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."

[Gustaf]

There is a point to what he's saying, but it's a little misleading.

[A18]

Explain.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Emsworth]

The difference between a doctor and a legislator is this: the former cannot treat an individual without his consent; the latter can impose his will on a person, even if no consent has been granted. The doctor does not claim that he is in any way superior to his patient. The legislator, however, must necessarily claim superiority: for, how can one person command another to do something, unless he is superior?

It might be said that a legislator is not really different from a doctor, because he governs with the consent of the governed. But in my opinion, such an argument would be totally erroneous. If the idea of the "consent of the governed" is to have any meaning, it must be given by the people unanimously. It makes no sense to suggest that, just because you consent to the activities of the legislator, I do so as well. (Why not apply the same reasoning to doctors--if a majority of the people consent to a medical checkup, does that consent bind the minority as well?)

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Emsworth]

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?

As A18 explained, merely being in some particular location does not imply that one consents to anything that happens to him--whether that action is perpetrated by another individual, or by a group of individuals calling itself the government.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And here is the thrust of Frederic Bastiat's argument (the statement made in the original post.)

It is argued that anarchy cannot be tolerated, that society cannot possibly exist under the "law of the jungle," that humans cannot be left completely free. Why? Because human nature is so depraved. The solution? Allow some humans to rule over others.

But to paraphrase Bastiat: 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 the legislators are always good? How indeed.

[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.

[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?

[John Dibble]

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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Emsworth]

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.

Why must we assume that consent exists even in a republic? It is possible that a majority of the people have consented, but it does not follow that their consent binds the minority as well. What we have is not the consent of the governed, but the consent of some of the governed. Government is based not on consent, but on coercion.

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.

Governmental oppression is based on force, violence, and coercion. The free market, on the other hand, does not use any of these means. It is based on wholly voluntary relationships. Therefore, the free market may certainly produce a lot of hardship for a lot of individuals -- but they are not in any sense subject to oppression (i.e., a deprivation of their rights).

[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.

[Gustaf]

Explain.

Forgot that I even posted on this topic. It is misleading because everyone regards themselves as superior to other people when it comes to these things. It would be like telling you that you're being arrogant when you suppose that you are more correct than, say, the majority that supports progressive taxes (or whatever). Most people consider their own ideas to be closer to the truth than other's. So, if you think that people should do this or that, and they don't unless you make them, you might consider yourself superior and in your full right to do make them do things.

[Gustaf]

As an aside, we create all sorts of rules because there is a difference in long-term and short-term perspectives, and we're aware that we're not always able to make the right decision on things.

For instance, when I run cross-country for excercise, I never run alone. The reason for this is that I know that the presence of someone else will make it impossible for me to slow down, or stop and rest. We will both help keep up each other's speed. Now, you could of course argue that this makes no sense at all, since if I want to keep a certain speed I can simply choose to do so. But there is a difference between the decision I can make before, keeping all things in mind, and the one I can make when my lungs are begging me to stop, just a little while. These things are very well documented in the sports world, for instance.

It's the same with laws and legislators. I might know that it's wrong to do certain things, but in a moment of weakness I may do so anyway. Ultimately, it's about rising above your special interest at the moment and promote more generall interest in the long run.