RE: Take this quick quiz to discover you're actually an anarchist.
And that is why democracy is a fraud. I cannot consent to something on your behalf, and vice versa. There isn't even an agent/principal relationship between politicians and those who voted for them, much less those who voted against them, could not vote, or chose not to vote. Ther is no virtue in the system.
What is a law? It is the opinion of politicians who represent no one but themselves, imposed by coercion. Where such laws coincide with reason and morality, they are redundant. Where such laws trespass against natural rights and fly in the face of reason and morality, they are an abomination.
Slavery was "legal." Jim Crow was "legal." Alcohol prohibition was "legal." Eminent domain, conscription, concentration internment camps, drug prohibition, and innumerable other violations of the natural rights of individuals have been imposed under color of law as though they had moral and rational authority. This is utterly and completely absurd when examined rationally.
― Someone important in history
See I already included the fact Democracy is flawed in many ways in my previous response.
I would much rather fix this system than throw it out of the window in hope of an Utopian system.
People have said a lot of pompous things that are false. Merely quoting someone's assertion does not constitute a rational argument. And there is nothing more Utopian than imagining an illegitimate delegation of usurped authority to an unaccountable stranger can produce peace and prosperity. Democracy is a religion, and it is utterly false. We need to be willing to reexamine what we have been taught and weigh it rationally.
Do I have the authority to govern you? No. You have authority over your life, liberty, and justly acquired property. Trespass against that is is a violation of your natural rights. I cannot possibly delegate to a third party an authority I do not have in the first place. But that is the premise of democracy in politics. It is rotten to the core. It cannot produce good.
The incentives of political power ensure waste, abuse, and corruption because governments always work as a territorial monopoly in violence. Government "services" are intentionally protected from consumer choice and competition. The economic calculation problem and hidden costs prevent anything resembling efficiency or innovation.
Society is not government, despite how we are taught to conflate the two, or even that the latter creates the former. The mythology used to sell government authority to the public is always a smokescreen to hide reality.
"I am a god, so I have the right to rule you!"
"I am a descendant of the gods, so I have the right to rule you!"
"I am blessed by God, so I have the right to rule you!"
"I represent an abstract idea, so I have the right to rule you!"
"I represent the will of 50%+1 of the people who voted, despite the absence of any agent/principle relationship whatsoever, and regardless of how honest the election was, so I have the right to rule you!"
It's all lies to justify the violation of your rights no matter how it is spun.
In my world , it is not a religion , it is an imperfect system.
In my world it is not false , I go outside and see paved roads , universal healthcare , relatively safe town squares.
As I initiallly said , it is next to impossible to achieve 100% consent for any issue , that to me does not mean we can't make any collective decisions.
Your belief in its legitimacy does not make it legitimate, and your belief in its efficacy does not make it immune to basic economics. "Government did X, so therefore we need government to do X," or, "Therefore government does X best" is not a sound argument for government. "But without government, who would build the roads?" is one of the least plausible arguments you could make if you know anything about the history of highways in the USA. The failings of the US health care system are not flaws in the free market, and if "universal health care systems" are so great, why is participation compulsory? Safety is not the result of government violence, and in fact much of the violent crime we have today is a consequence of government violence such as drug prohibition.
Why do you still assert that it is OK to use coercion to compel compliance when you cannot achieve consent? How can you justify government violating others just because you approve of the results?
Sorry but our frame of reference are so far removed that I don't think we can have a productive conversation.
It's not meant as an offence to you , it's just that our realities and lived experiences do not allow us to exchange ideas at a wavelength where it is has a possibility of being anything meaningful.
Reality is the same for both of us. I only hope my questions and analysis eventually encourage you to re-examine your perception of it.
Apparently it is not :)
I appreciate your passion about the subject.