> They are guilty though. If I buy a TV from someone's home-care nurse, knowing the nurse doesn't have their patient's consent to sell it, I'd be a thief. Legally and more importantly, ethically.
While true, that's not the case here.
>> We're assuming that govt officials have the relevant authority. If they exercise it poorly ....
>What a dumb idea that is. What precedent have you ever seen for that?
It's almost always the case, so assuming otherwise is silly.
You're confusing "it would be bad for govt do to {something}" with "govt has no authority to do {something}".
If you don't want govt to do {bad thing}, you shouldn't give it the power to do {bad thing}, even if that authority is necessary to do {good thing}.
> Seriously, a vote isn't a sign-off on anything a government does, it's a last-ditch effort to keep things from going really badly.
Between that and not changing govt, you have consented. You may not like what you've consented to, but until you effect change, it's yours.
> If you don't want govt to do {bad thing}, you shouldn't give it the power to do {bad thing}, even if that authority is necessary to do {good thing}.
I didn't. I've never said "Yes, take this power", only "that power you've claimed, please don't use it like that".
> Between [voting] and not changing govt, you have consented.
Pft. Silence is not consent. And 'changing governments' means leaving the place I was born. That's not a valid choice.
> You're confusing "it would be bad for govt do to {something}" with "govt has no authority to do {something}".
Not at all. I'm claiming that because it'd be bad, and obviously so, that no competent person would have given them that power. And even if some people did that doesn't reasonably substitute for consent from the rest.
> [That the government has valid authority is] almost always the case, so assuming otherwise is silly.
No, that the government claims valid authority is almost always the case. That says nothing for their actual legitimacy by any objective and useful standard.
> While true [that knowingly buying stolen property is theft], that's not the case here.
Yes, it is. If something is sold without the consent of its owner, that is theft.
As long as a government claims to rule by a mandate from the people (unlike North Korea for instance) they can't very well act for people do don't consent to their rules.
That many (most? all?) governments do this simply means we haven't yet seen many (any?) legitimate governments.
While true, that's not the case here.
>> We're assuming that govt officials have the relevant authority. If they exercise it poorly ....
>What a dumb idea that is. What precedent have you ever seen for that?
It's almost always the case, so assuming otherwise is silly.
You're confusing "it would be bad for govt do to {something}" with "govt has no authority to do {something}".
If you don't want govt to do {bad thing}, you shouldn't give it the power to do {bad thing}, even if that authority is necessary to do {good thing}.
> Seriously, a vote isn't a sign-off on anything a government does, it's a last-ditch effort to keep things from going really badly.
Between that and not changing govt, you have consented. You may not like what you've consented to, but until you effect change, it's yours.