For moral relativists

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are being intentionally obtuse.

Living in my hypothetical community with shared land ownership requires that you consent to living according to the town charter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop right there. I already asked if the person in question consented to the charter. You dismissed my question thusly:

[ QUOTE ]
What does Jerry's agreement have to do with consistency?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've repeatedly mentioned that my characterization of this as inconsistent is dependent upon it being *imposed*. I've emphasized that word several times.

If he consents, consistency is possible.

Further, the moral system I have supported in the politics forum is entirely 100% compatible with what you're describing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I said participation in this society was voluntary. Jerry knows about the charter as he is a member of this society. He may not agree with every provision, nor his agreement on every provision required for the society's "rules" to be consistently decided upon and applied. By making this the central issue, you are advocating only one moral system: one in which every member of the voluntary society is free from any action by the other members if he chooses. This is not an issue of "consistency".

It's like: Hey my system is the only one consistent. Why? Because I define consistency as a moral system identical to mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's voluntary, it's entirely compatible with what I'm supporting. So I'm not sure what you're getting at.