Your reasoning fails here in that it ignores the onus of responsibility of each member to exercise all good intelligence and discretion prior to signing on the dotted line. If a man is not going to employ basic sense in such situations, then he has no basis for complaint when things go south.
By this logic, nobody is responsible for any of the cretinous arrangements into which he carelessly enters. Another possible path your logic can take leads to the justification of banning all contracts because of what may happen. Life is risk. Business is risk. People enter into arrangements always at some risk. People are responsible for their choices. If they make the wrong choice, all else equal, the onus of the results is on them.
Nobody with the least shred of sense of going to enter into an agreement such as you specify in this hypothetical.
So? First of all, you presume too much WRT the notion of "productive use", or at least fail to give a good account of what you mean by it. In any case, it matters no whit because the single hold-out might have a very different idea of what constitutes "productive".but the land owned by the commune is now unavailable for productive use. The 1 lingering pinko can keep that land pertinently off-line, wasted.
At the bottom of all this lies individual responsibility. If one is going to act foolhardily, he must live with the consequences.
You are engaging in highly flawed what-iffery. Keeping things real, what is the likelihood that an entire state would go commie such that in so doing they have violated nobody's rights? That would be just short of zero. It is the nature of populations to cleave to a mean and a distribution, which implies variance. No matter how right the Gaussian, there will virtually always be differences of opinion on any given question, meaning that there would always be some number of people saying "no" to communism, further implying that any move toward that wretched arrangement would of necessity come about through the violation of someone's rights. At that point, all bets are off and I fully support the right of the minority to murder as many of the majority they can until either they are themselves killed off, the commie wannabes reconsider, or they are killed off to the man.On a small enough scale, this isn't really a big deal. But it's conceivable, however unlikely, that is could happen on a very large scale. Suppose an entire state were turned into a commune of this kind.
I understand that you likely chose this extreme example to illustrate a point, but caution against using such cases before giving them their due consideration and always bear in mind how such things work out in real like, nearly universally.
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Connect With Us