights. Further, I think that was the intent when the government was designed and the constitution was written. Sadly, and I think you will agree (and perhaps Todd and Ken sans initial won’t), there isn’t a bright, shining line dividing sufficient and insufficient respect on the spectrum of collectivism versus individualism. So, while we agree in principle, the two of us, (let alone 300 million citizens) are unlikely to draw the line in the same place.

You asked if it is possible to design a system that is reasonably self-restrained and doesn’t devolve into a pure power grab. I don’t know if it is possible. I think any system which relies on individual politician self-restraint is likely to fail. Our current system seems pretty well designed in theory, so why in practice is it devolving into something we dislike? How is it Congress can have dismal approval ratings, yet incumbents are routinely re-elected at a high rate? If our elected officials are a bunch of power grabbing, selfish fools, why do we keep electing them? Are citizens stupid, too busy to understand, apathetic, selfish, and/or ?? Our relatively low level of voter turnout seems to suggest a fair amount of apathy. Should we increase legislator pay in order to attract higher quality candidates? I doubt it.

You mentioned the 51% can screw the other 49%. Should we change the system such that all legislation requires a supermajority rather than a simple majority? I’m receptive to something like that. On one hand, it would likely be more difficult to pass new laws, but also more difficult to repeal existing laws. Would having a stronger third party be of value?

Apparently I have more questions than answers.

“If implied consent is a problem, what would be a practical alternative?”

Ensuring that our laws are respectable (or is that too ‘impractical’?). I’d define that as reasonably limited in scope by a *process* that preserves sufficient respect for individual rights. (Todd might go further.)

“why are you continuing to omit the option to change the bad law?”

I don’t dismiss it entirely, but I don’t generally expect the wolves to spare the sheep if they have the votes. Your “checks and balances” were supposed to mean more that that. Perhaps they would if everyone did in fact agree that implied consent was at best a useful myth at the time of the founding. The fact that you’ve seen an eminent domain abuse firsthand makes me that much more surprised you don’t.

“If the argument is citizens no longer feel a viable process exists, then that is an important, but different issue.”

That’s the whole issue I’m talking about. (E.g. what do the mechanics of granting citizenship matter if 51% of citizens can screw over the other 49% however they please?). Again, of course we’re “obligated to obey the law…or face the consequences.” The question is, do we do only obey for fear of the consequences? Or is it possible a system that’s reasonably self-restrained doesn’t always have to devolve into a pure power grab, but rather offer a chance that people may be able to obey, *out of respect*, particular laws with which they personally disagree?

@ Ken B – a slight quibble: I don’t think it’s necessarily a “flaw”, just a reality to say a system based on voluntary exchange between consenting *adults* has to deal with the technical detail of how to establish an age of consent.

I dunno. If everyone agreed with my position on god would they stop crediting god’s will and think more clearly? I cannot say for sure but I think it might help.