RE: ❌ Anarchy Exposed: Response to @larkenrose 's 'Political Mythology 101 (Part Three)'
If you're pointing to representative government as a loophole in his description of "authority", you may want to explain why people are "represented" even if they didn't vote for the person elected, or if they didn't vote at all.
"If your delegate acts against your conscience, it still doesn't change the fact that you entrusted to him the ability to make decisions as he/she sees fit."
But I didn't entrust them. Someone else did. More accurately, the majority of voters entrusted them, which is typically a tiny fraction of their constituency.
More over, this isn't voluntary obedience. If you choose not to participate in the election process, you're still subject to obeying the decrees of the elected officials, or else you're punished.
"Delegative consensus" doesn't turn an immoral act into a moral one. If one person decides to steal from another, having 50 people agree that it's a good idea doesn't make it a moral act.
Not a loophole, it's because @larkenrose started off by uniquely criticizing representative government.
Though I did make it clear that a sufficient group of people elect a representative government to whom they confer wherewithal to govern. Of course, you are not represented if you didn't vote, under the current system. I would actually favour a different style of representative, not vote-based, but based on models which align representative's interests to unique group of people. That way this problem would be avoided.
Even under the current system, "authority" just means individuals to whom governing rights (not in a moral sense) are consensually conferred by a particular group of people. Since they're appointed to govern a land, yes they may rule over you. But it doesn't change the fact that it's a consent-based system, that would exist in any society where humans have the ability to exercise choice, because it's a pretty efficient system of governance.
On the voluntary obedience point. Yes, true. But this would almost certainly exist in any social organization, where a group of people have an incentive to enforce certain rules. At least in the present one you can influence the pooled government.
I could just as well say that breaking delegative consensus (effectively breaching a contract) is immoral.
Only 9% of America voted for EITHER Trump or Clinton: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/01/us/elections/nine-percent-of-america-selected-trump-and-clinton.html?_r=0
That's a great graphic. It really puts things into perspective.
I would imagine that people are more in tune with presidential elections than, say, local or city elections. Ironically, the local elections most likely have far more impact on their day to day lives than the presidential one.
That being said, I would be willing to bet that a smaller percentage of people vote in their local elections as well. Meaning, that depending on the size of their community, the people elected to run the lives of everyone within their jurisdiction may be decided by a few hundred, or possibly even a few dozen people. Theoretically (and quite possibly), you could have a city of 100,000 people being governed by someone who was decided on by 1,000 voters*, or 1% of the population.
For people who consciously choose not to vote, for moral or ethical reasons, they're being forced into a system they don't want. Odds are, there's probably a larger percentage who don't vote out of convenience or lack of interest. Regardless, they're caught in a system they never chose as well.
Note: The mayor of my city was chosen by 1,737 votes. The population is near 140,000.