Opinion of the following statement

[A18]

"The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority. They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority."

[A18]

Explain.

[A18]

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 point is, the whole argument for government control is that humanity is so bad, and yet there is no reason to think that legislators are above human nature.

The doctor's credentials are obvious; he does not have to claim to be above human nature, and he imposes nothing upon you or anyone else.

[A18]

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?

[A18]

That's one important part of it. But it's important not to miss the other aspect, which is that we are hiring a human to fix humanity. We don't hire a doctor to fix doctors; unless of course this doctor is truly superior to the others. Why should we think the elected officials are so much better than the rest of us: that they can run our lives so much better than we can?

[A18]

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.

How so? Why not say that by living there, you consent to being robbed by the individuals there, as opposed to just this arbitrary gang? In fact, why not the argument to its logical conclusion, and say that by being somewhere, we consent to whatever happens to us? Hence, a rape victim consents by being there.

[A18]

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?

[A18]

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?

[A18]

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.

Well, the problems with the consent-by-voting argument are, I think, at least three. The first is that not all people vote, so they can't be counted as consenting through this theory. Indeed, about half the adult population would not have consented right there.

The second is that some people vote for a losing candidate. It's hard to argue that because I voted against someone, I therefore consented to having him make laws for me.

Finally, even in the case where I voted for someone, I may well have been acting in defense, i.e. voted to stop a greater evil. Since threat of greater coercion is involved, this would not, under ordinary rules of contract, be considered a binding form of consent.

[A18]

There's a difference between believing you're right and another person is wrong, and trying to force your personal values on someone else; that is, to bend and mold society by coercion, rather than persuasion.

[A18]

This topic is about government. I don't think your example involves any kind of coercion.