Interactions that are skewed from the course one would naturally be inclined to take by coercion or threat of violence do not count as voluntary. Example paying taxes to fund programs and actions one does not condone. No one does this voluntarily, they do it to avoid a direct threat to their freedom and ultimately their life. In answer to the second paragraph... Any consensus short of voluntary unanimity is not valid as it deprives any who do not agree of their consent if it is enforced. The only morally acceptable instance of depriving another of their consent is in response to their attempt to deprive another of theirs.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
This is partly why I ignore moral arguments.
People voluntarily elect for delegative government, delegates are expected to appointed to make best decisions, of course the electorate could be ideologically oppose to the decisions they make. Doesn't make it any less voluntary.
Unanimous consensus is simply impractical, and cost to time and general inefficiency, suffices that sufficient people would agree to a floor on acceptable consensus.
This statement is far from ripping apart any anarchist arguement.
In fact it is actually highlighting some the reasons no government can be based in any kind of morality.
This destroys the idea of any government having any right to rule over people, as it inherently violates the consent of the governed.
How are you going to prevent from voluntarily electing for centralized government?
The same way you prevent free individuals from refusing to be governed..... You can't.
That said, the goal of most anarchism activists is to tear down the common acceptance of the idea that there can be any right to rule over another, as an individual or as a collective, until there are too many who have shaken off the myth of authority for any "voluntarily elected government" to ever enforce their will, on a large scale, on those who do not consent.