There are no stupid answers, only stupid people.

10/28/2010 10:17:48 PM

1) protect individual rights*
2) protect the nation against foreign threats
3) enforce private contracts

*Every individual has the right to do whatever they please, as long as they don't, without consent, unreasonably harm or endanger anyone else's person, property, liberty, or right to the same. (The commons are private, and belong to everyone, therefore, protection and maintenance of basic infrastructure and the environment are included.) (Also, corporations aren't individuals.)



That's it, y'all!

10/28/2010 10:26:02 PM

Government's role is to contract out prisons to private firms, who can then donate to candidates who support tougher crime laws, so they can make more money by imprisoning more people.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130833741

More seriously, I think you can find a lot of the answers here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Generally they should set up the basic societal framework and infrastructure for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Beyond that, they should strive to represent the will of the people (without trampling the rights of minorities). And it never hurts for them to keep the positive & negative externalities of their decisions and actions in mind.

I'm sure I could give a more thoughtful answer if I didn't have a major headache right now. That answer is somewhat vague, and everything rides on how you define the terms used. I might come back to this thread later.

10/28/2010 10:30:37 PM

Quote :

"they should strive to represent the will of the people (without trampling the rights of minorities)."

Keep in mind that individuals are minorities.

Therefore:
Taxing individuals without their consent, in order to redistribute income, etc., is trampling their right to property.
Also,
Denying rights to individuals without their consent, in order to "grant" others perceived rights, etc., is trampling their right to liberty and equal rights.

10/28/2010 10:36:36 PM

Generally speaking, to protect the rights and liberties of its people. I'm sure you could find some ideological inconsistency somewhere in my views, but I'm pretty much for the maximum net preservation and promotion of freedom, and I think that this is a pretty good guideline when setting policy and deciding on the role and scope of government.

Quote :

" Beyond that, they should strive to represent the will of the people (without trampling the rights of minorities)"

Interesting statement from a leftist. How do you reconcile various entitlement programs with this view? They are the will of the people, no doubt--most people are all for getting something on someone else's dime. I'd say that if you're the one paying for it all, you're getting trampled, though.

[Edited on October 28, 2010 at 10:43 PM. Reason : ^ oh, beat me to it]

10/28/2010 10:42:48 PM

to act as my mommy and ensure I never have to go out to do anything for myself

while not daring to trample my right to act loud and obnoxious and in the faces of "normal" society

[Edited on October 28, 2010 at 11:40 PM. Reason : I am stuffed full of straw

10/28/2010 11:39:36 PM

^
Wait, yeah.... that's it. I retract my other post.

The role of government is to steal from the rich so everyone can be free of responsibility.
Free food, free housing, free school, free health care, and everything else should be free and provided by the government.
Rich people NEVER work hard or deserve their money, so government exists to take that money to allow people to get free bypass surgery from the heart attack they had from being paid to sit on their couch and eat [free] food.

Everyone has to be equal. (Except for a few rich people -- so the government can steal from them.)

10/29/2010 12:06:09 AM

Quote :

"Keep in mind that individuals are minorities."

This shit always cracks me up

I love the sayings that jump out of the bong and into the mouths of college libertarians

10/29/2010 12:08:44 AM

being serious now, the issue is with ensuring that the basic rights of individuals are not restricted on the basis of being in an identifiable and socially undesirable minority group

10/29/2010 12:14:21 AM

^^
lol.... You are fucking stupid.

Americans who are male: 151.4 million (49%) = minority
Americans who are non-white: 77.2 million (25.2%) = minority
Americans who are non-religious: 39.91 million (13%) = minority
Americans who are gay: 8.8 million[?] (2.9%) = minority
Americans who are you: 1 (0.000000326%) = minority NOES, B/C MCDOUCHE SAYS SO


^

Quote :

"an identifiable and socially undesirable minority group"

You are identifiable, and may be socially undesirable. The fact that there is only one of you is immaterial to the FACT that you are a minority. Every individual is.

[Edited on October 29, 2010 at 12:30 AM. Reason : ]

10/29/2010 12:30:30 AM

Quote :

"What is the role of government to you?"

To do what is best for everyone that individuals cannot.

10/29/2010 1:08:43 AM

Quote :

"To do what is best for everyone that individuals cannot"

Sometimes individuals form groups, so that they can do that which individuals cannot.
(Clubs, churches, businesses, charities, tribes, family, neighborhoods, etc.)
Also, what is "best for everyone"?

10/29/2010 1:24:51 AM

Quote :

"Americans who are gay: 8.8 million[?] (2.9%) = minority"

Just a point of clarification (skip to the bottom if you want something relevant to the OP question):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

Quote :

"2010 estimate 310,585,000[2] (3rd[d])"

http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm

Quote :

"Why is this number an estimate? The number of LGB persons in the U.S. is subjective. Studies pointing to the statistics are estimates at best. The most widely accepted statistic is that 1 in ever 10 individuals is LGB; however research shows that the number may be more like 1 in 20. ... If you mean people who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual in a survey, then the answer is that it's likely not one in ten, but closer to one in twenty. A recent government survey found that 4 percent of adults aged 18-45 identified as 'homosexual' or 'bisexual.' A similar proportion of voters identify as GLB. If you define gay as having same-sex attractions or behaviors, you do get higher proportions that are a bit closer to the one in ten figure." "

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx

Quote :

"The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes ... While most expert estimates place America's homosexual population at 10% or less, Americans tend to guess that the number is higher, around 20%."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

Quote :

"In the modern West, major studies indicate a prevalence of 2% to 13% of the population.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] A 2006 study suggested that 20% of the population anonymously reported some homosexual feelings,"

There are a lot of issues as to how you define it, and how comfortable people are sharing the truth. Plugging in the various percentages that various studies have come up with into a current population estimate says:

2% = 6,211,700
3% = 9,317,550 (this is the same % that the anti-gay Family Research Council came up w/)
4% = 12,423,400
8% = 24,846,800
10% = 31,058,500
13% = 40,376,050
20% = 62,117,000

My guess is the truth is somewhere in the middle, and it doesn't matter where in terms how people should be treated.

(back on topic here) That is really all beside the point though. I don't think you need to define an individual as a minority to make the argument for individual liberty. I think you can easily make the case that individual liberty is very much an American value in its own right.

Quote :

"Interesting statement from a leftist. How do you reconcile various entitlement programs with this view?"

I think something like social security isn't mandated in our society, but has been a representation of the will of the people, so I'm cool with it. While society wide decisions are hard to make, we decided we didn't wont growing old to mean growing poor. Now if that society wide decision is changing on how we should it or whether or not we should do it, which maybe it is these days, it might be worth revisiting.

10/29/2010 1:40:12 AM

^
Ya know, I put the "[?]" there specifically so that no one would have to post all of that...
Anyway...

Quote :

"a representation of the will of the people"

Quote :

"society wide"

Where do you get this from? What exactly do you think that means?

Quote :

"I don't think you need to define an individual as a minority to make the argument for individual liberty."

How is anyone defining it [differently than it is]?
Do you constitute greater than 50% of Americans? No? Then you are a minority.
A minority is anything not in the majority. Are you, or anyone else, a majority of people in America? No.

I hate to be so simple, but it really is that simple.
It's as though your politics are blinding you to basic math.

(It's just like the joke goes: "Did you know that 51% of Americans...... are in the majority?")

Quote :

"but has been a representation of the will of the people, so I'm cool with it."

Wow.
You said "I'm sure I could give a more thoughtful answer..." so I won't tear your post apart.
(Your implication that majority rules is wildly dangerous, and likely not what you meant. Clarify, or we'll destroy you with logic.)

10/29/2010 1:52:26 AM

If you want to define an individual as a minority, it doesn't bother me at all. I was just making the point that you don't need to go that extra step to convince anyone that individual liberty is an American value.

Quote :

"Clarify, or we'll destroy you with logic."

Your coalition of logic destroyers may go ahead. I'm a little lost as to what you're getting at (maybe you can explain more rather than going into destruction mode?). That might be because its 2am and I'm pretty sure I have a fever now. Ugh...the semester is much too busy right now, I can't afford to get sick. Maybe my point above helps clarify? I'm not objecting to what you want to call a minority, I'm only saying that individual liberty is an important value regardless of how you define a minority.

Quote :

"Your implication that majority rules is wildly dangerous"

I don't think majority rule is wildy dangerous, and did not say such, in fact majority rule seems necessary to some degree in a democracy. But I think segregation laws, laws like DOMA, and people saying the government should tell people where they can build a Muslim Community Center are all things the government should avoid, even if its the will of the people.

^Are you saying there is no situation in which you are okay with social security (maybe short of unanimous consent, year after year as more people age to be 18/voting age)?

10/29/2010 2:18:04 AM

Quote :

"While society wide decisions are hard to make, we decided we didn't wont growing old to mean growing poor. Now if that society wide decision is changing on how we should it or whether or not we should do it, which maybe it is these days, it might be worth revisiting."

Now, here's an interesting question about "society wide decisions". Assume for a moment that society wide, we did indeed decide that we wanted SS (I really don't know how popular the idea was when it was passed, so we'll assume for the sake of argument). At what point does a group of voters (even society at large) not get to saddle their children and people who can't vote with an obligation? And should a a group of people who will benefit from a law without paying its costs be allowed to vote on continuing that law? When voting on SS (or any similar program), what right does the current generation of voters have to saddle the next generation with a debt?

10/29/2010 7:48:10 AM

Quote :

"what right does the current generation of voters have to saddle the next generation with a debt?"

(not to make this thread only about SS, which I feel like is where its going b/c it was used in 1 example, so I'll try to keep my answer relatively short)

I don't know that we do, maybe it should have been focused on each current generation pooling their resources to provide for themselves when they get elderly. At the same time, I don't think we should rapidly or dramatically pull out of the current system in a way that breaks a promise to people who have made life financial planning decisions around it.

What about decisions about environmental deregulation. Some people advocate for the end of the EPA (I think they stand as one of those groups that needs to be at the federal level b/c environmental disasters don't abide by state boundaries). But how different is haphazardly using up resources and damaging the environment from saddling the next generation with issues the way you're talking about? And yet many people are for saddling future generations with environmental problems while at the same time opposing SS.

For those who keep asking me about SS, you're looking at the wrong person if you're looking for a true advocate/defender of keeping the system the same. I wont defend it any further even if asked to, and will leave it at changes shouldn't be so rapid or dramatic to unduly negatively impact those needy senior populations who have planned around it for a very long time. I guess that brings in this "And it never hurts for them to keep the positive & negative externalities of their decisions and actions in mind." In that on principle, I believe SS needs to be reformed, but in practice we have to keep in mind how it will affect people while moving in the right direction.

(the externalities bit was also mean to cover situations like if, say, someone advocates to massive cuts to all gov spending w/o regard to their impact, but maybe having a drug rehab program, and jobs training center on the gov dime ultimately cost gov & thus tax payers less than locking up drug users & paying unemployment, then we shouldn't make the cuts willy nilly)

10/29/2010 8:06:43 AM

Quote :

"lol.... You are fucking stupid. Americans who are male: 151.4 million (49%) = minority Americans who are non-white: 77.2 million (25.2%) = minority Americans who are non-religious: 39.91 million (13%) = minority Americans who are gay: 8.8 million[?] (2.9%) = minority Americans who are you: 1 (0.000000326%) = minority NOES, B/C MCDOUCHE SAYS SO "

lmao

keep bangin, shorty

10/29/2010 9:46:09 AM

Quote :

"I think something like social security isn't mandated in our society, but has been a representation of the will of the people, so I'm cool with it."

My whole point of "interesting statement from a leftist" was in response to your definition of the role of government being to "represent the will of the people (without trampling the rights of minorities)".

but then you turn right around and practically make the next step in the argument for me:

Quote :

" don't think majority rule is wildy dangerous, and did not say such, in fact majority rule seems necessary to some degree in a democracy. But I think segregation laws, laws like DOMA, and people saying the government should tell people where they can build a Muslim Community Center are all things the government should avoid, even if its the will of the people."

So why is majority rule something to be avoided when the will of the people is something like the DOMA, but it's perfectly OK when it's any of the plethora of wealth redistribution schemes we have? As I said earlier, these programs and policies are very much a way to buy votes the will of the people--most people are all for getting something on someone else's dime. I'd say that if you're the one paying for it all, you're getting trampled, though.

Quote :

"To do what is best for everyone that individuals cannot."

See, at least Kris is upfront and honest. He'll tell you straight up that he's a collectivist statist. He openly embraces the long dick of the law. Can't get enough of it, in fact. I think it's disgusting, but in many ways less offensive than the tortured logic that most people offer to try to slyly camouflage the bullshit they want to pull.

10/29/2010 1:02:54 PM

Quote :

"[Kris]'s a collectivist statist. He openly embraces the long dick of the law. Can't get enough of it, in fact."

lol

10/29/2010 1:12:18 PM

make insurance free

10/29/2010 1:21:12 PM

nothing is free

10/29/2010 1:22:31 PM

Quote :

"Sometimes individuals form groups, so that they can do that which individuals cannot. (Clubs, churches, businesses, charities, tribes, family, neighborhoods, governments etc.)"

FTY

10/29/2010 1:52:23 PM

Quote :

"He'll tell you straight up that he's a collectivist statist. He openly embraces the long dick of the law. Can't get enough of it, in fact. I think it's disgusting, but in many ways less offensive than the tortured logic that most people offer to try to slyly camouflage the bullshit they want to pull."

This coming from the tip of the spear, swung by greedy capitalists

10/29/2010 1:57:50 PM

Quote :

"Sometimes individuals form groups, so that they can do that which individuals cannot. (Clubs, churches, businesses, charities, tribes, family, neighborhoods, governments etc.)"

10/29/2010 2:47:18 PM

Well duh... that goes without saying.
Government has its role, which makes certain wonderful things possible (justice, etc.) but we're talking about free association.
It's from free private people that we can do anything. ANYTHING!* Government is limited -- even liberals will admit that.


(* see first post)


I said: "Sometimes individuals form groups"
You can't just go and form your own government. In a private opt-in scenario, sure...

[Edited on October 29, 2010 at 5:05 PM. Reason : ]

10/29/2010 4:55:14 PM

I agree with Indy. Except for maybe the "corporations aren't individuals" part because he probably is meaning that corporations/businesses shouldn't be afforded the same privacy/freedom rights, which I don't fully agree with.

Everything else sounds right.

10/29/2010 5:09:27 PM

Quote :

" FTY"

Interestingly, of all the groups people form to accomplish their goals, only the government is recognized as a group which can use force to coerce you into complying with it's rules / regulations*. This is perhaps the strongest argument for limited government.

* For most people. Members of mafias / gangs also tend to recognize their group's ability to use force to enforce the rules, but generally that recognition is only by members of the group, and in some cases, you could argue a gang / mafia is a form of government.

10/29/2010 6:50:35 PM

Quote :

"Sometimes individuals form groups, so that they can do that which individuals cannot."

They also form governments, that's why pretty much everywhere in the world has one.

Quote :

"Also, what is "best for everyone"?"

That's for everyone to decide, at least in a democracy, in a republic it's a few people, and in a dictatorship it's one guy, and in anarchy, which I would assume is what you support, no one does.

Quote :

"Do you constitute greater than 50% of Americans? No? Then you are a minority. A minority is anything not in the majority. Are you, or anyone else, a majority of people in America?"

You're arguing against democracy, which, while it does suck, is kind of the best thing out there right now.

Quote :

"He openly embraces the long dick of the law. Can't get enough of it, in fact. I think it's disgusting, but in many ways less offensive than the tortured logic that most people offer to try to slyly camouflage the bullshit they want to pull."

I guess when I look at it, I see the successes of government more than I see the failures. Granted the failures are more obvious, but the successes are subtle and I wouldn't ever want to live in a world without them.

Quote :

"You can't just go and form your own government. In a private opt-in scenario, sure..."

Hell yeah you can, that's how pretty much every one of them out there came about, you just have to be pretty convincing or powerful.

Quote :

"government is recognized as a group which can use force to coerce you into complying with it's rules"

Any group that has the guns or ability will make you do what it wants. Governments just generally like to be the only one with that kind of power.

10/29/2010 7:14:53 PM

Quote :

" guess when I look at it, I see the successes of government more than I see the failures. Granted the failures are more obvious, but the successes are subtle and I wouldn't ever want to live in a world without them."

That's baffling to me, but again, at least you understand what you believe, are upfront about it, and don't exercise silly, tortured logic to make your positions fit. Your observations and views are absurd in my opinion, but from there, the conclusions you draw and positions you take on issues do logically follow. I will probably never agree with you on much of anything, but you offend my sensibilities less than those talk about "representing the will of the majority without trampling on the minority", then in the next breath saying "Also, I want to forcibly take money from these people, because they have more, and give it to everyone else...but that isn't trampling a minority." Or, for that matter, saying "The government is way too large and intrusive! We need personal liberty, without Big Government interfering in our lives! Oh, but let's make it a crime to burn a flag, and let's have church in science class, and publicly funded at that...it's OK, because we're dancing around and not attributing Creationism to the Christian God, by name."

It's kind of like people who flat-out say "Fuck the U.S. Constitution, let's just go wild and legislate anything we want! Lord of the Flies on Capitol Hill!" As disgusting as that is, that still offends me less than the more common approach of "Welllll...the commerce clause/general welfare clause/etc, interpreted loosely enough, makes the provision for this." Come on, dude...get the fuck outta here--there's grey area and room for interpretation, but no reasonable person could possibly draw that conclusion from those words.

I guess I'd rather people be wrong than wrong AND full of shit.

10/29/2010 9:04:01 PM

Much like theDuke, I'm less offended by people who have a different idea about the role of government and then extrapolate specific policies from that than by people who lack logical consistency in their beliefs.

If you and I have dramatically different ideas about what government should be, but your positions are logically sound based on your belief system I can respectfully disagree, but if you're all over the fucking place it's very hard for me to take anything you say seriously or respect you on an intellectual level.

10/30/2010 2:59:25 AM

Except for socialism. Socialism has been dis-proven by maths and is therefore never logically sound. (j/k)

10/30/2010 3:12:05 AM

I have absolutely no problem with socialist-style government, as long it's 100% opt-in.

10/30/2010 3:29:34 AM

And somewhere else

10/30/2010 9:28:07 AM

It seems like this topic has sprung up many times before, but it's good to see it happen again. Each of us should constantly review our beliefs on what government is there to do, and what it must not do. People tend towards complacency, especially during times of relative peace and economic stability.

However, before anyone ever asked the question posed by the OP, another question had to be asked first, whether or not it was verbally communicated: Should there be any government at all? If you do believe in self-ownership (and I really hope that most of us do), then why should any individual or group be able to impose their will upon a person without their consent? Let's use taxation as an example. Even most libertarian thinking people will agree that we must have a national defense, thus we must use taxation as a way to fund it. Maybe I disagree with you, though. Maybe I don't want to participate in that system. What happens? Well, the consequences must be severe, or no would pay, so I go to jail. My freedom is taken away because I didn't want to pay protection money, despite the fact that no one was directly harmed by my actions. This breach of liberty is justified, though, because it's for the "common good" that we have a national defense to prevent invasion, and further loss of our liberties.

I bring up that example not to advocate anarchy, although philosophically, I am an anarchist. However, governments will naturally expand to fill the voids where anarchy exists, or new governments will arise out of anarchy. That's why I am practically a minarchist. If there will be a government at all, it should be limited to the very basic function of protecting rights. Coercion and theft should be punished, though I'm not convinced that contracts should be enforced. I would rather see caveat emptor applied to all business transactions, including contracts.

10/30/2010 11:36:42 AM

This is why I don't usually vote Libertarian, either, even though I usually can't tolerate the GOP offering, and it would have to be a very unusual circumstance for me to cast a vote for any Democrat.

10/30/2010 11:56:53 AM

^^Yeah, I'm pretty close to being an anarcho-capitalist, but I think you have to enforce legal contracts in order to protect personal property rights. Imagine a world in which there was no legal repercussion for not paying your mortgage, credit cards, or car. It would completely destroy the lending unsecured lending market.

10/30/2010 12:26:45 PM

Protecting the bourgeoisie. It does a pretty good job.

10/30/2010 12:31:10 PM

10/30/2010 1:52:22 PM

^ x5

Government from anarchy is more or less a given. While I would prefer the non existence of government, this is realistically impossible. Even without "government" as we recognize it, individuals and groups of individuals will seek to force their will upon others without consent. Therefore, it seems best that a consented to government be made, and limited as much as possible, both in size and scope. Also important is mobility between governments, this allows individuals to constantly consent (or not) to being governed by any one group. This is why I'm always in favor of limiting rules and regulations to the most local form of government as possible. It's much easier for me to decide I don't like living in cary or raleigh and change that, than living in NC or the US.

Incidentally, what do you (or anyone else) think is the optimal size of government in terms of individuals represented? Further, is there a size of government which does not encourage professional politicians or is that an inherent problem with any government, large or small?

10/30/2010 3:01:16 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, I'm pretty close to being an anarcho-capitalist, but I think you have to enforce legal contracts in order to protect personal property rights. Imagine a world in which there was no legal repercussion for not paying your mortgage, credit cards, or car. It would completely destroy the lending unsecured lending market."

I'm on the fence with contract enforcement to be honest, but I can think of many contracts that should not be enforced by the government. The obvious example is slavery through contract. People don't often read the contracts they sign as well as they should, and I don't think the government should allow you to "sign away rights." A similar example is from South Park, when Kyle signed a contract to suck Cartman's balls. I think in the case of loans and credit, you don't need legal repercussions. I'm sure private credit agencies would rise in the absence of a contract enforcing government, which would make it difficult for anyone to bail on a loan without suffering some serious consequences. Rothbard talks about this in greater detail in The Ethics of Liberty, but if someone did breach a contract, and then refused to compensate the non-breaching party, that person is guilty of fraud.

^I think you already hit on it, but it's not even size that's the issue, it's proximity to the people. Most things can and should be regulated at a local level. Career politicians could be eliminated with term limits, but as I've said before, if federal politics dealt more or less with administrative tasks as determined by the Constitution, rather than regulating everything from how much someone is allowed to get paid, what they can do with their own body, or how someone chooses to get medical care, becoming a representative wouldn't be such a "rock star" position, nor would it be all that attractive to those that are obsessed with power. For humans, power has the ability to turn a principled person into the worst kind of criminal, and no one should be allowed to wield the kind of power over 300 million people that, for instance, Nancy Pelosi has.

10/30/2010 5:46:59 PM

Quote :

"Your observations and views are absurd in my opinion, but from there, the conclusions you draw and positions you take on issues do logically follow."

Well you have to keep in mind that you and I are extremists, I can't really blame people for thinking more in reality they live in rather than logic.

Quote :

"I have absolutely no problem with socialist-style government, as long it's 100% opt-in."

The founding fathers would argue that every government is "opt-in".

10/30/2010 6:02:19 PM

I guess I wasn't clear.
I meant stuff like convents or clubs, where the scope of the government is limited to adults that choose to join.

In other words, socialism that lacks consent from even one person under its rule, is unjust.
I'm just saying that opt-in groups may decide how to govern [only] themselves. Everyone must consent, though.

10/30/2010 6:35:10 PM

^ Communist anarchists think about the same way. The problem becomes control over the means of production. What happens if the workers all opt-in but the factory owner opts out? Capital relies on coercion for protection.

10/30/2010 7:18:21 PM

The workers are free to leave the arrangement at any time and find another employer, aren't they? Wage slavery isn't a concern if there is competition for labor.

[Edited on October 30, 2010 at 7:54 PM. Reason : ]

10/30/2010 7:54:00 PM

Establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

6/16/2011 1:16:06 PM

Quote :

"What is the role of government to you? "

To assign citizenship to people so that the places they are allowed to travel and live can be restricted.

6/16/2011 1:35:55 PM

to amass arms and take shit from wherever in the world it feels like

6/16/2011 6:16:54 PM

Quote :

"In other words, socialism that lacks consent from even one person under its rule, is unjust. I'm just saying that opt-in groups may decide how to govern [only] themselves. Everyone must consent, though."

Socialism is economic democracy, so no, you're wrong. Socialism that lacks consent from a person isn't unjust, as those in the capitalist class will object to a socialist system. Furthermore, workers that disagree with the current trajectory of industry (but who are outvoted) are just that: outvoted. Does democracy become unjust each time a vote occurs?

6/16/2011 6:22:35 PM

To legitimize mob rule.

6/16/2011 6:22:55 PM