> Democracy can vote to kill whoever the members
> want.

> Why is there a linking of democracy with
> freedom?

> Just as a free individual is one who is at
> liberty to put self-determination in effective
> practice, so also a free community is one that
> is at liberty to effectively pursue and really
> practice self-determination. Just as the
> individual has to make a choice between many
> convincing alternatives, so also does a
> community have to make choices between numerous
> acceptable alternatives. Democracy is to
> society what freedom is to the individual.

> Immortalist wrote:

>> Democracy can vote to kill whoever the members
>> want.

>
> and
>

>> Why is there a linking of democracy with
>> freedom?

>
> Ron Allen wrote:

>> Just as a free individual is one who is at
>> liberty to put self-determination in effective
>> practice, so also a free community is one that
>> is at liberty to effectively pursue and really
>> practice self-determination. Just as the
>> individual has to make a choice between many
>> convincing alternatives, so also does a
>> community have to make choices between numerous
>> acceptable alternatives. Democracy is to ...

> If a citizen's rights are taken away, then that
> citizen's consent is immediately withdrawn, and
> that citizen's duties to obey the laws of the
> community are immediately discharged.

> But the majority certainly won't think so, they
> will believe that they are still obligated and
> will definitely oblige them to obey.

> If the majority does not think a minority has
> the very same rights that the majority has, then
> I suppose that the minority will just have to
> peacefully voice their dissent against the
> majority. There is a very good reason why Henry
> Ford believed that "The voice of dissent must be
> heard." The reason was given and clearly stated
> by Martin Luther King, Jr.: "A riot is the
> language of the unheard."

> Ron Allen wrote:

>> If a citizen's rights are taken away, then that
>> citizen's consent is immediately withdrawn, and
>> that citizen's duties to obey the laws of the
>> community are immediately discharged.

>
> Michael Price wrote:

>> But the majority certainly won't think so, they
>> will believe that they are still obligated and
>> will definitely oblige them to obey.

>
> Ron Allen wrote:

>> If the majority does not think a minority has
>> the very same rights that the majority has, then
>> I suppose that the minority will just have to
>> peacefully voice their dissent against the
>> majority. There is a very good reason why Henry
>> Ford believed that "The voice of dissent must be
>> heard." The reason was given and clearly stated ...

> If a citizen's rights are taken away, then that
> citizen's consent is immediately withdrawn, and
> that citizen's duties to obey the laws of the
> community are immediately discharged.

> But the majority certainly won't think so, they
> will believe that they are still obligated and
> will definitely oblige them to obey.

> If the majority does not think a minority has
> the very same rights that the majority has, then
> I suppose that the minority will just have to
> peacefully voice their dissent against the
> majority. There is a very good reason why Henry
> Ford believed that "The voice of dissent must be
> heard." The reason was given and clearly stated
> by Martin Luther King, Jr.: "A riot is the
> language of the unheard."

> The proprietors have certain rights over the
> producers, and the modern capitalist state
> exists precisely to defend the rights of
> capital over labor.

> And that's why it's the greatest threat to
> those rights everywhere?

> Why do you keep defending the State?

> You are keen to begin discussing human rights
> but less keen to make any effort to see they are
> implemented.

> The rights I advocate must be implemented by "we
> the people", peacefully if possible,
> aggressively if necessary.

> You advocate only one right, the right to vote
> on whether to violate the rights of others.

> If vocal dissent is not enough, then comes civil
> disobedience; if that is not enough, then comes
> rebellion.

> So in other words the only remedy in your system
> is minority violence. Brilliant.

> Rebellion as minority violence is not the only
> remedy; but, it is perhaps an eventual or
> ultimate remedy, a final remedy, but only if
> violence is necessary.

> But you've agreed it would be neccesary, so the
> only solution to the problems inherent in the
> system you advance is violence revolution
> against it.

> Revolutionary violence is never the necessary
> path to democracy, because it is not the only
> path to democracy.

> Who said anything about the path to democracy?
> I was talking about violence within your
> "democracy".

> Revolutionary violence is only necessary if
> reactionary violence is used in order to
> suppress and prevent the just and reasonable
> democratic aspirations of the people.

> And by "violence" you mean resisting the
> imposition of the "will of the people". You
> mean that if someone defends their property
> against theft that you call "expropriation"
> that's violence, but if you kill them to take it
> it's not.