[Jeff_H]

I just have a quick couple of questions for those of you who believe in politics.

How many people would it take for me to get the approval of before I could dictate rules to you by which you must live and conduct yourself for which the punishment for disobedience was death for you to accept such rules? How many people would need to approve of my taking 'my fair share' of your assets, as determined by me of course, before you willingly capitulated to my demands?

I'm curious. How many people would need to give me permission?

[deadwolfbones]

I just have a quick couple of questions for those of you who believe in politics.

How many people would it take for me to get the approval of before I could dictate rules to you by which you must live and conduct yourself for which the punishment for disobedience was death for you to accept such rules? How many people would need to approve of my taking 'my fair share' of your assets, as determined by me of course, before you willingly capitulated to my demands?

I'm curious. How many people would need to give me permission?

"believe in politics"

I don't care how many followers a politician has. It's their positions on relevant issues that matter.

[stevewig]

I just have a quick couple of questions for those of you who believe in politics.

How many people would it take for me to get the approval of before I could dictate rules to you by which you must live and conduct yourself for which the punishment for disobedience was death for you to accept such rules? How many people would need to approve of my taking 'my fair share' of your assets, as determined by me of course, before you willingly capitulated to my demands?

I'm curious. How many people would need to give me permission?

Well it did use to be the way you want it to be (NO such rules)..........

I would hazard a guess that it has taken us in excess of 5000 years so far to try and answer that question and we are still changing the rules so I think you probably need to wait at least another 5000............

[Nesster]

These are the very questions those who debated and wrote the US constitution attempted to address: majority rule while protecting the interests of the minority. Although messy and infuriatingly slow, the checks and balances in the system attempt to keep us down the middle.

"YOU" as in a single person, do not get to dictate anything. "YOU" as in a political party, do get to set rules; however these laws have to pass both houses, be signed by the President, and survive the court challenges to make it to a long life. Because each party is further beset by factions and regional interests, all such legistlating has to be something of a 'consensus compromise' to pass. And the voters tend to prefer some form of split government to ensure we get a 'consensus compromise'.

(A major problem of late is the lack of 'consensus' that we need 'compromise'...)

If, say, 49.5% of the voters (a plurality at best, given the non-voters as well), elect you President. You can claim some amount of popular 'mandate' for your policies, that's what you were hired to do. But you can't dictate.

I watched part of a documentary on the rise of the nazi party in Germany -- the Nazis won the election and became the largest party, but not a majority by any means. Then a fire, an a blame/witch hunt vs. the Communists... tactics to suppress all oppostion... soon enough there was a dictatorship. In the US, we hope and trust, such a thing is not so easily done, no matter what the witch hunt and enemy identification is.

[causey]

Imagine there's no political arrangement--no people "who believe in politics." No agreement concerning the distribution of goods and the formulation of rights... Then how many people you'd have to ask permission for doing what you think lies within the sphere of your legitimate sphere depends on how many people can harm you--and even then, you'd be lucky not to get killed before you ask permission.

Oh! Important: leaving the 'natural distribution' intact must be subject to an agreement! (Here "agreement" doesn't mean everybody's explicitly agreeing with everybody, but something like a political organization.)

"In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." (Hobbes, Leviathan, Ch. XIII) [Got to love the last line!]

[redrockcoulee]

I think that if you want to be a dictator it only takes a small band of armed personnel. I thought I was politically savy however I do not actually understand exactly what you are asking.

[newarts]

...

How many people would it take for me to get the approval of before I could dictate rules to you by which you must live and conduct yourself for which the punishment for disobedience was death for you to accept such rules? How many people would need to approve of my taking 'my fair share' of your assets, as determined by me of course, before you willingly capitulated to my demands?

I'm curious. How many people would need to give me permission?

It seems to me that what you describe is not far from the organization of a primitive family. "Permissions" are not consciously granted by family members but inherited by tradition. Once power is inherited it is held by tradition and one follows daddy's lead because.... well, because that's just what one does.

Nobody gave you permission to be Daddy - you just somehow grew into that role. That role wasn't granted by the family any more than their submissive roles were imposed on them. Once you join the Framis political party & cheer for it a while you'll follow the party's lead because,... well, because that's just what one does.

The wolf-pack provides another model in which power is more seized than granted. Once power is seized it is held by tradition and one follows alpha's lead because.... well, because that's just what one does.

We by and large do what we assume we are supposed to do without much thought regarding why. How else can one understand the illogical political clap-trap fervently adhered to by all of us on one side or another?

[dadipentak]

Enough discourse--just hand over your assets, ok?

[MRRiley]

I just have a quick couple of questions for those of you who believe in politics.

How many people would it take for me to get the approval of before I could dictate rules to you by which you must live and conduct yourself for which the punishment for disobedience was death for you to accept such rules? How many people would need to approve of my taking 'my fair share' of your assets, as determined by me of course, before you willingly capitulated to my demands?

I'm curious. How many people would need to give me permission?

Lets put it this way... more than YOU (or any one individual) will probably ever get...

[Ash]

For me, politics is a necessary vice.
As for 'getting approval', it would not be one person getting it -as it is in western democracies, it is to a greater organisation (political party) that is mandated to abide by general rules overarching their activities (constitution). So I don't believe your question is quite valid - but interesting thought...

I don't envisage anyone ever getting overwhelming support from their countrymen/women to allow them to 'run their lives' so to speak - but I gather there's a hidden reason behind your question...

[GeneV]

I just have a quick couple of questions for those of you who believe in politics.

How many people would it take for me to get the approval of before I could dictate rules to you by which you must live and conduct yourself for which the punishment for disobedience was death for you to accept such rules? How many people would need to approve of my taking 'my fair share' of your assets, as determined by me of course, before you willingly capitulated to my demands?

I'm curious. How many people would need to give me permission?

I'm curious how many people it took to agree that those were "my assets" to begin with?

[shooz]

It's not a question of people.
It's question of organizations.
You should be asking GWB.
Who as 'the decider and chief", played the role of dictator rather well and obviously.

[Coeurdechene]

to be a dictator it only takes a small band of armed personnel

Not true...you can be a gang lord, or a warlord in a depressed zone...but to be a dictator you need an army of litle dictators, "public servants" willing to carry out your orders, and a wide enough social base who supports you because they feel it's in their interest.

As for legitimacy...ultimately it derived from force and then was slowly interiorized by the subjects by education and popular myths (such as "democracy"). The modern state started as an extortion enterprise from the crown to the noblemen when the crown started to drift apart from the primus inter pares belief. This extorsion was accompanied by the establishment of a royal army, or royal military corps that gained importance over private armies, and a beaurocratic tax management apparatus. From the pressures of different social groups that state evolved, it's myths evolved and today it cloaks itself behind that "democracy" myth where we get to "rule" by delegation...when it truly is just a charade where the people get the bare minimum while power lies elsewhere. Mind that the bare minimum evolves with the historic circumstances and the weight and organization of different social sectors, that's how the very organized and armed "working" class was one of the factors compelling the statesmen to build the "etat providence" or welfare state after WWII...nowadays with a much more developed economy and in a much more flamboyant state of affairs we are told that all that is unsustainable, this is only because there is no potential revolutionary group of people (since we are in a much better material situation than the post war era Europe, but we lack progressive organized people willing to wage war if we are not give what we deserve.)

In my opinion we would be better off if we all believed in that beautifull motto: "there is no authority but yourself".

[Jeff_H]

I appreciate the responses. My questions, as you all can imagine, were intended to be provocative but not in a confrontational way. I posed them because I would just like people to think about them. After all, the questions I posed have already been answered. Each day, each of us capitulates to the will of whatever government claims lordship over us. Those governments aren't magical, mystical, or anything beyond what constitutes them; they're made up of people. So, each day, each of you are already subjected to the conditions I set forth above, you're just not beholden to me. See, there are already people making rules for you to follow, or else. And those same people decide how much of your property and labor they are going to help themselves to. In neither case do you have any legal 'right' to refuse to obey those people's demands. Now if you agree with some rule(s) ____ that those people declare, or agree to give those people _____ amount of your property or labor willingly, you'll probably not have any issues with those people. But, what about when you disagree? Just because those people said so is a poor reason to have to behave in a manner that you'd rather not, isn't it? And how about when those people take your property or labor (via theft called 'taxes') to spend it in ways and on things you don't approve of? What then? Are you free to say no thank you and withhold your consent or your property? And if you can't withdraw your consent and not be forced to cooperate with those people's demands, how can you possibly give your consent in the first place? After all, if you can't say no thanks to those people and simply walk away unmolested how is that any different than dealing with a mugger or a rapist holding a gun to your head making demands?

So, back to my original question, how many people would it take? Well, In the USA 535 is that number apparently. Actually, that would only be if every member of the US House, Senate, and Executive agreed on whatever declaration of 'law' they wanted to make. I'd be willing to bet I could collect 1000 signatures from 1000 people willing to participate with me in lording over everyone and enjoying the spoils of our collective pillage in my hypothetical fiefdom. Would you obey me and my minions? No? Then why do you obey the dictates of 535 people doing the exact same thing?

[Nesster]

add at least 5 Supreme Court justices...

I think your argument goes astray somewhat: there is a built in consensus that none of us is free to ignore without consequence. It is in our nature to be a social troop - like chimpanzees, say - and any political theory or philosophy that ignores this fact is not going to be a happy one.

In the US - and in diferent ways in other cultures or political systems - there are ways to either make room for or to suppress those who do not wish to conform to the consensus society.

The very concept of private property is a social convention enforced by the political system.