User:SheldonThinks/sandbox

Extortion and political systems There are different political systems which give rise to different interpretation of the concept of extortion. The application of force is a prerequisite element in contemporary democratic systems, whether representative or social democratic systems. Each of these systems give a legal sanction to the interests of a majority; clearly at the expense of any and all minorities, who do not sanction those interests. The question then is whether minorities participate in representative democracies: 1. Accepting of the majoritivism which underpins that legal sanction 2. Degrudgingly responding to fear or disempowerment under that system

Libertarianism and anarchism are the only political systems which reject the majoritive legal sanction of democracy; albeit for different reasons: 1. Libertarian and 'Natural Rights' - Some 'natural law' supporters of libertarianism argue that there are certain objective rights which are a prerequisite for a modern society. A right cannot logically entail a claim upon another person's right. The existence of rights therefore give sanction to the autonomous interests of the 'sovereign' individual. Under this model, the role of government is to facilitate the protection of those rights. 2. Libertarianism and 'Divine Rights' - Some libertarians defer to dogmatic belief in a deity/dieties as a source of their rights. Their belief arises from custom of historic texts. Some Americans see the US Constitution as a framework for divine rights. 3. Anarchism tends to spurn the existence of objective rights, or the need for any organisation to oversee the administration or enforcement of rights. Many anarchists would argue that tyranny is the result of a legacy of violating rights. Others might see this framework as causeless, context-dropping proclamations of sovereignty, without a corresponding responsibility or system of accountability...and that this absence of accountability would preserve the legacy of abuse.