"... who 'steal secrets non-consensually' to gain power."
You can tell some mid-wit wrote this. An intelligent person immediately questions "is there such a thing as 'consensual stealing?'"
Which is questionable given that California has so many illegal immigrants and is even more openly one-party dominated than the rest of the US. I wouldn't trust any "voting" that happens there.
Also, you have the issue where the people that would have voted for it are not exclusively the people it affects. I'm not saying there are tons and tons of red voters in Cali—although there are still many more than a lot of people think—but I would venture that what red-voters there are are overrepresented in small business owners, while blue voters may be overrepresented among those stealing from them.
Given all that, "consent is given by voting for it" seems pretty dubious as a moral argument.
You're not entirely wrong. That is one of of the evils of Democracy. When people are forced to choose one poison or another, they will indeed choose poison. Of course what they really voted for was "steal from the other guy not me!"
"... who 'steal secrets non-consensually' to gain power."
You can tell some mid-wit wrote this. An intelligent person immediately questions "is there such a thing as 'consensual stealing?'"
sure. see Californian shoplifting laws for example.
Only if you believe "consent of the state" is equivalent to "consent of the owner of the stolen item."
Which ... I suppose a commie might believe are the same thing, since you own nothing and you'd better like it.
i assume consent from the people who voted for it
Which is questionable given that California has so many illegal immigrants and is even more openly one-party dominated than the rest of the US. I wouldn't trust any "voting" that happens there.
Also, you have the issue where the people that would have voted for it are not exclusively the people it affects. I'm not saying there are tons and tons of red voters in Cali—although there are still many more than a lot of people think—but I would venture that what red-voters there are are overrepresented in small business owners, while blue voters may be overrepresented among those stealing from them.
Given all that, "consent is given by voting for it" seems pretty dubious as a moral argument.
You're not entirely wrong. That is one of of the evils of Democracy. When people are forced to choose one poison or another, they will indeed choose poison. Of course what they really voted for was "steal from the other guy not me!"