All Libertarian societies evolve into Plutocracies.

[Gungnir]

Originally Posted by LearnMe

Your argument is based almost entirely on the precept that we must "consent" to something in order for that something to be legitimate, not arbitrary. Problem with that fundamental precept of your argument is that a process and/or system can be legitimate even if we do not individually or personally consent to it. Simple as that. Simple as I am hoping my two stories might also help to demonstrate and given the generally accepted definitions of these words, as follows:

Legitimate:

1) according to law; lawful: the property's legitimate owner.

2) in accordance with established rules, principles, or standards.

Arbitrary:

1) subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.

2) having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical.

But you've already said that government is legitimate. It's legitimacy is derived from... God? Democracy? Coercion?

So god? Well I'm atheist so your god, symbol, faith, plant, animal, omen, totem, or whatever means jack all to me and confers no legitimacy.

Coercion? Does not confer legitimacy, keeping people in line through threat of violence is kind of the opposite of legitimacy. Unless you consider Mafia protection rackets legitimate businesses.

Democracy? Under what terms? Can democracy vote for the annihilation of 50% - 1 of the population? If not then there are limits and if there are limits we're discussing political philosophy, chance are you're discussing Rousseau's social contract in abstract if not concretely. The issue is Social Contract only applies with the consent of the governed, unless legitimacy stems from force or god (see above if you have a short attention span). I've already stated my concept of consent, so again where does legitimacy come from? Because I say it is my legitimate government (or not). You can't say on my behalf the government is legitimate, because you consent does not mean you spouse does, your neighbor does, your kids do, I do, etc. Because 50% +1 say gov seen mentioned is legitimate does not mean the government is legitimate for the remaining 50%-1 (or an annihilation vote would stand and be executed to be logically consistent). You've seen people with "Not my president" tattooed or sharpied on themselves. Do you think they consider the government legitimate? Yet apparently you think it is legitimate, not just for you, but for everyone.

[LearnMe]

There you have it then...

I have carefully read every comment since the last few I left in this thread. In fact, I have pretty well considered every comment in this thread since the beginning, and I understand the basis for these comments, arguments enough to know why I agree or don't. I believe I have offered about the best arguments and logic I can in this forum to conclude as I do, and just repeating myself with new examples or words is a obviously a waste of time for all concerned.

Also obvious, some people think about these issues more than others, and I for one appreciate the more in depth considerations, but ultimately I am left with the same basic conclusion.

Democracy and/or what our founding fathers set in motion as the guiding principles and laws to which this country would for the most part be guided from then to this day remains the best option for Americans as compared to any alternatives that are possible from a practical standpoint. This is not to say our system is perfect or that it has all our consent, but I believe the evidence is overwhelming that our government is both legitimate and the process not arbitrary per the standard definition of those words.

I can go on as well as anyone about how we might manage a better quality of life for all Americans in general. I have started more than just a few threads and written many comments about some of those problems that stand in our way and what to do about them. I am not inclined to repeat any of that either.

Accordingly, I don't know any better way to conclude or explain myself further here other than to say I have read nothing in this thread that makes any good sense to me from a PRACTICAL or REALISTIC standpoint that truly suggests there is a better overall manner in which the likes of over 300 million Americans can conduct themselves as a society, let alone agree about how to do so. Again, not that our system or process is without flaws and serious problems, but addressing and fixing those flaws and problems makes far more sense to me than these alternative fictional ways of doing things yet to even emerge anywhere on the planet as plausible after all these centuries of man's history.

Yes, there will always be people dominating other people in many different ways, and yes of course there will never be universal agreement about all these socio-economic issues. Also of course, we all think our logic is sound. Also of course, we are not likely to alter our thinking or logic after we get past our twenties and into our thirties, but I won't repeat my theory about that either.

I think I'll just move on perhaps toward a topic a bit less theoretical and a bit more practical...

[LearnMe]

Originally Posted by golgi1

That's correct. You're assertion reflects a fine piece of abstract thought.

This cooperating-group mechanism toward an increased ability to capture resources, over the ability of individual competitors to do the same, acts as a natural sociopolitical undertow that will never go away.

Abstract is right...

"I'm working on another theory I might call the "pyramid theory" as I attempt to conclude..."

Poverty, social programs, why? And what are the odds looking forward...