Oh, wildcat. You so wily.
Now, I would say that as a taxpayer and contributor towards the country's resources, I'm a part owner of them. The government is the entity given a democratic mandate to maintain what we all own. That includes going after people who don't pay what they owe and getting them to cough up.
You've got to take more things into account, kid. A country isn't a just great big restaurant, no matter what some ANC cadres may think!
(By the way, did you get out of the house this weekend?)
I did, saw a movie, got a hair-cut, went to a braai and slept a lot. Pretty relaxed weekend. Now onto the task at hand.
I know that we like to think that public goods are the goods of the public, I.E. we all own some of those resources, but we don't. A simple look at how the state operates, regardless of the wills of people, majority or minority (All a certain degree of pandering to the majority is necessary) gives evidence of this. And even if we did, you don't have the right to continually tax me, if I use X good and I am part owner, in order to charge me you also need my permission along with everyone elses.
But the problem is how does government get the right to charge taxation in the first place.
Hypothetically you have 6 people. 5 decide to start a state instution and use their power to tax all 6. That is essentially how a democracy operates. Now they use the resources of everyone to build roads and take the land all around person 6's property, so that now if person 6 simply wants to live, he has to make use of the public roads etc. and this justifies further use.
When arguing whether an act is right or wrong, the will of the majority is irrelevent. Think about it logically. Why is a monarchy "bad" or totalitarian dictatorship "bad". It is not bad sommer just because.
It is regarded as "less desirable" as the concentration of power in the hands of one person simply makes it very easy for them to abuse that power and run rampant over the rights of the people. BUT it is not automatically bad. E.G. Singapore is regarded as one of the free-est countries in the world and one of the most desirable places to live. They don't have much natural resources and they are a dictatorship...
How the current dictator, does not abuse his power. That does not mean a dictatorship is desirable because it can work if the guy in charge is benevolant, the potential for abuse is prevalent.
So an oligarchy is arguably more desirable than a monarchy, but less than a democracy because the POTENTIAL for abuse is less than a monarchy but less than a democracy.
A democracy is more desirable than the previous 2, because the potential for abuse is less. That doesn't mean non-existant. If the majority use their power to take away life, liberty and property from the minority or individuals that doesn't make it morally right because it is a simple majority. Hell common sense tells you this, at one time in the US the majority believed in the necessity of slavery. (I'm not saying you believe in it, chill.)
But might does not make right, whether done by 1, 2 or the majority of people.
A Republic form of government is thus regarded as superior to a democracy. We are called a republic but operate as a democracy. The US was not meant to be a democracy, in fact as far as I am aware the word democracy does not appear in any of the documents of the founding fathers. One of them even mentioned that democracy was the worst form of government.
Basically they wanted to protect in theory (We can't ignore they messed up with the slavery part), the rights of ALL INDIVIDUALS. That meant restricting the state so the majority or the state COULD NOT infringe on the rights of individuals.
It basically came down to collectavism vs individualism.
For some reason you and Wiz often use the majority rules argument and for the benefit of "society", and it is arguably the poorest justification one could possibly give. Millions of people in history have been murdered using that same justification, whilst I know you condemn those acts, you should not use the justification yourself, particular because the concept is arbitrary and vague and the potential for abuse is there.
At the end of the day, the opinions of the majority do not diminish the rights of the individual, and they CANNOT do this if you believe that every individual has certain rights which may not be taken away.
If an individual has a right to their life and property, it doesn't matter what justification the rest of society give, they MAY NOT infringe on the individuals rights. Don't come criticise me for using the restuarant example when you brought it up. The reason why the owner is entitled to charge is because it is his right.
The state has no such rights. NO INDIVIDUAL has any such rights and the rights of the state cannot be greater than the rights of the individuals as individuals can only grant rights to others that they themselves have.
If you believe that rights are only granted by the state, then you must acknowledge the state can take them away.
Here is individualist thinking: From the
US declaration of independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creater with certain inalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, that to secure these rights, governments are constituted among men."
Men have rights > Govermants come from men and are there to secure these rights. They cannot take them away.
Here is collectavist thinking, rights are granted from the state and includes the Nazi, Communist ideology etc. : From the UN, article 4 of the UN covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, " The States Parties to the present Covenant recognise that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the state, the state may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law."
Meaning the UN grants human beings certain rights out of the graciousness of their hearts (Sarcasm!), and if they want to take them away, they simply pass a law and the rights are gone.
I'm sorry, I don't buy that crap.
Neither you or anyone else, by minority or majority rule are justified in taking away the life, liberty or property of anyone else. I no you don't like the consequences of that thinking, but that thinking has never led to the deaths of millions.
Collectavist thinking has.
