❌ Anarchy Exposed: Making it "interesting" for @larkenrose - Representative government is consensual

Source

My previous post outlined flaws in @larkenrose 's argument, check it out here for context.

Unfortunately, to a user's comment linking my response, he replied:

 @larkenrose: If he ever gets around to actually addressing the substance, it might get interesting. Instead, he seems to have a hundred different ways to repeat the false assertions: "You consented! It's legitimate! They represent us!" Oddly, he then proclaims that he doesn't believe in morality. I'm not sure how someone can so zealously advocate for the RIGHT to rule (political "authority"), if he doesn't believe in such a thing as "right." 

The substance, the crux of this matter, is that representative government is consensual, and legitimacy has nothing to do with the exclusive rights our representatives have.

I will address two issues that of legitimacy in exclusivity and consent (I recommend you read the full response for context).

(I will quote certain parts of my argument for clarification)

@larkenrose on Representative Government

@larkenrose: Someone who actually represents you—who acts on your behalf—would only have the right to do things which you have the right to do yourself. Those in "government" pretend to have the right to do countless things that you yourself have no right to do, while (bizarrely) claiming that you gave them that right. Also, one who actually represented you obviously would not have the right to boss you around and demand money from you under threat of caging you if you disobey or resist—a right those in power claim to have.

The argument he is making is that certain actions from those in government are legitimized, where equivalent actions from civilians would be denigrated.

My response:

@satire: In a standard representative government, delegates are chosen to make decisions in the interests of the groups they're representing. The reason why humans elect to appoint delegates is to transfer the burden of societal organization to a set of trusted individuals. Necessarily, they also endow their delegates with wherewithal to enforce societal organization (for example legal exemption). 

He is using the term "representative" in an informal sense. A representative in this particular political context, is an elected individual to whom governance rights are conferred.

"Someone who actually represents you—who acts on your behalf—would only have the right to do things which you have the right to do yourself"

I hope you can see that this directly contradicts the definition of a representative.

Why would you elect an individual to whom you will confer governance rights, if you already had governance rights yourself? 

They're not "claiming" anything you gave them governance rights. That "bossing" around is a part of the governance rights you gave them.

You don't actually appear to have a problem with representative government, you're arguing that representatives should have no exclusive rights. 

Which defeats the purpose of representative government, as far as I'm concerned.

@larkenrose on consent (two parts)

Titled -  Myth #2: “Consent of the Governed” 

 @larkenrose: To “consent” means to voluntarily agree to something. To “govern” means to coercively control. The two are mutually exclusive. The term “consent of the governed” therefore makes no more sense than “voluntary slave.” Additionally, someone else obviously cannot “consent” on your behalf for you to be enslaved. If you didn’t individually, specifically and freely agree to something yourself, that is not consent. 

My response 

@positive: Not necessarily mutually exclusive. People can voluntarily elect for an objective authoritative figure to enforce with coercion certain principles. I agree, that some individuals may not have consented. But a sufficient group (generally a majority) did. So, in general, Consent of the Governed is indeed appropriate.

I really think this needs no explanation. I mean, if there's something unclear here I would appreciate @larkenrose 's help in spotting it. 

Can you not imagine that some people would "individually, specifically, and freely" elect for a coercive enforcer, to enforce specific principles, or to enforce at his discretion, by trusting him/her to make appropriate decisions?

This is classic chicken-and-egg situation, save that there's no ambiguity as to how individuals are endowed with governing rights - i.e. from consenting individuals.

@larkenrose on consent part 2

Titled - Myth #3: “Voting Constitutes Consent” 

@larkenrose: Being given the choice of which individual or gang will forcibly extort and dominate you (with "none of the above" not being an option) does not mean that you are free, and does not mean that you agreed to be robbed and controlled. 

 

Individuals have been conferred exclusive governing rights (otherwise you wouldn't elect them), you are being given the choice of which individuals you trust with these governing rights.

If you disagree with the extent of governing rights of representatives ("extort[ion]" and "domin[ation]"), elect representatives that will forgo certain governing rights.

You are indeed "free" to elect representatives that you trust with enforcing certain governing rights. 

And you agree that these representatives enforce the governing rights you have endowed them with.

Last point: morality

@larkenrose: I'm not sure how someone can so zealously advocate for the RIGHT to rule (political "authority"), if he doesn't believe in such a thing as "right."

I don't advocate for a right to rule. 

If by authority you mean individuals with exclusive rights, I do support systems with political authority.

Moreover, I'm just saying that political authority is an essential part of human social organization, and is in the interests of the successful organization of general society for reasons such as trusting skilled and willing member to do tasks you are not skilled nor are you willing to do.