O-Trap;1463317 wrote:First, define "well-functioning."
Second, a majority from a single vote on a particular issue is not a population voluntarily giving up rights. It forces the minority (in your example) vote, who does NOT voluntarily give up their rights, to do so out of obligation (ie, not voluntary). It also forces subsequent generations to involuntarily give up their right, as well.
It's not voluntarily giving something up. That's an individual action. It's FORCING everyone to give something up going forward.
You're assuming that the minority does not voluntarily agree to be bound by majority rule. Calling it an obligation does not mean it was not consented to nor voluntarily agreed upon. It's pure principal and agency.
The original incorporators of our nation memorialized our their voluntary consent to be governed by the decisions of Congress and to have those laws enforced by an executive branch and interpreted by a judicial branch staffed with appointees of the president. These were their voluntarily empowered agents with whom they voluntarily agreed to transfer some of their liberty to as in any contract. The minority on certain issues voluntarily agreed to be bound by majority rule even if they didn't necessarily agree with the outcome. They've consented to the decisions that they make in the same way that shareholder consents to the decisions made by a board of directors or a CEO that they may not personally agree with but a plurality of agents do.
And, as far as subsequent generations go it is classic manifestation of assent. The People of the United States put the offer of the Constitution and its social contract on the table with the offeree (the individual citizen) aware of the benefits and burdens that come with manifesting an assent to accept the terms of the agreement. It is a unilateral contract offer and working, living, taking part in, benefitting from the customs, laws, public infrastructure, public currency, payment system and government of the United States are clear and unambiguous manifestations of assent to accept the offer of all the fruits that the United States has to offer.
Now despite having clear consent based on the actions of most libertarians, perhaps we might alleviate some of their concerns with more overt manifestations of assent.
Maybe express consent forms when they sign contracts, buy property w/in U.S. borders or agree to work in the U.S.
Maybe deport those who disagree and say they are not consenting to be bound by Congress to a special citizens libertarian zone where birthright citizens could argue for changes to the U.S. Constitution and its laws w/o obtaining the benefits/free-loading on our very-free but not-totally-free capitalist system so as to free libertarians from the perception that they are "forced" to accept contractual terms they might not agree to personally.
Maybe buy a part of Greenland? Maybe Afghanistan since we've put so much money in there any way and it's a pretty clean slate?
Well-functioning would be country that delivers considerable liberty and prosperity to a large amount of its citizens which the United States delivers by any reasonable standard even if it could do better.
To continue w/ memes
