You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Steemit-Anarchist Fallacy: Government claims the "right" to rule - 1 min
What I meant was: every member of a village invests one dollar into a fund used to fund private militias, only five people are competent enough to invest appropriately, so they effectively end up with the "right" to enforce militaristic governance.
It's a crude example but should get my point across. The idea was just to show how it evolves out of collective consensus.
Imagine every member of a population were appropriately represented in government. And they all agreed that a select group of people could punish them, whenever certain rules were broken. Would you consider that coercive?
Have they voluntarily entered an explicit contract with the rulers (while not under duress by those same rulers)? No citizen in the world right now has. If not, it's coercion - and more importantly a rights violation by the 'rulers' against the 'ruled'.