SeriouslyDebatable
Active Member
In matters of politics, silence implies consent. If you disagree with those attempt to exert power, you have to speak up. If you do not, you have no one to blame for the results but yourself. This goes for the State as well as online spaces like Wiki as well as the office. Unfortunately, people generally don't have enough spirit to speak up. This opens them up to the JediMindTrick. -- SunirShah In RobertsRulesOfOrder, the majority is determined by the number of votes cast. In effect, abstention (silence) does imply consent. Whatever is decided is done so for you.
An interesting argument, but I think that I can find a couple of flaws.
1) I think there are very little things can be decided by other people and done so for you unless you are imprisoned or enslaved in the full sense of the term (actual tangible shackles). My argument is that "where there is a will, there is a way". Someone who is determined will always find a loophole. If one man made it, another man can figure it out. A lock on a door can be picked, or broken, or you could just go through a wall that was neglected to be reinforced. Laws can be looked at in the same sense.
* You can speed not get caught as easily if you have a radar detector.
* A bong and other Drug paraphernalia is illegal, but shops can sell "water pipes" and "tobacco pipes" with pictures of marijuana leaves on them.
* You can avoid taxes by buying things online, out of state, or through trade.
* You can use money, power and/or influence to get special treatment
* There are an incomprehensible amount of laws on the books, and not enough agents to enforce them even if they wanted to.
2) The argument says that silence is consent because whatever is decided [by the majority] is done so for you. The problem with this argument is that the opposite is true for the following reasons. What happens when you vote? You participate in the process. You agree to accept the outcome no matter who wins. You will respect it as law. What happens if you are not in the majority and you don't get what you want? Well your voice is now also consent of something done so for you [by the majority]. Obviously if you voted against it and are in the minority, you did not really consent to anyone doing anything for you (or to you). You simply understood that the system is set up for the majority to rule by force, and you rolled the dice hoping to affect majority opinion. Individuals who understand personal freedom and liberty would have an ethical dilemma if they participated in the use of force. My argument is that you cannot consent to something under duress, and that to be truly non consenting in something, you have to avoid it, not participate in it.
If somebody calls you an idiot (or whatever) and you remain silent. Does this mean you agree with the aggressor? -- FridemarPache No, it may mean that he's too much of an idiot to deserve a response.
If nobody complains about the plastic gnome I placed in my front yard, then it must be that nobody's bothered by it. In fact, everybody may be bothered by it; they're just being silent. You can't be sure that their silence truly means they are consenting to it.
There are too many factors which can influence or cheat majority in artificial ways. Voting is fundamentally unfair, in the sense of equality. The rich and powerful will always influence or steal the vote. They need voters to participate otherwise they have no power at all. There is only one way to stop this other than it collapsing or being destroyed/conquered. That is to not participate... and avoid agents of the illegitimate law and when confronting them, follow their rules. You have to pick and choose your battles and remember even if you are right, you can be DEAD right and then it really does not matter if you were right at all.
Any agreements/disagreements?
An interesting argument, but I think that I can find a couple of flaws.
1) I think there are very little things can be decided by other people and done so for you unless you are imprisoned or enslaved in the full sense of the term (actual tangible shackles). My argument is that "where there is a will, there is a way". Someone who is determined will always find a loophole. If one man made it, another man can figure it out. A lock on a door can be picked, or broken, or you could just go through a wall that was neglected to be reinforced. Laws can be looked at in the same sense.
* You can speed not get caught as easily if you have a radar detector.
* A bong and other Drug paraphernalia is illegal, but shops can sell "water pipes" and "tobacco pipes" with pictures of marijuana leaves on them.
* You can avoid taxes by buying things online, out of state, or through trade.
* You can use money, power and/or influence to get special treatment
* There are an incomprehensible amount of laws on the books, and not enough agents to enforce them even if they wanted to.
2) The argument says that silence is consent because whatever is decided [by the majority] is done so for you. The problem with this argument is that the opposite is true for the following reasons. What happens when you vote? You participate in the process. You agree to accept the outcome no matter who wins. You will respect it as law. What happens if you are not in the majority and you don't get what you want? Well your voice is now also consent of something done so for you [by the majority]. Obviously if you voted against it and are in the minority, you did not really consent to anyone doing anything for you (or to you). You simply understood that the system is set up for the majority to rule by force, and you rolled the dice hoping to affect majority opinion. Individuals who understand personal freedom and liberty would have an ethical dilemma if they participated in the use of force. My argument is that you cannot consent to something under duress, and that to be truly non consenting in something, you have to avoid it, not participate in it.
If somebody calls you an idiot (or whatever) and you remain silent. Does this mean you agree with the aggressor? -- FridemarPache No, it may mean that he's too much of an idiot to deserve a response.
If nobody complains about the plastic gnome I placed in my front yard, then it must be that nobody's bothered by it. In fact, everybody may be bothered by it; they're just being silent. You can't be sure that their silence truly means they are consenting to it.
There are too many factors which can influence or cheat majority in artificial ways. Voting is fundamentally unfair, in the sense of equality. The rich and powerful will always influence or steal the vote. They need voters to participate otherwise they have no power at all. There is only one way to stop this other than it collapsing or being destroyed/conquered. That is to not participate... and avoid agents of the illegitimate law and when confronting them, follow their rules. You have to pick and choose your battles and remember even if you are right, you can be DEAD right and then it really does not matter if you were right at all.
Any agreements/disagreements?
