[ QUOTE ]
I know how it works. You're handwaving around the issue. Whether the big group of people tells the small group directly or funnels their wishes through some sort of committee is not really important. Why does *anyone*, big group or individual, have any right to impose upon others? What magical pixie dust differentiates a group of voters from a mob with pitchforks and torches?

[/ QUOTE ]

The weilder of the pitchforks and torches [or military and police, in the relevant case]. The fact that government can enforce their decisions through coercion makes them the powerful force. The fact that the decisions of the government are, at least theoretically, governed by the will of the people provides them with legitimacy. The fact that they have legitimacy makes it unnecessary for them to use their force en masse... much.

Most of the people in this forum seem to be advocating anarchy. Good luck with that. I guess we'll see whether Reasseau or Hobbes was right.

--

On another note, I think that the most reasonable argument for 'paternal' laws is that they're avoiding mass-devastation. The human race is compulsive, weak, and self-destructive. Especially considering the way in which our consumer economy has evolved, it would be extraordinarily dangerous to allow people, en masse, to consume whatever self-destructive products they desire. Alcohol is bad enough, but is relatively limited in its detriment to users and its addictive properties. If heroine, NMDA, Cocaine, etc. were broadly marketed and available in stores, I can only imagine the droves of addicts.

This would have devastating effects for the economy, and potentially the so-called 'moral fabric' of society. Most people are interconnected in one way or another, and to let a large portion of the population disintegrate into rampant drug use because you'd like to 'do whatever you want' is irresponsible and probably ultimately self-defeating.