[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If a voluntary interaction between A and B affects C (and I agree this is possible), then you may very well have an involuntary transaction. In those cases, you now have a non-arbitrary "line".

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, but what if I tell you that 99% of what you might consider "voluntary transactions" do affect 3rd parties, and thus are "involuntary". So, again, where do we draw the line?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would I consider those voluntary if they aren't?

I'm still not sure what you mean when you ask where to draw the line. You draw it at "involuntary".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Oh, so anyone who wants to can replace their *local* elected representative on a whim as you suggested they do if they aren't satisfied?


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they can't change it on a whim, that would be absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then please never, ever, ever again use the blame-the-victim "zomg you elected the wrong person dummy" argument.

[ QUOTE ]
But presumably people would choose to surround themselves with others who share some core values, philosophies and cultural traditions (we call this a community).

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds great. In the real world, however, people are compelled to participate in "communities" with other people not of their choosing. When governments become optional organizations that you can join and leave just like you do a health club or phone company, then this "elect someone better" argument might hold water. Until then, it doesn't.

[ QUOTE ]
When their elected officials act in a way that violates these fundamental tenets, it should be fairly easy to rally up the support of one's neighbors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. In your fantasyland yootopia.

[ QUOTE ]
If you find that you are unable to do so, you ought to consider that maybe your neighbors don't, for the most part, share your values and philosophies and that you ought to find a new community.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree 100%. In the fantasyland yootopia.