[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


All the arguments that apply to the federal structure apply exactly to the state level structure. "states" don't own property any more than "the US government" does so they have as much legitimacy. Love it or leave it doesn't become valid when you reach a certain sq footage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? So if I let someone stay at my home, love it or leave doesn't apply to the rules I set on them?

[/ QUOTE ]

It does if you own your home. Are you saying that the state governmental structure owns the states?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope.

So if it's fine in your own your home, how about a commune? Say 100 people pool their land and agree to make all their decisions "democratically?" Is "love it or leave it" okay in that situation? Note that I'm not making analogies here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has everyone who owns land in that area explicitly signed a contract to abide by the democratic rule? If so then there would be no need for love it or leave it cos everyone would love it. Presumably you'd have a stipulation in the contract that says if you ever disagree with what the rulers say they have the right to do XY & Z to you and your property. If you sign that voluntarily you're fair game.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what about their children? Love it or leave it for them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well they don't own any property and any half sensible contract of this sort would have provisions for passing on your property when you die something like you agree to only give away your property to someone who is willing to sign this contract themselves. The adult owes the child sustainence (in a food and drink and a healthy kind loving environment kind of way) until it becomes an independent moral agent because it was a chosen positive obligation but after that the child isn't owed anything by the adult certainly not an inheritance.