Question #2 - Yes. If we are elected by a majority of voters that vote, operating a [hopefully] effective and efficiently ran municipality is our job. If we do it well, we're likely re-elected, or nominated for a higher position.
Thank you answering this question. It's the one I'm most interested in explicating. As an aside, I don't mean to insult your intelligence with this example either, most people haven't given this one the thought it deserves.
I'll just be blunt here. The evidence concludes you're wrong and your example doesn't prove your point, it disproves it.
You, nor anybody can delegate a right they don't possess. It's impossible.
I'll use words and simple math to prove it too. If you're stubborn and my words don't convince you, the math (below) should, unless you wish to argue that 0 + 0 = 1 or something foolish like that.
You've attempted to point at the existing political voting process as evidence that a right which isn't possessed by one person can be delegated to other people. The existing political process doesn't provide evidence a nonexistent right can be delegated, it does the opposite, it proves government tramples rights and subjugates rights, (steals them) at least in some if not most instances.
It's a fact that Government holds the default position that "the people" consent to it, even when some don't and expressly say so. It's also a fact that, Government's default position of assuming consent when none is given is an instance of attempting to change the meaning of a word, "because we're government". Cute Government, I see what you did there.
If you, as an individual don't possess something, in this case a right to do x, that means your doing it would be outside your rights.
For instance I have no right to come up and whip your ass, if you've done no harm to me. I have no right to attempt to give your consent either, since doing so would pervert the meaning of the word "consent" into something else. Consent, by it's meaning is tied to the subject person, not to other people, no matter how many other people there are ,who wish you consented or "voted" that you consented when you actually didn't.
Repeat...None of us can give another persons consent for them and none of us can truthfully say we have that consent especially if that person has made it clear they DO NOT CONSENT. Words have meaning, and to change the meaning of a word simply because you are more powerful than the person you wish to subjugate is a perversion. Don't be a word pervert, like Government is.
If as many government documents claim, "all men are created equal" etc. that would mean no person has a lesser or a greater right to do the things they can rightfully do than another person ("man") Everyone is equal in that regard. The corollary to that is, NO person has any right to do the things they have NO right to do. If they do, it violates the meaning of the word "equal".
Now, neither of us is so naive to believe that rights aren't violated all the time by government, which leads me to the math example which should clear up any remaining misconceptions you imagine.
Hey...here's the math !! Have fun!!
If you, or any person doesn't possess a right to do something, that would be expressed as zero, as in "zero right" to do X.
If you have zero right to do something, that right is nonexistent. That's what zero means. Johnny has zero apples, therefore Johnny can't give his imaginary apple to Tommy.
If you have zero right to do something, say away another persons property without their consent, and all other people are equal to you, (government proclaims this is true!!) then no other person(s) could possibly have that right either.
Since you have zero right to do something and no other "equal person(s)" have that right either, you would be in a group of people all having zero right to do a particular thing. By virtue of being equal, none of us has greater or less rights than others. That's what "equal" means.
When you add your zero right to do something and all the other persons zero right to do the same thing, you would come up with a pile of zero right.
0+0+0+0+0+0+0 and on and on still equals what? Zero.
How can you create a right that doesn't exist by voting? You can't, because in that instance aggregating by voting, a pile of zeroes (zero right to do something) doesn't magically change the zero right each person began with.
So, do you think an accumulation of zeroes, a fucking mountain of zeroes, a plethora, a veritable landslide of zeroes, a kazillion million billion zeroes all added up is anything more than zero ?
If you do, could you show me the math ?
