What I understand is that your fallacious nonsense is becoming extremely tiresome. Again, the will of the majority does not equate to the common good, and the legislators are elected by the majority.
LOL
You haven't addressed any of the points raised, and yet you feel tired?
Your entire "argument" is a nonsensical FLUID THING because if you stopped shifting definitions, your fallacious position would be easily exposed.
And why is that?
And not paying taxes makes more sense, eh? Unbelievable!
The WILL OF THE MAJORITY simply vacillates from one thing to the next - hence, FLUID. There is a difference between a democracy and mob-rule, you know.
Do you need proof of that or do you understand the statement as is?
What is necessary for real progress is the freedom for each and every individual to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity that he or she chooses. Any association that limits this freedom is an obstacle to progress.
That's simply more ineffable twaddle!
The present political association
GUARANTEES exactly that with the strength of the
COMMON FORCE.
Such a thing is NOT possible in the absence of the political association. In such case, a common force does not exist - only that which you possess in your own person.
It is already irrelevant in what form one's contributions to society is given - suffice to say that it must, to a very large extent, be dependent on how much direct benefit one obtains from it.
Hence the idea of PROGRESSIVE TAXATION.
One also need only look at human history to see that "political associations" are the greatest mass murderers in that history.
LMAO
This statement is vague at best, and entirely misleading at worst!
There is NO epoch in human history in which some form of the political association did not exist.
And so, in saying that they are the 'greatest so and so' - to what exactly are you comparing it to?
So who gets to determine corrections? Again, we're back to your only possible answer - the majority. Yet why does an oppressed minority have to wait on the "reconstitution of the social, political and economic order to correct" their situation?
And the minority is not part of the political process, eh?
And an oppressed minority has no way of petitioning their government, eh?
And the rule of law is not applicable to the minority as well, eh?
And the minority will is absolutely irreconcilable to the majority will and vice-versa, eh?
And anarchy is so much better, even if its practical operation is totally INCONCIEVABLE, eh?
And, last but not least, that the minority, not having their way, can simply withhold the taxes they derive benefit from, eh?
Sell silly someplace else.
Majorities have indeed been proven many times to be impervious to human reason - as with the support of slavery.
LMAO
The civil war and the emancipation of the slave didn't happen. It's all an illusion!
What patent nonsense!
If you say they EVENTUALLY learn -again, my question is - what recourse do those who claim to be oppressed have in the meantime?
Inherent in the social contract is the RIGHT OF RESISTANCE, which itself follows a well-defined and rational principle and justification.
The fact that you even ask this is proof enough that you have not read any treatise on the social contract (anarchy being a political model more suited to your particular frame of mind) and is arguing against it out of sheer IGNORANCE.
There are a multitude of forms that the political association take - all of which have their distinct political dynamics.
Ask a stupid question, you can expect a stupid answer.
Idiocy. That doensn't answer the question. I'm asking you to define the steps of the actual process you call "tempering."
When one acts according to rational and common good that is applicable to all, that's how.
The whole process occurs within the legislator's mind and conscience.
You seem to have a problem with logic. How does this debate transpire? How does one become qualified to become a "debater" in the system? Why do some have a voice and others do not? What if the minority is right and the majority is wrong?
You haven't watched a debate of say, the british parliament?
You really need to crawl out of the rock you are presently in.
Again with more idiocy. You can do nothing but avoid specifics. I'm asking you to define the steps of this "Consensus building." The minority isn't applying a law equally to itself if it votes against the majority wishes.
Consensus building differs from one form of political association to another.
The only reason I avoid specifics in my answers is because you avoid specifics in your questions.
LOL. That'd be worth about half a penny.
Ah, for the indigent like yourself - I'll do it for free. I'll consider it as similar to the many necessary chores of human existence - like flushing the toilet.
What I've demonstrated is that you can't answer my question. And now you introduce more gobbledegook to cloud the fact that you can't answer - this "sovereign will" nonsense.
Sovereignty is nonsense!?!
The terrorist phenomenon is a direct result of
DEFECTIVE sovereignty and you have the temerity to call it nonsense?!?
I submit that what is beyond your ability to comprehend, you conveniently label 'nonsense'.
More straw man argument.
Just because you can't understand doesn't mean I haven't answered.
Against invincible stupidity, even the gods contend in vain!
Another irrelevant statement. Many people once said the same thing about slavery.
Now you are comparing slavery with paying one's taxes?!
Do you have any control on exactly how absurd you can get?
