Opinion of the following statement

[Nym90]

Legislators are not inherently superior to the rest of us.

However, this same argument could be used of anyone in any profession. Is a doctor superior to me simply because he has vastly more medical knowledge and is therefore much more qualified to perform a surgery? No, but that doesn't mean that he's not better at what he does in his job.

So I fail to see why legislators would be treated differently than anyone hired to do any other job. Legislators are our employees, hired by us to write laws, and if they are doing a poor job, we can fire them by voting them out.

[Nym90]

However, this same argument could be used of anyone in any profession. Is a doctor superior to me simply because he has vastly more medical knowledge and is therefore much more qualified to perform a surgery? No, but that doesn't mean that he's not better at what he does in his job.

What in the world does that have to do with anything? The doctor imposes nothing on you.

Neither does the legislator. As I said, he works for us the same as anyone else we might hire to perform a service, and he can be fired by voting him out of office.

If one finds the decisions of the people of one's country in its elections deplorable enough, one is always free to move to another country.

[Nym90]

I agree that legislators are not above human nature, and any who claim that they are should not be trusted and should be voted out.

[Nym90]

The entire argument for legislator is that he is above human nature. Otherwise, why keep him around?

And the fact that the majority can vote the guy out at fixed terms is absolutely irrelevant. He makes laws for everyone, and there's no option to simply opt out of the system.

If one finds the decisions of the people of one's country in its elections deplorable enough, one is always free to move to another country.

And?

I don't see it that way; I see him as simply being hired to perform a service, the same as any other employee. I don't see the job of a legislator as dramatically any different from any other profession in terms of how the person is or isn't better than anyone else. They serve a purpose, and get hired and fired the same as anyone else.

Well, if you really wanted to live without any government, you could always move to Antartica or the Amazon jungle or some place like that.

But in all seriousness, you also can't opt out of the benefits of government, either. It's somewhat akin to someone who doesn't like to eat, and is angry that they have no choice as to whether or not to do this in order to remain alive.

[Nym90]

By choosing to live in a country you are giving consent for that country to make laws that apply to you and for you to abide by those laws. Nothing is being imposed.

Should someone be able to live in the United States and choose to opt out of government altogether? What solution would you propose other than the abolition of all government and a return to anarchy and the law of the jungle?

Nature has rules and laws that must be followed, too. Government and civilization is merely an attempt to lessen the extremes of raw nature. Obviously there are always tradeoffs, and for everything that is gained, something is lost as well. (Another one of nature's laws that can't be broken )

The doctor example wasn't a perfect analogy by any means (as of course analogies never are), but I was using it to illustrate the fact that the legislators work for us, much as anyone else we would hire to perform a service.

[Nym90]

By choosing to live in a country you are giving consent for that country to make laws that apply to you and for you to abide by those laws. Nothing is being imposed.

That is certainly a very interesting opinion. I suppose that Jews consented to the Holocaust, by choosing to live in Germany?

You bring up a good point, which is that my statement doesn't apply too well to dictatorships. When I made it, I was looking at things from the point of view of a democracy such as the United States. Obviously the equation is changed dramatically by people not having the power to remove their leaders from office.

And I don't believe that the law and morality necessarily have anything to do with each other (again, especially in dictatorships, but it would apply to our country as well). In deciding whether or not to obey it, I feel that one must take each situation on a case by case basis, keeping in mind both the benefits of people not putting themselves above the law and the perceived perversion of justice that the particular law causes.

Regarding Bastiat, I did not realize that it came from him, but I don't agree that humans cannot be left free. I would argue that our system of government makes us much more free overall than anarchy does; I feel that freedom from certain things is as important as the freedom to do certain things. This is why I do not perceive our system of government as being one in which legislators are in any way morally superior to us; they are simply trying to increase freedom and justice, and each of us has a different idea on how to do this and what these concepts mean, which we express through our votes.

[Nym90]

By choosing to live in a country you are giving consent for that country to make laws that apply to you and for you to abide by those laws. Nothing is being imposed.

That is certainly a very interesting opinion. I suppose that Jews consented to the Holocaust, by choosing to live in Germany?

You bring up a good point, which is that my statement doesn't apply too well to dictatorships. When I made it, I was looking at things from the point of view of a democracy such as the United States. Obviously the equation is changed dramatically by people not having the power to remove their leaders from office.

Even in democracies, your idea has a problem - what if one cannot afford to leave their country of origin, or are otherwise unable to go elsewhere? There's also the issue that a democracy that one would be willing to truly consent to be governed by does not exist. Since not everyone has the option to go somewhere that they would be totally willing to consent to everything imposed on them then your idea might hold weight, but that is not the case.

I realize that. I certainly don't support tyrrany of the majority, but I was simply trying to object to the idea that seems to be popular in this thread that the government has no right to do anything at all.
 
Obviously the same arguments could be made about those who promote an absolute unrestricted market, as well. I could say it's too bad if you can't afford to move, you are just screwed. I guess I'm still failing to see the difference from oppression by government and oppression by any other source.

[Nym90]

You bring up a good point, which is that my statement doesn't apply too well to dictatorships. When I made it, I was looking at things from the point of view of a democracy such as the United States. Obviously the equation is changed dramatically by people not having the power to remove their leaders from office.

Your argument was based on consent. Either living there qualifies as consent, or it does not.

As for "freedom" from the evils of humanity, that just begs the question. Why should we assume the legislators are so much better at running our lives than we are?

The difference as I see it is that in a dictatorship, consent isn't given since the people don't pick their leaders, the leaders are forced upon them. The government truly holds the power over the people, since the people have no ability to change it. In a democracy, the government is our employee, and works for us.

As for your second question, again, I don't see it as a matter of anyone being better or worse than anyone else, they are simply hired to do a job. Are you advocating anarchy? That would seem to be the logical implication to what you are saying.

[Nym90]

You bring up a good point, which is that my statement doesn't apply too well to dictatorships. When I made it, I was looking at things from the point of view of a democracy such as the United States. Obviously the equation is changed dramatically by people not having the power to remove their leaders from office.

Your argument was based on consent. Either living there qualifies as consent, or it does not.

As for "freedom" from the evils of humanity, that just begs the question. Why should we assume the legislators are so much better at running our lives than we are?

The difference as I see it is that in a dictatorship, consent isn't given since the people don't pick their leaders, the leaders are forced upon them. The government truly holds the power over the people, since the people have no ability to change it. In a democracy, the government is our employee, and works for us.

The argument that we consent by voting is separate from your earlier claim that people consent merely by living here. I'm willing to discuss the former, but I want to know if you still believe the latter, or whether you've reconsidered.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What else could the point to legislators be, if not to fix problems with humanity?

Ok, I see your point, and that's what I had in mind when I made my initial statement. A dictatorship does not have the legitimacy to rule since it has not been elected. So no, if you live in a dictatorship in which the people cannot choose their leaders, then no consent has been given by the people for the government to make law.