>The problem is with taking people money when they aren't okay with it.
Ok. Then would you keep the non-payers from enjoying the benefit of the infrastructure put into place by the payers?
> I consider threatening someone with violence unless they pay you money to be unjust, which I don't think is that bizarre of an opinion.
It is bizarre because it rarely comes to that. The threat of violence is quite a few well understood steps down in the process. What you propose is to replace those well understood steps to violent action with an overlapping, ever changing patchwork of rules. And wishing for violence to simply not exist is not an option.
>I would prefer that no one be violently oppressed by the majority at all.
Violence exists. It will always exist as long as people are mortal or can feel pain. The trick is controlling and limiting it's use. What you propose is replacing the potential of violent action by rules laid out by the majority by rules created by any individual or group that cares to fashion them and with the resources to carry them out against anybody or group that cannot muster a reprisal great enough to make the cost outweigh the benefits to the violently acting group.
>Just because a legal document, your school, and you yourself say that rights are protected doesn't mean they are.
>Have you followed the legislation, ongoing attempted legislation, and executive action regarding the "war on terror" in the past decade or so? American citizens have been assassinated in drone strikes without any pretense of legality. Alleged criminals or "terrorists" have been tortured and detained indefinitely without being charged. Prominent political leaders have explicitly said that the rule of law does not apply to people who are considered by the government to be a threat to the government.
These things stand out because they are not the normal course of business.
Ok. Then would you keep the non-payers from enjoying the benefit of the infrastructure put into place by the payers?
> I consider threatening someone with violence unless they pay you money to be unjust, which I don't think is that bizarre of an opinion.
It is bizarre because it rarely comes to that. The threat of violence is quite a few well understood steps down in the process. What you propose is to replace those well understood steps to violent action with an overlapping, ever changing patchwork of rules. And wishing for violence to simply not exist is not an option.
>I would prefer that no one be violently oppressed by the majority at all.
Violence exists. It will always exist as long as people are mortal or can feel pain. The trick is controlling and limiting it's use. What you propose is replacing the potential of violent action by rules laid out by the majority by rules created by any individual or group that cares to fashion them and with the resources to carry them out against anybody or group that cannot muster a reprisal great enough to make the cost outweigh the benefits to the violently acting group.
>Just because a legal document, your school, and you yourself say that rights are protected doesn't mean they are. >Have you followed the legislation, ongoing attempted legislation, and executive action regarding the "war on terror" in the past decade or so? American citizens have been assassinated in drone strikes without any pretense of legality. Alleged criminals or "terrorists" have been tortured and detained indefinitely without being charged. Prominent political leaders have explicitly said that the rule of law does not apply to people who are considered by the government to be a threat to the government.
These things stand out because they are not the normal course of business.