Except when a person commits fraud as you described, they are using a form of offensive force.
It sure sounds like you agree with me in principle, but you fear unless there is an entity based in coercion around to "protect" people an entity based in coercion might arise.
So, I'll consider your question of what I'm suggesting to be, "how would disputes be resolved absent a central coercion based authority which holds a monopoly on the use of force" ? Is that your biggest concern ?
We are getting closer to a middle ground. So I will say "yes"... And that its not so much I require a central authority as a standard with which people can agree on...its that I prefer a system that can take the nuances of disputes into consideration without resorting to mob justice.
I personally prefer the original forms of "government" as created by the ancient Israelites. they had a number of elected officials for each "office", representing each "party". The kicker was they each guy had about two weeks in office then rotated to the next guy that way no one group could push their views too far and it forced each group to work together towards community goals. Rules were generally understood and agreed to by the community but were fluid enough to be able to change not only with the individual circumstance, but also the times. And generally they tried to get everyone whom was capable to take a rotation in all offices.
When you state your principles are one thing and then you embrace other means which are in direct opposition to your principles, and then castigate a person for pointing that out....ahem.
You see, it's not whether you agree with me or not. You ALREADY said we agree in principle, so it's really an instance of you sometimes disagreeing with yourself.
If you hold two opposing points of view, as you do, it's not a "fear of being wrong", it's a certainty of being wrong. Since two opposing points of view cannot BOTH be right, one IS right and one is wrong. I suggest you consider amending your behavior to align with the principles you claim to hold.
Also, while it is entertaining to make this discussion about your perception of the satisfaction I get from being right, it's really just a deviation from the topic. I am not the topic and to make me the topic is your attempt to escape the contradiction in your own mind.
So, SHOULD a person delegate a right they do not possess?
Yes yes....I get the distinction. I simply disagree with it. I don't believe central authority by functioning democracy is a contradiction to those principles. I think its the way its implemented that can cause a contradiction. Nor do I see a distinction between a central authority by functioning democracy telling you what's allowed vs a society that will still punish you for the same infraction but didn't put it in writing so as not to preemptively "infringe on individual liberty".
Seems a semantical argument to me.
I can see how the former can open a backdoor to those willing to exploit it....but again that's an issue of human nature not democracy, you will find that true in ANY society.
To answer the revised question. I don't think anyone should need to delegate for another, but I can think of many instances where I would say someone should, yes. So without being purposefully obtuse (I'm genuinely not trying to) I would say it really depends on the circumstances.
Good example; religious fundamentalist parents are going to kill their 5yr old by refusing medical aid in favor of "faith based healing"...do they have the right to make that choice? Do WE have the right to intervene? This is the stuff I'm talking about and its not easy to answer regardless of which society we're talking about.
I mean...its easy for
me to answer and I have no problem saying those people have no business being parents...but in the context of the conversation its a very complex question.
So while no one has the
right to delegate for another, I do believe there are times when someone must take on the
responsibility of delegating for another.
Which is a scary premise in the wrong hands and of course asks the question of how to decide who can and should if called for.
