the will of the majority sometimes trumps the will of the individual (or You say the same shit all the time)

(as has been the case in many of my blentries, this was prompted by a comment made to one of my wall posts on FB:
Someone said: "You say the same shit all the time."
to which someone replied: "There's a word for that. Consistency."
I thought of replying after I had gone to bed and had to text to my gmail with a 160 char limit. So I merged it. I don't really have the time to go back through and clean it all up or elaborate or cut any out, so here it is.)

Yes, consistent with a certain fundamental principle. That each person has a right to his own life. So I ask questions and pose situations that in some way violate that principle to see if anyone gets the contradiction.

I am trying to get someone, anyone, to think outside the cube of politics as competing groups of thugs claiming monopoly authority to wield initiatory violence over a certain geographic region. Nothing of substance will change until a sufficient number of people understand this.

Most people think I believe in some sort of Utopia. The truth is I understand this cube you all desire to live in though none of you can explain it to me in terms that do not violate that principle.
"Sometimes the will of the majority has to override the will of the individual."
Okay, I'll bite. How does that NOT violate the principle of each individual person's right to his own life?
Or they admit it does and claim this action is somehow more fundamental than that principle.
I see it (the principle of each individual person's right to his own life) as axiomatic.
Or does there exist a principle more fundamental than each person's right to his own life?

sorry.typing as a text on my phone.160 char limit.lost my place.

What is the more fundamental principle? If there is one, you have to be able to apply it universally.
50%+1?
All those of Chinese and Indian descent in the world join forces and vote the rest of the world is using up all the scarce resources and must be exterminated. Each person not of Chinese or Indian descent would have to go willingly without trying to defend himself. He agreed in principle majority rules.

So what else might supercede it?
The most guns and ability to conscript enough bodies to be heroes and sacrifice their lives for "this gang," whatever motivates people to do this.
How well does this work?
The KKK gets to lynch all the negroes they want for whatever reason they want until a bigger gang can be raised to stop them.
How does that other gang, just because they are bigger and claim a superior monopoly territory, get to decide the fate of those negroes? Superior firepower and an ability to conscript a superior number of bodies to be heroes and give their lives for the ones who claim the jurisdiction.

hmmmm.
Is that the walls of the cube I am trying to get people to think outside?

If you say either of those is more fundamental than each person's right to his own life you can't claim a limit on the actions based on the principle. Since the principle itself is 50%+1, how do you get to tell me where the line is drawn? Do you claim to be the +1 in agreement with the 50%?
See, the principle of each person's right to his own life provided that 100% of negroes lived. Where the "principle" of 50%+1 or the "principle" of most fire power and ability to conscript the most heroes to die for the rulers seems to have failed quite a few of them.

There are also those who say that there is no such thing as "rights" that "rights" don't exist as a tangible entity, so to use the concept of rights is a fallacious position. To them I just have to wonder what it is they use as a frame of reference? Is there some world view that does not include the concept of "rights" as a short hand with which to evaluate situations and actions that would be consistent in such things as the KKK lynching negroes in the south of the USofA or the government of the USofA murdering hundreds of thousands in other countries or even not having someone else move into the house you live in (can't really say "your" house, since possession pretty much implies the right to possess which has as its root the right to ones own life) or drive the car that is parked in the driveway of the house you live in or take the wallet out of the pocket of the pants that are on the body that houses the person reading this.
Man, not having the concept of "rights" as a short hand sure makes it take a lot of words to say something.

And people think I don't realize I have to live inside this cube.
"We" have to figure these things out one at a time over time. Why can't we extrapolate that every one of these discoveries had as a root the violation of the principle Of each person's right to his own life?

That's why I always say the same shit. Including the "shit" of finding contradictions and bringing them to the surface to see how they can be resolved.

I don't live in the real world.

I often wonder, when my liberal or conservative friends tell me I don't live in the real world because I can actually envision living in a world where no one has a free pass to take other people's stuff and tell them what they can't and must do, just who it is they think actually needs to be pushed around to be made to behave.

Me? Do they think if I'm not pushed around and robbed and threatened with death if I do not cooperate I would try to take their stuff and tell them what they can't and must do?
Well, I wouldn't. And I don't now. And it's not because of their threats by proxy.

I have stated publicly in my seldom visited (even by me) blog that I have no proxy. (So I think I will post this there.) No one acts in MY stead to take other people's stuff and tell them what they can't and must do. Besides, I don't have the right to do that, anyway, so how could I delegate someone to do that for me?

Themselves? Is it that they think they would try to take my stuff and tell me what I can't and must do?
Why the hell would they think that? I promise, I won't try to take your stuff and tell you what you can't and must do. I'd appreciate that consideration be returned.
But, you know what? It won't. Because too many of you (pretty much all) won't make the same claim. You will claim that I'm not living in the real world so some gang of people need to be able to push me around and threaten me with death to make me do things I wouldn't do by my own choice. They think because I do these things it is because I do them voluntarily. Nothing could be further from the truth. I do them under ultimately the threat of death. Same with the things I am told not to do that I would do without the threat of death.
Then, I'm ALWAYS told I am the one waving the gun around (because I know that people have the right to self defense and the necessary tools for that self defense). No one can explain how I am the virtual gun waver. I'm simply pointing out the gun they are waving through their proxy.
And as regards people trying to take my stuff. I would prefer you didn't. If I can't reason with you and have us both understand that it is in both of our best interests to live in a society where we do not have to always look over our shoulder, because someone might be after our stuff, then when you come to take it you should not be protected by a monopoly on the initiation of violence from my defense of my property. No matter your badge, title or uniform. But most of you are, at least by proxy. Because the force of so many alleged proxies is overwhelming and the whole liberty or death thing takes on a pretty ominous meaning.

And I'm told I don't live in the real world. Because I can't wrap my head around why it is inevitable that THIS is the real world. Just about everybody I talk to comprehends somehow that THIS is the way it has to be. Why? Are you the one who wants it to be like this?

So, here's a kicker. I'm told I need to work to change it. By voting and writing my congress critter and what not. As if trying to reason with people isn't working to change things.
And I am told that I can't force my views on people. My views being I can't force my views on people, in a society based on reason, not force. Why don't people see the incongruity in telling me that?
Which leads to, how can I work within a system based on force not reason to create a society based on reason not force?
If anyone can explain to me how it is I am supposed to do that, I would appreciate it.
All I can do to work to change the world to one more my liking is to try to reason with people to interact with me only voluntarily.
So when people say I am stupid for thinking that. Or a moron. Or (I can't even figure this one out) a ditto head, does that mean those people desire to take my stuff and tell me what I can't and must do? That is the only conclusion I can draw. If I am incorrect, what is it I am missing?

And I am accused of parroting other people. Another claim I just don't get. I don't know enough people who think the way I do to have very many people to parrot off of. I have been finding more lately. But I formed my ideas more by thinking about them than by reading about them. Yes, when I read I do hear someone express something I know in different words, maybe. So I use those words as well. Who knows what arrangement of words will actually spark a certain array of synapses in someone and a light will go on. Or, I might even run across a string of words that expresses it in such a way that I see a contradiction. Then I would need to resolve it. By asking and answering questions.

So, here is the fundamental contradiction I see in "the real world" expressed as a statement:
"We need a select group of people, different in kind from the rest of us, who are granted a monopoly on the initiation of violence to be utilized to take our stuff and tell us what we can't and must do, to protect us from people who would try to take our stuff and tell us what we can't and must do."

In what way(s) can this contradiction be resolved?

And what is the fundamental contradiction in my fantasy world (and it being a fantasy world cannot, in and of itself, be a contradiction)?