Given that dichotomy, I suppose you could say that what I'm advocating is government--but self-government of the consensual sort (consensual meaning "I agree with you in a limited area" rather than "everybody agrees with everybody else or we toss them in the clink"), instead of government of the coercive sort by a ruling class.
Well, I'm talking about self-government too, but we apparently have different definitions of that. Self-government is when all presumptively agree to abide by the decisions of the majority, within the framework of a constitution which limits the scope of government so as not to intrude on those spheres of society not properly belonging to government. By
presumptively, I mean that their choice to remain, rather than move, allows the majority to legitimately presume consent to (if not agreement with) the majority's decisions, within the scope of limited and decentralized government.
No. Somewhat surprised and disappointed. I have a lot of respect for you; it's not a tactic I expected.
Well, thanks (and likewise), but I think the statement was so outrageous on its face (and obviously in error) as not to require a substantive response. It sort of spoke for itself. Since you took offense, I did, however, eventually respond substantively to it.
